31–40 of 554 posts
I thought the whole point of these camera LEDs was to have them wired to/through the power to the camera, so they are always on when the camera is getting power, no matter what. Having the LED control exposed through the firmware completely defeats this.
Arguably a much, much bigger problem are the (many) microphones of modern devices. These usually get neither an LED nor a switch, and unlike cameras can't easily be covered, nor pointed away from potentially sensitive topics/subjects.
No amount of microphones will ever be a bigger problem than a single compromising photo or video.
For example, I'd not be happy having my voice auto-transcribed by some malware as I authenticate to my bank providing my SSN etc (which as an authentication method is of course horribly insecure, but that's a different discussion).
Of course, this will vary from person to person, but as mentioned above, just being able to mechanically cover a camera when required makes it less of an issue for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I might be out of the loop, but I thought that was only for some machines - I remember the LED being wired that way being a selling point for MacBooks at some point, as a privacy feature. It definitely should be the standard, though!
[flagged]
my ideapad has a native physical webcam cover. no idea why this isn't universal standard
Eh. If it's not a physical power-disconnect switch, one could imagine it still being able to record audio, which still sucks.
Fantastic, another nothingburger proof of concept for people to point to when arguing in favor of more manufacturer-lockdown-based "security". It's not a coincidence that this demonstration is on one of the last generations of laptops that can actually be secured against Intel themselves. In reality, remote code execution should be considered game over, end of story. Trying to obfuscate to hide that fact just ends up…
I don't see why this is the first thing you think of, when the infinitely more obvious thing to point out is that the indicator LED should be impossible to address and be connected in series with the power pin of the camera instead. Case in point, most other comments in this very discussion thread.
Conversely, your comment (to me) reads like you're trying to derail conversation and argue in favor of weakening device security in whatever flavor you find compelling. Very intellectually honest of you to present those ideas this way.
Arguably a much, much bigger problem are the (many) microphones of modern devices. These usually get neither an LED nor a switch, and unlike cameras can't easily be covered, nor pointed away from potentially sensitive topics/subjects.
No amount of microphones will ever be a bigger problem than a single compromising photo or video.
I can see why some people might be concerned about the camera, but I'm far more concerned by the microphone. There's far more sensitive and actionable information that can be gathered from me that way! I'm glad that macOS started putting a light in the menubar when the microphone is in use, but I'd prefer to have unhackable hardware for that instead.
I haven't seen any microphone integrated in the processor.
Yet
I thought the whole point of these camera LEDs was to have them wired to/through the power to the camera, so they are always on when the camera is getting power, no matter what. Having the LED control exposed through the firmware completely defeats this.
I keep covering them up with bits of paper (because like most people, I don't trust LEDs or switches) that look ugly and invariably get blown off by a gust of wind and have to be reapplied when moving.
It just seems like at some point around 2010 some cabal decided that every device with a screen needs to have a camera facing the user and a microphone.
I thought the whole point of these camera LEDs was to have them wired to/through the power to the camera, so they are always on when the camera is getting power, no matter what. Having the LED control exposed through the firmware completely defeats this.