Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Research shows how MacBook Webcams can spy on their users without warning

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 241 posts

Re: Research shows how MacBook Webcams can spy on their users without warning

#151

Post by winstonx »

justin66 wrote: post #98
Theodores wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having an inline LED is still a bit over-engineered in my opinion. The earliest standalone webcams, for instance Logitech models and the IndyCam that came with the Silicon Graphics 'Indy' workstation, had a 'door' that you could slide over the lens when not in use. Lenovo had this on their all in one PC's a few years ago but I don't think they kept that feature. What was wrong with the slide-across lens cover? You wo…

> Having an inline LED is still a bit over-engineered in my opinion. Overengineering usually refers to something that's not simple or elegant or a solution which represents more effort than the problem calls for. None of those factors seem to apply here.

A blinking light requires electricity. The sliding cover is purely mechanical, tamper evident, and requires physical access to hack.

The sliding cover is simpler and more secure.

Re: Research shows how MacBook Webcams can spy on their users without warning

#152

Post by winstonx »

Theodores wrote: post #79
x0054 wrote: post #9

Honestly, I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to create a camera chip not susceptible to any software hack. The camera sensor needs electrical current to work. Simply place the LED inline or in parallel to the camera and you are done. Any time current is sent to the camera sensor, the LED cant help it but light up. My knowledge of electronics is limited, but I know for a fact that this can be achieved without th…

Having an inline LED is still a bit over-engineered in my opinion. The earliest standalone webcams, for instance Logitech models and the IndyCam that came with the Silicon Graphics 'Indy' workstation, had a 'door' that you could slide over the lens when not in use. Lenovo had this on their all in one PC's a few years ago but I don't think they kept that feature. What was wrong with the slide-across lens cover? You wo…

I bought this exact webcam cover; it works great. http://www.amazon.com/C-Slide-1-0-Webcam-Cover/dp/B00AZ639VG

Re: Research shows how MacBook Webcams can spy on their users without warning

#153

Post by winstonx »

Lagged2Death wrote: post #117
Arelius wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not difficult, but it makes the system unflexible, The vendors, not worried about the privacy implications, choose what makes the system more flexible. I've heard that this was a serious flaw in Google's opinion, and they went through great efforts to ensure that the LED for the chromebook pixel was actually hard-wired into the camera's electronics. Which if true, shows that it's indeed possible.

It's not difficult, but it makes the system unflexible... Um. That would be exactly the point of doing it, in this case. The camera indicator (and the microphone indicator that every laptop should but currently does not have) should be completely inflexible. What "flexibility" is added by having an indicator that only sort-of indicates, anyway?

I'm freaked out there's no microphone indicator.

Re: Research shows how MacBook Webcams can spy on their users without warning

#155

Post by justin66 »

winstonx wrote: post #151
justin66 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having an inline LED is still a bit over-engineered in my opinion. Overengineering usually refers to something that's not simple or elegant or a solution which represents more effort than the problem calls for. None of those factors seem to apply here.

A blinking light requires electricity. The sliding cover is purely mechanical, tamper evident, and requires physical access to hack. The sliding cover is simpler and more secure.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the significance of the "inline" in "inline LED." We're talking about an LED that will always light when the camera is powered up because it gets power when the camera itself does, from the same physical wire. It is on if the camera is getting power from the port. You could build a prototype with an LED spliced into a webcam's USB cable if you need to convince yourself that this is possible.

It's not a software hackable thing because of the physical orientation of the LED. This is where the current designs get it wrong by making things too complicated (though they have their reasons).

edit: I'd note that these features we're talking about aren't mutually exclusive

Re: Research shows how MacBook Webcams can spy on their users without warning

#156

Post by eurleif »

justin66 wrote: post #155
winstonx wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A blinking light requires electricity. The sliding cover is purely mechanical, tamper evident, and requires physical access to hack. The sliding cover is simpler and more secure.

I'm pretty sure you don't understand the significance of the "inline" in "inline LED." We're talking about an LED that will always light when the camera is powered up because it gets power when the camera itself does, from the same physical wire. It is on if the camera is getting power from the port. You could build a prototype with an LED spliced into a webcam's USB cable if you need to convince yourself that this i…

You're missing the "tamper evident" part. A laptop with the LED wired using a microntroller looks externally identical to a laptop with the LED wired inline. But you can always tell whether a cover is over the webcam or not just by looking at it.

Re: Research shows how MacBook Webcams can spy on their users without warning

#158

Post by vacri »

Theodores wrote: post #79
x0054 wrote: post #9

Honestly, I don’t understand why it’s so difficult to create a camera chip not susceptible to any software hack. The camera sensor needs electrical current to work. Simply place the LED inline or in parallel to the camera and you are done. Any time current is sent to the camera sensor, the LED cant help it but light up. My knowledge of electronics is limited, but I know for a fact that this can be achieved without th…

Having an inline LED is still a bit over-engineered in my opinion. The earliest standalone webcams, for instance Logitech models and the IndyCam that came with the Silicon Graphics 'Indy' workstation, had a 'door' that you could slide over the lens when not in use. Lenovo had this on their all in one PC's a few years ago but I don't think they kept that feature. What was wrong with the slide-across lens cover? You wo…

A sliding lens cover is an exposed moving part, more prone to breakage and filling up with gunk, and also makes it more likely to smear the webcam with finger oils.

Re: Research shows how MacBook Webcams can spy on their users without warning

#159

Post by cfreeman »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #147
Theodores wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having an inline LED is still a bit over-engineered in my opinion. The earliest standalone webcams, for instance Logitech models and the IndyCam that came with the Silicon Graphics 'Indy' workstation, had a 'door' that you could slide over the lens when not in use. Lenovo had this on their all in one PC's a few years ago but I don't think they kept that feature. What was wrong with the slide-across lens cover? You wo…

Macbooks already have this: it's called the keyboard and it "slides over the lens" when you close the laptop when it's not in use. Much easier to do automatically than remember to slide a 'door' across. Or do people really leave their laptops open when not in use?

That doesn't prevent spying when you are using your computer, which could be really embarrassing if you are for instance looking at porn. Also, sometimes you want to leave it one when you aren't using it, like when you're downloading something.

Re: Research shows how MacBook Webcams can spy on their users without warning

#160

Post by lake99 »

kyzyl wrote: post #36
lucaspiller wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any ideas why they changed it? Surely the circuit would be simpler like this rather than having the LED hooked up to the microchip and software controlling it.

If you have the LED hooked up in parallel with the chip, then you can't really do any fancy indication things like blink the LED, change colour (voltage level) etc. It's possible that the engineers wanted to maintain that flexibility. Second, if the LED fails to a short your camera won't get any power. That means an expensive component appears to be broken when it's only a very cheap component, and you have no way to…

> Second, if the LED fails to a short your camera won't get any power.

One never puts an LED on the power line directly. That will certainly blow up most LEDs. Power rails are typically 5V or 3.3V. LED drop is about 1V (+/- 0.3, varies between part numbers). There is always a resistor in series with the LED, to drop the rest of the voltage, and limit the current. So, LED getting shorted is not a problem. This is the case even when we're driving LEDs from an o/p pin. Besides, Hobbyists often blow up LEDs because they're still learning. But how often have you seen these tiny LEDs fail in professionally designed products? I have never ever seen it happen. Degrade and lose brightness over the years? Sure. Fail? Never.

> LEDs have a very small leakage current even in their off state.

Are you talking about reverse bias? That makes no sense in this context. When you don't supply any power to it, there is nothing to leak.

> the desired led might work off a configurable controller output

That is what has led to this mess of surreptitious filming, in the first place. It's time they went back to the old ways.

Post reply on HN