"The head of the FBI on Wednesday defended putting a piece of tape over his personal laptop's webcam, claiming the security step was a common sense one that most should take." One needs to ask why is the head of the FBI telling you this? Cui bono? This is a red herring. The FBI has no interest in filming you through your webcam. They want to listen to your microphone, watch your screen, get the keys you've typed, see…
I guess it's also in the interests of the US authorities that their country isn't subverted via normal citizens through blackmail.
"The head of the FBI on Wednesday defended putting a piece of tape over his personal laptop's webcam, claiming the security step was a common sense one that most should take." One needs to ask why is the head of the FBI telling you this? Cui bono? This is a red herring. The FBI has no interest in filming you through your webcam. They want to listen to your microphone, watch your screen, get the keys you've typed, see…
> "This particular thing doesn't matter because I don't need it. And because I don't need it, nobody needs it at all" This is all that I hate about stackoverflow.
You don't know SO rage until you get a case of a small, inconsequential problem which is of vital importance to you. After heaps of searching someone else has posted the same issue on SO. Then reposted a while later with "Don't worry, fixed".
I've been using React for my last few projects (not by choice) and have found this a lot. Maybe because its newer, maybe because it doesn't play nice with other front-end things. SO rage indeed.
> its a good opportunity to educate them Am I the only one to receive disarming responses when trying to educate anybody over this matter? The vast majority of people (and when I say "vast majority" I mean everybody but two or three people tops, so far) I tried to explain things to don't care. All they have to say are things like "Where is your tinfoil hat?", "This is conspiracy theory", "If they want to spy us there…
"I have nothing to fear because I have nothing to hide." The best comeback to this is usually asking if they have drapes/shades for their windows at home. I think I read that in a CCC guide to talking about privacy/security somewhere. At least that has lead to somewhat interesting discussions and the occasional moment of "you might have a point".
"I have nothing to fear because I have nothing to hide."
Cool. Now, can I have your wallet/purse? Also, get naked. I want to see what you're hiding under your clothes.
And you can forward your medical record, along with your business emails to me as well.
Isn't this really just a sign of flawed hardware design? In my opinion hardware should be designed so that the camera LED lamp should always be lit if the camera is used. If there is a malfunction with the LED, then the camera should also not work. Also there should be a hardware LED for when the microphone is being used which should work in the same fashion for laptops with built-in microphones. In the webcam driver…
>If there is a malfunction with the LED, then the camera should also not work.
Many would argue that this is the more flawed design.
In addition to the attacks that others have mentioned here, I've also heard folks comment previously on the possibility of turning on the camera very briefly, just long enough for a single still shot. If it was done fast enough, the brief flicker of the LED might not be noticeable. (Like you, I had always assumed that the power for the webcam was literally in series with the LED, so that disabling the LED would rende…
Perhaps you mean in parallel. An LED is driven by 20 mA, whereas a camera requires more like 200 mA, so it's not feasible to wire them in series - either the LED will burn out or the camera won't power up.
Yeah, I was pretty sure I was being a little sloppy by using the term "series" (for shame, physics prof, for shame!), but I was hoping to evoke the general sense of "if current doesn't flow through the LED for any reason, the camera can't turn on." Honestly, I'm not 100% certain offhand of a way to wire that (which is why I didn't want to be specific earlier, despite using a specific term: shoulda added some weasel words :) ). Do the LED and the camera run off of the same voltage? (If not, then parallel wiring won't work, either.)
In addition to the attacks that others have mentioned here, I've also heard folks comment previously on the possibility of turning on the camera very briefly, just long enough for a single still shot. If it was done fast enough, the brief flicker of the LED might not be noticeable. (Like you, I had always assumed that the power for the webcam was literally in series with the LED, so that disabling the LED would rende…
Maybe you could add a capacitor to keep the LED going for a bit longer after the power cuts. The power off dimming might be aesthetically pleasing too.
I'd had exactly that thought. (Of course, the danger is that it might also lead to the LED taking a few moments to light up.)
I agree. It's more of a statement than a meaningful security measure.
There should be a term for this. Maybe something like 'security theatre'.
"Security theater" is an established term, but usually refers to useless security measures implemented by organizations (companies or governments) to soothe the public (their employees/citizens/guests), rather than to actions of individuals onto themselves.
Every electronic communication device (laptop, mobile, tablet, etc) should have 1 hardware switch per sensor (camera, mic, motion/acceleration, etc) which disables the sensor. Why manufacturers still haven't introduced this is beyond me.
No business incentive. Too few people know that they need to care about their privacy.