Even Mark Zuckerberg puts tape over his webcam | Hacker News Reader

Even Mark Zuckerberg puts tape over his webcam

mashable.com

53 pointscaberus64 comments

I believe the simplest solution on Apple's side is to add a physical indicator of when the camera is on or off. It must not be software controlled, not even on system/FPGA level. Best if attached on power on/off. With a hysteresis so that even quick on/off will be noticed.

Edit to add: Here's what may happen if the indicator is software controlled: "iSeeYou: Disabling the MacBook Webcam Indicator LED" https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2...

The problem is, how do I the consumer know that its not software controlled? I have to trust Apple or whoever that its not.

If you use Apple hardware, then you trust them on many other levels. As for this particular feature, some hobbies or profs (like fixit) may have a good chance to disassemble it and check.

The internet is full of people who will take it all apart and test the crap out of it!

It would be quite a claim and people really do love to put apple products to the test. see: bendgate.

Indeed. I had a ThinkPad with a physical switch to turn wifi on and off. The OS got into a weird state one day (a driver or OS bug) and I was shocked to discover that wifi was working even though the switch was in the off position.

So even on a ThinkPad, these physical switches are fake, i.e., they are just software settings checked by the OS, and not a hardware override.

Which is why I was glad Lenovo made it possible for me to order my current laptop without a webcam at all. I can just plug one in if I need it.

Old Treos (and maybe Palm Pilots) had a similar switch to sound, which was great. You could turn it off and be completely sure that no software error can cause any sound whatsoever.

Or a lid that can be slided over it. As a bonus, it would also protect the camera from being scratched

I'm not convinced Apple design department will allow that.

If you enable camera for a fraction of second nobody would notice the change of indicator.

You can have the hardware display for a minimum of 3 seconds.

Even that wouldn't be enough. And for some environments (e.g. living room) you would need super bright indicator accompanied by sound.

Apple's very first camera accessory, the iSight camera, had a physical iris that you could open and close for privacy:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/50271a61c4aab6c54f9af5...

I thought that was beautiful UI, since you knew that the lens was being blocked; you didn't have to trust that the software/firmware was doing the right thing.

Is there any evidence of this being possible on Macs made after 2008?

I had some Asus laptop which had a switch to physically close webcam: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/images/images2500x2500/ASUS_N73S...

If you're paranoid, it could be transparent for IR or something though.

The main problem I see with this is that Mr. "The age of privacy is over" doesn't eat his own dogfood. But that's probably because his users are "Dumb fucks" (to quote him again).

Who says that it is his laptop?

The "article" does not really add anything for the HN audience. So to save you a click, here is the image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClfR1BDUsAEMBm2.jpg:orig

Wow - this is being flagged fast. Was near the top, now 2 minutes later, is down to 54 and dropping fast - wonder who is flagging this article?

It's a stupid story.

Meanwhile "Lenin was a mushroom" is the first story on the front page.

That one's quite different; it sounds stupid but turns out to be interesting (if whimsical) and certainly unpredictable, which is a desirable quality on a site that's about intellectual curiosity.

i'm curious about that too

It's a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11949278, and not a strong story for HN to begin with. That's why the discussion turned generic so quickly.

(Sigh ... accidental down vote. And I wasn't even trying to click a vote arrow.)

Unvote is coming.

"No, government spies probably don't care what you're saying or doing in front of your computer."

This logic really annoys me. The implication is that it's not so bad that the govt. can violate privacy since most people have nothing to hide.

It's like saying censorship is not so bad since most people have nothing to say.

It is also sloppy thinking. Agencies like the NSA are bound by certain rules that prohibit targeting people for intelligence gathering. So the work around the law by gathering everything they can without targeting anyone in particular.

I'm guessing Zuckerberg can afford to spring for something more elegant: http://eyebloc.com/

This looks even better: https://soomz.io/

soo, that attaches to my phone? everyone is all worried about their laptop spying on them, and they have a handheld forward facing camera pointed at their face all day?

As Eric Schmidt has put it: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

So if you don't want people to know you put a tape over your webcam, maybe you shouldn't do it. ;-)

I can see where he is coming from, but this quote is wrong on so many levels.

Eric Schmidt would say something like that: https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

Hey, remember when The Lower Merion Township School remotely enabled students' laptop webcams to capture students in various stages of undress at home?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/19/schools-spied-...

Yeah sorry Eric is wrong on this one.

"You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" -

Most commonly attributed to Joseph Goebbels in 1933.

That is not the problem with the statement, though.

I commented on this related to a blind programmer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11887301

Eric Schmidt is wrong.

So, I assume Eric Schmidt has not only publicized his e-mail password, bank account details & activities, full health record and all correspondence with insurance companies, but offers 24/7 live stream from his google glass to the world.

So by his logic, if I don't want people to know I'm seeing a therapist therefore I shouldn't be going to a therapist? Seriously, dude needs to kindly stuff it. Sorry for the snark, but it really annoys me when I see that "if you've done nothing wrong then you have no reason to hide" meme repeated.

I realized that while my iPhone 4s used to fit into my shirt pocket (which was one of Steve Jobs' original design specifications), the 5s I now have is so large that the camera peaks out from my pocket. Plus there's a camera on either side, so if somebody did hack into it, they could at least see something other than the inside of my pocket.

Simple solution: I now put the phone in my picket upside down.

With the headphone jack on the bottom, this makes more sense anyway.

It's important to point out that Mark Zuckerberg has a much stronger interest in protecting his privacy than the average person. There is a legitimate expectation that an individual, entity or the government would try to hack his webcam or microphone.

This shouldn't justify the practice for average Internet users like you and me, though there's no harm in doing it if it makes you feel safe.

"This shouldn't justify the practice for average Internet users"?

Why not? The cost is basically zero and the savings might be substantial. I do that on my laptops as well and advice those around me to do the same. If that looks paranoid or stupid for somebody, quick googling for hacked webcams will provide plenty of examples that the threat is real, even for an average user.

This shouldn't justify the practice for average Internet users like you and me,

While it's true that most of us aren't at risk of a targeted attack from an unknown party as Zuckerberg is, we're all still under threat from huge sweeping scans of entire IP ranges, and some people are very much under threat of an attack from someone they're likely to know (eg a stalker). I don't think we should downplay the possibility of someone attacking your computer on the basis of not being a billionaire company founder; there are plenty of other reasons why people's computers are attacked.

though there's no harm in doing it if it makes you feel safe.

Putting tape over a webcam makes you safe from people snooping on your webcam. It's not theatre, it's not perception; it's actual, real safety. This is a rare example of a simple security measure that doesn't rely on how the user feels.

I have found Micro Snitch to be very useful:

https://obdev.at/products/microsnitch/index.html

"This ultra-light menu bar application operates inconspicuously in the background. It monitors and reports any microphone and camera activity to help you figure out if someone’s spying on you."

Is there any Microsoft equivalent. In before jokes about my privacy being long gone on win10.

We need simple hardware switches for camera and microphone!

I did this for a long time but stopped because I thought it looked too tin-foil-hat-like. After seeing Zuck do it, I think I'm going back.

But why the audio jack. I don't own a Mac. Do I understand correctly that he taped over a 3.5mm analog audio jack?

This is totally normal and nothing new (like years). Companies of a certain breed who have product meetings for secret products routinely do this to the cameras and mics of the computers and phones of meeting attendees.

Blocking recording helps block leaks.

I would feel a lot more comfortable with a cover for the webcam on my 2015 MBP, but the anti-reflective coating on the display is so famously, ludicrously sensitive and prone to delamination that I'm really reluctant to affix anything to the webcam/display. (This is less of a concern if you are Mark Zuckerberg.)

Any recommendations of a nice, soft-touch (perhaps silicone?) cover that can be left on while the machine is closed and won't damage the webcam lens or display surface?

Cut a piece of black cardboard, fold it in half and hang it over the camera.

Or this https://ilovegreengrass.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/cover-the-c...

It's low tech but, fold a piece of black card into a ∧ and balance it on the top of the screen.

So... is it possible to turn on a webcam without the light? (referring to macs)

I used to tape it, but stopped out of fear of looking stupid.

The light is controller via software, it would be wiser if the light took power from the camera (e.g. if camera was powered the light would be on), but currently it doesn't do that.

Why did I get downvoted?

I think when you're a person as important as Zuckerberg - it'd not be unreasonable to think you're under surveillance by other governments and so you probably can't easily guarantee that your hardware hasn't been tampered with.

Apparently yes in some cases, iSeeYou: Disabling the MacBook Webcam Indicator LED [1]

[1] https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2...

That only works on pre 2008 Macs, I haven't seen any evidence about it being possible on later models.

My Logitech webcam has a built-in sliding mechanism to cover and uncover the camera lens. I doubt I would ever buy a webcam that does not have this. There should really be a blocking mechanism for laptop cameras as well.

Painting the lens black would keep your laptop stylish.

> but there's also tape covering the Apple laptop's dual microphones

OK, how would that disable the microphone? Or is he just using a dummy plug?

Especially.

corporate IT security policy?

if yes, he is definitely following rules

Reply on news.ycombinator.com