Hacker News Reader

Comment by IncRnd | Hacker News Reader

And, that camera will be the first thing covered after a purchase, just like cameras on a laptop.

https://smile.amazon.com/Webcam-Cover-Laptops-Pad-Devices/dp...

Until the car doesn't start or "auto pilot" features don't work because the car's ai does not detect an "alert human" at the wheel?

Here, a good idea of a product to sell on Amazon.com : a device that, applied to the camera, makes it think it's looking at the driver, while instead it's looking at some fake footage.

Presumably you'd know about this prior to buying the car. In which case you can wait a few more years for full self driving car.

That's some pretty bad design on the part of the car manufacturer for a car to drive into pedestrians when someone covers an internal camera.

What about when the camera doesn't work due to defects? The card driving into buildings isn't an acceptable result.

You are being paranoid. When you purchase the car it will be matched to your implanted chip and it can get your biometrics directly.

What's the point of this, when audio is likely to be far more sensitive? I haven't heard of anyone covering microphones, and 99% of us carry one around 24/7.

I do. After I got a facebook friend suggestion related to an in-person voice conversation that I had just been part of, I started trying to cover my microphone as a habit.

Some people do threat modelling kind of like this: What are the threats I can stop? OK, those are my threats. I will stop them. All safe now.

Or: What is the lowest hanging fruit, err security threat, that I can easily counter? Scotch tape over the camera - check. What's the next lowest hanging fruit?

<tinfoil_hat> Driving a car which has an unknown number of cameras, microphones, and is constantly connected (and can not be disconnected while still retaining the ability to drive the car)? Perhaps that's not a car I would ever be able to trust, and perhaps its not a car I should buy. </tinfoil_hat>

It's not paranoia if they install a camera in plain view that will record your image to a secret remote server.

It's also a matter of what sort of information is exposed. Video is something most people care about. Audio, not so much. The latter tends to be far less embarrassing/incriminating.

Audio is far less embarrassing/incriminating?

A camera pointed at my face will, at worst, catch me picking my nose or something. A microphone will pick up all sorts of stuff I really don't want other people hearing. Audio is way worse.

> Audio, not so much.

" Haldeman: That the way to handle this now is for us to have Walters call Pat Gray and just say, “Stay the hell out of this…this is ah, business here we don’t want you to go any further on it.” That’s not an unusual development,…

Nixon: Um huh. "

I have tried covering my notebooks microphone, but short of disconnecting it I haven't found anything that produces notable results.

But covering the camera still helps. Some thread scenarios are solved by covering the camera. Not all of them, but nobody is going to get 100% security anyways. No reason to give up.

I get that you can't achieve 100%, but covering your laptop camera while you carry around a cell phone feels more like building a gate without building the fence it goes in. Is achieving 1% worth anything?

Mark Zuckerberg covers microphone: https://twitter.com/topherolson/status/745294977064828929/ph...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com