Hacker News Reader

Comment by II2II | Hacker News Reader

> and no firmware is involved in enforcing the LED stay on for 3 seconds after a single frame is captured.

I may be the oddball here, but that 3 second duration does not comfort me. The only time I would notice it is if I am sitting in front of the computer. While someone snapping a photo of me while working is disconcerting, it is not the end of the world. Someone snapping photos while I am away from the screen is more troublesome. (Or it would be if my computer was facing an open space, which it doesn't.)

View on HN

Right, so this is all defense in depth. That LED is sort of the last line of defense if all others have failed, like:

The exploit mitigations to prevent you from getting an initial foothold.

The sandboxing preventing you from going from a low-privileged to a privileged process.

The permissions model preventing unauthorized camera access in the first place.

The kernel hardening to stop you from poking at the co-processor registers.

etc. etc.

If all those things have failed, the last thing to at least give you a chance of noticing the compromise, that's that LED. And that's why it stays on for 3 seconds, all to increase the chances of you noticing something is off. But things had to have gone pretty sideways before that particular hail-mary kicks in.

OK, but then what? Leave the LED on for 24 hours after you've captured a single frame? At that point the LED isn't really indicating camera usage because you'll just get used to seeing it on all the time whether the camera is in use or not.

A ranfom thought, that probably won't cover all cases: a second LED or a colour LED. One LED/colour indicates the camera is active, the second can be on for a longer period of time (and perhaps dim as time goes on). I prefer the second LED option since it is better for us colourblind folks, though I suspect there would be more resistance to the idea.

And, of course, covers are an option.

It's strange that none of these companies will include a closable cover for the camera. I got one aftermarket. It is very reassuring since no hacking or accidental misclicks on my part can move the cover.

I had a closable cover and someone shut my laptop with enough force that the cover caused the screen to break. Be careful when closing.

Sure, that is going.to be true for anything with moving pats. Yet I would also imagine that design and materials are a factor here. Let's face it, these covers aren't exactly common on laptops. There is probably a lack of good design practices for them.

Was it a built-in camera cover, or a third-party one? Apple specifically (and possibly other manufacturers?) recommends against third-party covers because the tolerance is so close:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/102177

I've seen HP desktops that have a closeable camera cover, and Lenovo does on some ThinkPads [1], so probably others do too. Laptops usually have very little depth available in the screen part though, which is why most laptop cameras are crappy (exceptions include Surface Pro and Surface Book, which have more depth available and so much better cameras than most, but no cover - at least their camera light is not software controlled).

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/lenovo-thinkshutter-laptops-...

I have a sticky piece of post it note more or less permanently affixed over my camera.

I can remember when someone spotted tape over Zuckerberg's laptop camera. Ref: https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/21/11995032/mark-zuckerberg-...

My Thinkpad does.

I also purchased a cover for mine, although in a pinch, the removable stickers on fruit work well.

Higher end Lenovos and Dell Latitude / Precision tend to. Was one reason why I went for a Latitude 74XX rather than a 54XX or 34XX when looking at them last time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com