
Ask HN: Do you cover the camera/mic on your computer/phone? - gnicholas
I know a lot of people who cover the camera on their laptop, but I don&#x27;t know anyone who takes steps to disable the microphone, or who disables the camera&#x2F;mic on their phones.<p>I understand that cameras on computers could capture lots of sensitive&#x2F;embarrassing&#x2F;incriminating information, but it seems like microphones would actually be worse in many cases. Also, since we carry our phones with us more than we carry our computers, the sensors on these devices are probably potential targets as well.<p>Do people block these other sensors and I just don&#x27;t know about it? Or is it just too difficult from a practical perspective to block these sensors?
======
RobertRoberts
Yes (front facing cam on phone as well, can't easily cover back one yet),
Zuckerberg and FBI director Comey do as well. Seems common sense these days.
Which is really, really sad.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/technology/personaltech/m...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/technology/personaltech/mark-
zuckerberg-covers-his-laptop-camera-you-should-consider-it-too.html)

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3790585/FBI-d...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3790585/FBI-
director-covers-webcam-TAPE-says-doing-stop-hackers-spying.html)

A highlighted photo of Zuckerberg's setup:

[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=zuckberg+covers+his+camera&t=lm&ia...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=zuckberg+covers+his+camera&t=lm&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images)

From here:

[https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10102910644965951&se...](https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10102910644965951&set=a.612287952871.2204760.4&type=3&theater)

~~~
Mr_P
To put things in perspective, though, Zuckerberg is CEO of an international
company that's constantly under attack by state-sponsored actors. He also
spends $10 million on physical security.

In contrast, a non-famous person probably doesn't have as much to worry about,
hence why I personally don't cover my smartphone camera.

~~~
RobertRoberts
None of my computers or servers mean anything to anyone, they are essentially
anonymous. But they are all attacked daily.

Do you think no one should cover their cameras because they "believe" they
aren't under attack?

~~~
bausshf
I second this.

On one of my sites that barely has 1000 visitors a week, I still have to deal
with 1000¨'s of requests every day from "hackers" lol.

------
kenneth
On Mac, the little green light that comes on any time the camera is used is
enforced at the hardware level. This gives me reasonable certainty it isn't
being used illicitly.

I find the camera covers everyone uses to be a form of unreasonable extreme
paranoia. Agree that the microphone would be just as damaging, but since it's
a lot harder to block, people don't care.

~~~
gnicholas
Apparently photos can be taken with the Mac camera and trigger the green light
so briefly that it is not noticeable [1]. It would be good if Apple set a
minimum activation period for the green light, so that even if the camera is
only on for a millisecond, the green light is on for 5 seconds or something.
In the meantime, there are tools that can alert you to any activations [2].

1: [https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/your-macs-camera-
ca...](https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/your-macs-camera-can-be-
hacked/)

2: [https://www.macworld.com/article/3129449/security/how-to-
kee...](https://www.macworld.com/article/3129449/security/how-to-keep-your-
macs-camera-from-spying-on-you-no-tape-required.html)

~~~
eb0la
Even better than an activation period: use a condenser to power the led, then
make the photo.

Hardware hackers here will gladly make a small circuit that prevents that
brief flicker and cannot be circumvented because it is hardware.

------
Rotdhizon
People cover their webcams because the news told them scary hackers would be
watching them in their private time. While yes that can be true, the media
blew up way out of proportion and it caught on. There are no downsides to
covering your camera though, so it isn't a bad thing.

I cover mine not out of paranoia of being hacked, but to avoid embarrassment
say if I auto-joined a meeting or did something which turned it on in a
conversation.

This isn't to say you shouldn't cover it. There are absolutely people who
distribute malware specifically for getting access to webcams and mics. That
footage/recording can subsequently be used for blackmail. The media tries to
make it seem like every other time you open your laptop, you'll contract some
mega virus that will let people record your entire life.

~~~
mc32
Pretty much this. Random user is not the target of state sponsored hacking.
Targets of state sponsored hacking will succumb to their efgorts anyway. So,
yes, cover the cam, if mostly to avoid inadvertent video when joining web
meetings.

~~~
astebbin
Hypothetical: as the cost of mass storage continues to plunge, why wouldn’t
less-scrupulous states gather as much dirt as possible on anyone of even the
remotest national interest (through intermediaries, of course), in case it
ever becomes valuable?

The cost/benefit equation there seems pretty clear. As a competitor state, his
much would YOU pay for the next U.S. President’s private Facebook message
history? A million dollars? A hundred million? Trade deals in the billions
could be at stake.

~~~
gargravarr
Hypothetical? This was exposed in 2013. It DOES happen. Indiscriminate dragnet
surveillance is the norm. I prefer to assume everything I post online is
already being collected, indexed and analysed.

------
jjguy
No. It is an unreasonable paranoia, to steal kenneth’s words.

In addition to kenneth’s very practical perspective on the technical
challenges, the other consideration is that you are simply not worth the
trouble.

Grabbing audio, video or picture content worth blackmailing someone with is
time-consuming, above and beyond the technical challenge. There is not an at-
scale monetization path for an attacker to make it worth his time for the
general user.

High-profile folks like Comey and Zuckerburg change that decision calculus -
they are likely to be individually targeted for many reasons. You are not.

~~~
gburdell3
Brave words to say here on HN, but I completely agree. Seeing one of those
webcam covers is a good indicator of who not to talk to if I want to avoid a
lecture about why I may as well be handing my information to "the government"
on a silver platter if I didn't write my own bootloader.

~~~
jfrankamp
This is silly to discuss who is 'worth it' as a target. The nets are cast wide
and good malware will simply seek the vulnerable. Think of the hard drive
encrypting ransomware. If they add illicit webcam pictures into the "PAY ME
NOW" screen that's a massive advantage. Attempting to block sensors is simply
least-privilege security stance applied to physical devices.

------
TheBiv
I block the camera on my Mac ever since I saw 60 minutes interview Mark
Zuckerberg where he had his camera covered.

[source] [https://www.hackread.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Mark-
Zuc...](https://www.hackread.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Mark-Zuckerberg-
Tape-Facebook-Instagram-1-796x398.jpg)

~~~
Jeremy1026
So you consider yourself a Zuckerberg level target?

~~~
mobilemidget
Zuckerberg is a robot, humans fear getting caught watching porn. (Gonna be
unpopular, but meh it’s true)

~~~
type0
I don't know what he is but he's not human anymore, since confirmed by himself
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qGVVxaosDM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qGVVxaosDM)

------
vezycash
I cover my camera with a black tape. I also disabled my camera from device
manager in Windows.

I noticed that my ear piece can work as a microphone. So I unplug it from the
laptop when its not needed.

A few acquaintances have complained that their camera flash on certain sites
and apps. So it's not all conspiracy.

------
blendergeek
I currently cover the camera on my computer. I don't have a way to disable the
microphone unfortunately. If I had the money to drop on a new laptop, I would
buy a Purism Librem laptop with a hardware kill switch for the camera and
microphone.

I am currently waiting until the Purism Librem 5 phone is released and then I
will have hardware kill switches to turn off the camera and microphone. Until
then I don't have many options.

------
Raphmedia
No. What could be the worst? That someone sees me naked and put it online?
There's so much content online that it's a drop in an ocean. Even if they were
to send it to my boss... so what? Every human has a body, it's not any worst
than going to the beach or changing in the locker room.

~~~
andrei_says_
I found this ted talk on privacy enlightening:
[https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matter...](https://www.ted.com/talks/glenn_greenwald_why_privacy_matters/up-
next)

If someone placed a surveillance camera in each of your apartment’s rooms, and
you could remove these cameras or leave them in place, what would you do?

Do you think your behavior would be exactly the same, with the cameras and
without them?

Do you drive exactly the same, with and without a police car tailing you?

~~~
danaris
I think there's a big difference between _a camera put there specifically to
surveil you_ , and _a camera you purchased as part of your electronic device_
, which is, absent someone specifically targeting you, under your control and
used for your convenience to video chat with your loved ones.

I think there's also a big difference between how one would act with the
possibility of someone watching them (who, if they are watching, are doing so
only by illegally accessing my personal device) and how one would act with the
certain knowledge of being watched by legitimate authorities.

Nuance is a thing that exists.

------
ecliptik
The EFF has a good guide and sells stickers which do not leave residue and are
thin enough to allow a laptop to close normally. They are also small enough to
use on a phones front facing camera.

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/how-protect-against-
la...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/how-protect-against-laptop-
webcam-hacking)

[https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-
set](https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-set)

------
kjullien
If you spend as little as 1 day on any grey/blackhat forums out there you will
never think of it security the same again. People talk about hardware
controlled leds and such, you can find Oss repos, even on pupolar platforms
like gh that show you how to bypass this...

------
bumholio
Opsec in depth routine for a new laptop:

\- Start sound recording and physically identify the location of the mic.

\- Jam a needle into the condenser mic to short circuit the membrane

\- Confirm voice cannot be recorded anymore by making a test recording, and
repeat previous step to satisfactory results.

\- Locate all cameras and cover them with stylish stickers scavenged from
other locations on the laptop. Use superglue if they are no longer sticky
enough.

\- Confirm image cannot be recorded anymore.

\- Disable drivers the video device and/or force install incompatible drivers.

\- Mute and/or minimize volume for the microphone device in the recording
mixer.

~~~
jsoc815
> _Opsec in depth routine for a new laptop..._

I _really_ like your style, and can't quite comprehend why your post merited
down votes.

As for the rest of you,stating that covering/disabling mics and cams is silly:
_Just because you think yourself unimportant or uninteresting to others doesn
't mean that you actually are._ Furthermore, that you're insignificant today,
doesn't mean that you will be _tomorrow._ It does, however, say much about
your sense of agency and self. So, thanks for the insight I guess.

~~~
bumholio
The downvotes on HN are really out of control, it's acceptable to "downvote if
you disagree"; I guess I can accept that as a social convention - but not if
the platform is configured to physically hide, flag and censor downvoted
comments.

The two features make for a toxic combo: instead of simply enforcing "civil"
conversation, downvotes are used as a political tool to strongly dissuade
contrarian views, even when such views are expressed in high effort, well
argued posts.

Some sacred cows of the community are criticizing US international position or
criticizing YC companies. Other-times, the political slant depends on the type
of crowd the headline will attract: in a topic against GDPR, self driving cars
or global warming you are guaranteed to attract downvotes when supporting
these issues, with the opposite true in the converse threads.

~~~
jsoc815
Agreed. I really have a problem w/ the censuring of someone for asking a
question or for answering one w/factual information.

For a group of people on pride themselves on being logic-driven and _smarter-
than-the rest_ , the behaviors I see here show the crowd to be pretty well
positioned w/i the 'bell' of the curve, if not to the left. Actually speaks
volumes about why some of the products coming out of the field are what they
are and/or end up w/the 'unintended' problems that are revealed.

For all of the probable smarts in this community, there is (in addition to a
general sense of entitlement) a clear lack of breath and depth of knowledge of
_the rest of the world_. And I find it unfortunate that rather than
acknowledging that and moving to address those faults, people revert to the
_see no evil_ model, which, again, makes much of the HN crew _very average_ ,
not exceptional.

Oh well...

------
joanofarf
I block the camera on my work machine, so that if I accidentally have video
turned on when joining a meeting I don't embarrass myself.

~~~
diminoten
I also have a cover for my work camera, but it's just to ensure I have a
hardware way of turning the camera "off", not because I think I'm going to be
hacked.

Besides, I don't think I've ever done anything in front of my work camera that
would be of interest to anyone.

~~~
jfrankamp
I think these are the same thing though. You want to ensure that you have a
hardware way of turning your camera off _because_ you know that ultimately you
have no control of the software that runs on your laptop. If you had good
software assurances you wouldn't need hardware switches. That's the same idea
as 'being hacked' (malware, targeted or otherwise) or the threat thereof: that
you wouldn't be in control.

To me, its just least-privilege applied. The camera needs to be used when _I_
want it. That's it. The OS doesn't get to decide, malware doesn't get to
decide, they don't need access to activate it.

~~~
diminoten
The difference to me is that I don't ever expect malicious intent to be the
cause of the camera operating incorrectly. Yes I am not in control in both
cases, but only in one case am I being targeted with intent to harm.

------
ydnaclementine
if you want a sticker to cover your laptop AND support the EFF, I suggest this
(5$): [https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-
set](https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-set)

I don't subscribe to all of their dogma, but I've benefited from what they've
accomplished

~~~
DKnoll
I used to support the EFF. Defending pedophiles, as they did in the case of
Francis Rawls, is not something I can support however.

------
dTal
No, because the threat model doesn't make sense. To record audio or video, a
hacker would need to be running arbitrary code as my user or as root on my
laptop. If they've got that far, I'm completely pwned. Now, if a hacker has
pwned my computer, are they going to risk alerting me by flashing my camera
light or attempting to exfiltrate large amounts of likely useless multimedia
data? Not likely. They're much more likely to do something boring and
practical like make me join a botnet or scrape logins for any online accounts
I might have. If it's a really serious (non-automated) hacker, they might go
digging for industrial secrets, or quietly record my keystrokes.

In the _extremely_ unlikely event that someone actually wants and retrieves
footage or audio of me, the worst they're gonna find is me doing something
mildly embarrassing, like doing the macerena with a kazoo accompaniment. Not
exactly easy to monetize.

------
efiecho
I disassembled my laptop and removed both camera and microphone before I began
using it. I did the same with my tablet.

------
brudgers
The gyroscopes in your phone can (at least in a lab) be used to listen to
conversations.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10914666](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10914666)
Out in the wild, it is unlikely that anyone is listening to my conversations
because I'm not that interesting to anyone...but like cookies tracking me
across the internet, I'm not imagining that I can beat a well funded and
mildly determined Eve...never mind a state level actor.

------
duxup
I wish there were hardware level switches for mics and cameras.

Or at least tie their power to an in line LED that shows when it is active.

An old piece of networking equipment I used to use had a physical switch that
triggered a physical change in the hardware to switch between active network
cards. You could open the box and watch it switch. Silly fun.

Granted they probably won't do it but I can dream.

------
acomjean
Trade show swag now includes laptop camera blockers. It has a little slider
that opens/close.

I got one a few weeks back and it seems to work well.

examples:
[https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=webcam+sercurity+cove...](https://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=webcam+sercurity+cover)

------
jandrewrogers
Cameras incidentally capture many background details that a mic will not in
sensitive areas. For example, an explicit threat scenario that motivates the
government to tape all cameras is doing facial recognition, especially beyond
the walls of a glass meeting room. The mic will capture what is said in the
meeting room but the camera may capture the identities of not only the people
in the meeting but also other people in the building not at the meeting. Or
identify where the meeting is actually taking place.

Anytime you tell someone a secret, there is a risk of leakage and the mic
falls into the same category of threat. A camera, on the other hand, can
passively glean many unrelated secrets beyond those intended to be
communicated. You can control what you say but not what will show up in the
background of a camera unless you disable it.

------
Kagerjay
I just got a new macbook pro 2015 retina edition. There weren't any videos
online really indicating where the mic was, so I did a hot/cold test readout
on where the microphones located.

Its built into the chip and unfortunately blocking it is just not
ergonomically friendly. You would need to block the vent ports to the left and
right of the keyboard

I use this item:
[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01C50ZCWI/ref=oh_aui_sear...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01C50ZCWI/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
. Its a plastic slide-cover, I would use it over the magnetic alternative,
those sliders get lost. Its better than using electric tape since its easy to
still enable the slider / camera

When I have that slider on my phone, it acquires a lot of lint and sometimes
the slider goes into open position as I put my phone in pocket throughout day.

On the note of incriminating information, police law enforcement are allowed
to use your thumb and face to unlock your phone IIRC.

I don't cover the back of my phone, I usually need access to it right away and
can't be bothered to add a slider on it. But I do know exactly what my viewing
angles are on the back camera (I did some geometry calculations on a wall, its
20* left/right from focal point and 30* top to bottom IIRC). Its helpful to
know because I can use my phones camera as a protractor if I wanted too to
measure the height of some tall fixture.

I do remember reading about hardware exploits built into manufactured chips
that does give government access to your cameras if they really wanted to, but
would probably never do. This was part of the Edward Snowden PRISM leak IIRC.
This might be all pure speculation and rumors though, but it doesn't hurt
having a cover on front-facing camera.

I'd rather be safe than sorry is how I think of it. People have had their
lives ruined from private videos going viral

------
examancer
I bring my own laptop to work, which runs a linux distro I installed myself
(Ubuntu). I also have to use my camera and mic quite a bit, so, they remain
free of obstructions most of the time.

If I was using my work supplied laptop I would likely take efforts to blind
the machine outside of work hours.

I am a lot more worried about my phone. The android update process is slow and
opaque and I have no idea what the manufacturer might be slipping into
updates. Again, I use it a lot, so it generally remains un-obstructed.

I value privacy, but, apparently I value convenience of being able to actually
use my devices a little more.

------
EvilEndures
If you are in a sensitive environment, you put your electronics in a faraday
bag and leave it outside the room.

I cover the camera to avoid accidentally turning the camera on for meetings on
my laptop, not for security, to be honest.

If you aren't bringing this stuff into the bedroom with you, I'm not sure why
people are as concerned as they are. We have to move on from judging people
based on how exposed people get by hacking attempts. Well all do stupid shit
we regret and if it isn't criminal, no one should be judged.

~~~
RobertRoberts
There are personal security issues to consider, think stalkers. Being able to
hack someone's personal devices emboldens this behavior. (concerns from
personal experience)

~~~
EvilEndures
Fair enough. No one has found stalking me an effective strategy so I didn't
think of that.

------
anoncoward111
I used to but now I don't care anymore. I'm on Linux so it's less likely I'll
be hacked in that manner. If I am hacked, I would try to make a sob story out
of it.

------
sonofblah
Wish Apple would give us a physical cover.

Work MacBook has monitoring software on it that seems to have a number of
different capabilities, the usual driver disablement commands also don't work
(even sudo'd), and the input slider on the microphone always manages to creep
back up a notch without my doing. (None of these things are a problem on the
home system.)

------
romdev
Yep - electrical tape prevents the latest version of webex putting my +10
casual image into a formal business meeting when it automatically starts the
video feed. The fact that I never seen any other crusty visages on the webex
face list tells me I'm not alone in my 'paranoia'.

------
wristmittens
Yes, but only for my coworker's sake rather than my own. It took me a while to
find the "disable video on meeting join" setting in Zoom so more than once I
was shirtless and unshaven for the first few seconds of standup.

------
bsvalley
Covering the camera makes you 100% under control. I don’t trust any software
or hardware or even promises from vendors. As far as the mic goes, nothing
much you can do to take control unless you physically unmount it, which your
average Joe can’t do...

------
voycey
I use mine sometimes up to 10 times a day for various chats and screenshares
with colleagues (distributed team) - It would be a massive pain in the ass to
do this. If someone wants to watch me frown repeatedly then they are welcome
to it!

------
zhte415
In a previous company, a large bank, the camera and microphone in laptops were
physically removed in default install.

It was possible to apply for a USB camera/mic if needed.

------
souterrain
Yes, because $dayjob uses zoom.us which has frustrating defaults.

~~~
eddyg
Zoom > Preferences > Video, check "Turn off my video when joining meeting"

------
chungy
I don't have a camera on my computer, but my headset has a microphone with a
hardware switch to turn it on or off -- I leave it off unless I'm using it.

------
grawprog
I don't bother with my laptop camera. The odds of it being hacked and turned
on without me knowing is fairly low and even if it did i'm sure whoever did
would regret turning it on and seeing me.

For my phone I disable mic and camera permissions for all my apps until they
need it. Other than my phone dialer I suppose. If i'm in public or on the bus
or something i'll try not to sit with my phone so the camera is facing people.
I've seen more than one person get pissed about it.

------
thex10
No. If they're wasting their time watching me.. I feel sorry for them and the
minutes of life they can't get back..

------
ld00d
I block the camera on my work laptop because the conferencing software we've
been using likes to default to video.

------
millzlane
I tend to whisper when I'm having private conversations around my device. I
sometimes cover them. Mostly because Google has been activating a lot more
lately than ever before. I would hate for a snippet of a private conversation
to be taken out of context. I'm pretty confident there is a recording with my
latest argument with my girl friend on apple or googles servers.

------
corbpie
On my laptop yes. Not sure why i bother because i dont cover anything on my
phone.

------
Endy
Yep. black duct tape - double layer over the mic.

------
djbelieny
I use an app called Camera Guard on my Mac.

~~~
PascLeRasc
That's almost certainly worse than not using it. A third-party app controlling
the camera is an attack vector, or could interfere with Apple's native
hardware security, and provides false peace-of-mind.

~~~
djbelieny
What is interesting is that this app allows me to see exactly what processes
are attempting to access the camera and mic. I agree it can be a vector but
the benefit of getting alerted every time something tries to access mic and
camera hardware to me is worth the risk. BTW I will be adding one of the
sticker ports to the camera ASAP.

