

Ask HN: Is it reasonable to cover your webCam? - yepnopemaybe

I am not a programer, but my impression from various journalists and so forth is that webCams are relatively vulnerable to hijacking. My impression is that once an adversary has access to a webcam, they probably has access to basically everything else. Is this true?<p>The reason I ask is because I 3D printed a pretty good cover which I am attempting to sell , but I can&#x27;t convince anyone that its worth using. Maybe they&#x27;re right. Let me know.<p>www.hidemyeye.com
======
dredmorbius
Your problem isn't that covering your WebCam isn't a good idea (it is). It's
that there's little market for a solution -- electrical, scotch, gaffer, duct,
or other tape works just fine. A small scrap of paper or Post-It will keep
adhesive from marring the lens. That's a $0.01 solution I doubt you could ever
hope to compete with (though I hear suckers are born on an aggressive
schedule).

That said, from a design perspective, I'd very much prefer that devices
(laptops, desktops, tablets, phones, monitors, etc.) offered:

1\. Hardware indicators of activation of media inputs: camera, microphones,
etc.

2\. Physical covers or switches to activate/deactivate these. My Thinkpad has
a physical switch to activate the WiFi transmitter, but there's no shutter for
the camera (I've seen slider doors on some devices), nor can the mic circuits
be toggled by a physical control (though I can set my mixer settings via
software).

 _Edit:_ But see comments elsewhere: stickers which explicitly convey a
message about security/privacy and cover lenses could be an interesting angle.
Much lower cost, fad/awareness appeal. Possibly even a tie-in with privacy
groups (e.g., EFF, etc.). Good schwag.

~~~
model-m
Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing this afternoon. The absence of
physical switches for wifi/microphone/camera is probably due to a mix of
lowering manufacturing cost and cutting on "my computer no work" maintenance
calls, but I really would feel somewhat safer if I had them.

Fun fact: when I bought a hard drive for my computer (one of those old MFM 20
MB drives, it was the late eighties), I found it very noisy. The hard drive
was internal, so I engineered a physical on-off switch by routing its power
input through the otherwise unused turbo switch (remember those?) that was on
my computer case. When I wanted to write in peace, I would turn the drive off,
before turning the computer on, and boot from a floppy disk. I just had to be
careful not to turn the drive off when it was already spinning, and I never
did.

~~~
pogue
The Turbo switch! I had forgotten all about those. Did those actually ever
have any function?

~~~
thaumaturgy
Yes! Years ago, processor speeds evolved slowly enough that it was practical
for game developers to write all animation delays in their games something
like this:

    
    
        for (i=0; i<400; i++) ;
    

They would test their delay value and then increase their loop count as
necessary. This was a lot easier than doing clock-based delays. I'm not sure
how it was on Windows/DOS at the time, but around the same era on MacOS, you
couldn't even get millisecond accuracy without a lot of effort. The standard
time unit on a Mac then was the tick, or 1/60th of a second, and some things
didn't look too nice at tick granularity.

So this kind of time delay in games and other software was common practice.
When processors did start getting significantly faster, some games became
unplayable or bugged out altogether.

Along came the turbo button: it didn't actually make your computer faster, it
made it _slower_. Because of the confusing name, the turbo button was usually
rigged so that you would leave it on by default -- using your processor's
manufactured clock speed -- but if you wanted to play an older game that
relied on processor speed for delay timing, you would deactivate the turbo,
slowing your system clock speed down to something that matched older hardware.

~~~
dredmorbius
I suspect an example of these is the old xlander game. That's where you
simulate landing a spacecraft on the moon using keyboard controls for
thrusters.

Back in the 1990s I could run that on my Pentium 180 Mhz system.

Trying again ~10 years later I found that lunar gravity had increased markedly
since ;-)

------
zobzu
A lot of webcams have a hardware LED (ie when the camera the powered the LED
goes on because on the current path).

Some have it software controlled (either firmware or driver).

The first ones are pretty safe since you know when they're in use and the
notification is mostly unbypassable.

The other thing is that one rarely get interesting data through the webcam
thus access to the webcam is generally no something people are looking for
when running large scale attacks (for targetted attacks this is different).

Also... a piece of tape is nicer, lighter, more convenient and infinitely
cheaper than a 3d printed shape :/

~~~
bellerocky
The LED doesn't help with snapshots though. The light would come one and go
off pretty quickly and you'd have to be looking at it to notice.

~~~
dredmorbius
Blinking lights tend to attract attention faster than static ones. It's a bit
of a wash.

------
clamprecht
I think it sounds like it has potential. As you can see from some of the
comments here, some folks (the HN crowd) say "why do I need your thing when I
have a piece of tape that works fine?". Well, these same people have cool
stickers on their Macbook Pro, I'll bet. No functional value, but the stickers
make a statement - it's fashion. So, if you can make your cam cover something
that looks cool or interesting, or maybe something that makes a "statement",
then maybe that's how you market it. Make it a conversation piece.

Remember those stickers from the 90s, "Big Brother Inside" with the intel
look-alike logo? Think along those lines.

~~~
dredmorbius
Stickers serve the role of readily identifying your laptop.

This means if it starts walking, you _know_ it's yours. And the potential
walker is likely to realize you'll be able to ID the device quickly.

------
preinheimer
If I was in the market for a product, I'd buy mine from the EFF. Simple
sticker covers the camera, and supports a good group.

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

So there's some competition in the space.

~~~
goblin89
> If I was in the market for a product, I'd buy mine from the EFF. Simple
> sticker covers the camera, and supports a good group.

So the market's valid, which is good. ;) Perhaps there's a place for something
less disposable?

Once OP's product becomes popular it would help EFF more in the long run,
too—raising public awareness about potential privacy issues with personal
tech.

------
jacquesm
I'd be more worried about my microphone than about my camera.

~~~
ChrisAntaki
Seriously. One solution would be removing a laptops internal microphone, and
plugging in a USB mic as needed.

------
glhaynes
I don't really have an opinion on your question, but I'd point out that the
relevant question to your business isn't whether it's reasonable for people to
cover their camera, but whether you can convince people it's worth purchasing
something to use to do so.

I could see that being an uphill battle since a Post-It would work, is free,
and is less likely to make most feel like they might be judged as a paranoiac
... or conspicuously like they have something sufficiently unusual to hide
that they need to purchase something that most people don't. (Not saying that
makes logical sense, just that it makes "marketing sense".)

------
toast0
Why would i buy a cover when I have all this electrical tape just sitting
around?

~~~
kijin
The cover, depending on what it's made of, might be less messy (no sticky
residue) and more reusable than a strip of electrical tape.

~~~
dredmorbius
A small bit of paper (I use a Post-It dot) under the tape will protect the
lens just fine.

~~~
SAI_Peregrinus
I have a desktop, so the webcam clips onto the monitor. I just face it out the
window at my bird feeder when not in use. Anyone hacking it can watch cute
finches.

~~~
dredmorbius
Mind that depending on whom it is that's controlling the camera, that's still
information. Daylight, sunrise/sunset, whether or not you've artificial light
on (and hence: may or may not be home), etc.

I'd prefer a more robust mode of disabling the camera myself. For an external
cam, powering it off would be my first preference.

------
macNchz
My first two thoughts:

1) Every laptop has a microphone built in that doesn't have an indicator light
that you'd have to bypass to surreptitiously record audio. I think that, as
far as invasion of privacy/corporate espionage goes, this is scarier than the
webcam (which in my case, if someone were to hack it, would be hours of me
simply staring into the screen, as my laptop is usually closed when I'm not
using it).

2) You should try charging more than $3. To me that's so cheap as to inspire
some questions about its quality. At least $5, perhaps $10 would make it seem
more legitimate.

~~~
bellerocky
I use Shush on my mac to toggle the microphone. It may be possible to bypass
it, but I doubt it would be. It's on the Mac App Store, by the same people who
made Divvy.

~~~
Volundr
It's unfortunate people are down-voting you without explaining the problem
with you comment. Basically, if the CIA/FBI/ABC has sufficient control of your
computer that they can enable your mic/webcam remotely, they have more than
enough control to do anything you yourself can do on your system (with
software). That includes the ability to stop shush or simply toggle it.

This is why people are talking about physically covering their web cams. What
software can disable, software can enable, so this problem can't be solved by
software. No about of FBI software can give your camera the ability to see
through solid objects however.

------
kefs
Yes. But your product might be less convenient than a post-it note/strip of
black electrical tape.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-
webcam...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-
images-internet-yahoo)

[http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1z33wx/uk_spy_age...](http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/1z33wx/uk_spy_agency_intercepted_webcam_images_of/)

------
insteadof
Maybe they're fine using a sticker, a sticky note (or Post-its), or even just
with unplugging it if they're using an external webcam.

~~~
slang800
Using a sticker sounds like a great idea - it would be vastly thinner than any
3d-printed clip, and cheaper too. You might even be able to muffle the mic
with one (but I haven't tested that).

You could probably even market stickers like that specifically for the purpose
of covering cameras. Designed to not leave adhesive behind when removed (like
the adhesive on post-its), and perhaps even given a shiny black finish that
matches common laptop screen frames.

Personally, I've never seen a need for covering my webcam through some
combination of just not caring if some remote entity is watching me type, and
assuming that the risk of my webcam being activated without the little light
going on is pretty low.

But, if I was offered a cheap well-designed sticker made for the purpose of
covering my webcam I'd probably buy a pack.

~~~
dredmorbius
This is actually something I might consider.

Better: labeling to state that the device is explicitly equipped against
unwarranted surveillance. The _message_ of avoiding surveillance might be more
useful than the _act_ of frustrating it.

~~~
slang800
Oh, nice! I was thinking of something that would blend into the frame of the
laptop, making itself unnoticable (unlike a post-it note - which would look
rather ugly). But having that message would probably appeal even more because
at that point it becomes a form of protest rather than just a quiet security
measure.

------
andrewchambers
If someone has unrestricted access to your PC webcam, they probably have
unrestricted access to all of your PC. You already will be keylogged, and risk
losing usernames and passwords.

This is already probably a lot worse than a few photos of yourself staring at
a screen being leaked.

~~~
mcintyre1994
You could get access to a webcam without that access though, with malicious
software. I've seen links to sites where you can access unknowing people's
webcams and obviously law enforcement have this ability too.

I guess it's apples and oranges really - it'd be much worse to have someone
with unrestricted PC access, but if someone were physically where your webcam
is you might be less likely to compromise yourself.

~~~
hrrsn
I'm pretty sure the sites you're thinking of are open IP cameras, not behind
firewalls rather than rooted machines. I know Flash has always required
confirmation for webcam/microphone, whereas a local app doesn't need these
permissions (excluding the possibility of a flash exploit).

------
Paul_Dessert
I had the same idea a while back. I bought the domain webcamcovers.com. After
researching the market for a bit, I came to the realization that people didn't
really see the need. Those that understand the potential risk (the HN crowd)
choose to use a post-it or tape. Everyone else doesn't give a shit.

I did find there was a potential market. For the domain name. I sold it for a
few hundred dollars. So, I've got that going for me ;)

------
rusew
The idea and product are sound – your device seems to have a clear advantage
over duck tape and stickers.

However, your site looks like a blog post. Use less copy (like 90% less). The
Gif is good. Make it larger and front and center. Make your value proposition
in one short sentence in a bold header.

Also, I wonder if my laptop would still close if this were on it. You might
want to address that somewhere...

------
model-m
I tend to worry more about microphones, for which there is seldom an indicator
light, and which cannot be shut down by a piece of tape, than cameras. Cameras
are visible and you need to be in front of them. Microphones are sneakier and
one microphone can record a lot of people at once.

Many security cameras (e.g. in public transport) now have the capability to
record sound as well as video.

~~~
jimhefferon
Are laptops with microphone hardware switches available?

------
Yardlink
You might find a market with those who use it daily and don't want to be
always cutting off new bits of tape and making a growing glue mess. For
example foreign students from Asia calling their parents (they all do this and
they do it every day), long distance relationships, etc.

People who almost never use their webcam would probably prefer a sticker.

------
zhte415
I fold a namecard in half and sit it on top.

My former corp physically removed all webcams from laptops.

I know a lot paranoid about them. Mic too.

------
samuellavoie90
Yes, if an hijacker got as far as the webcam, it's safe to assume they have
access to everything else in your computer. But most webcams have a light to
tell you if its being used, other dangers are keyloggers, and how they can be
used to steal credit card information/bank loggin info.

~~~
dsl
The FBI (and most likely other actors) have the ability to activate a PC or
Mac webcam without activating the light.

[http://blog.erratasec.com/2013/12/how-to-disable-webcam-
ligh...](http://blog.erratasec.com/2013/12/how-to-disable-webcam-light-on-
windows.html)

------
MichaelAO
Anecdotal evidence: I came across an article that showed Martin Muench
(Founder of Finfisher) with his laptop camera covered.

Source: [http://www.ringit.com.au/blog/taping-over-prying-eyes-of-
web...](http://www.ringit.com.au/blog/taping-over-prying-eyes-of-web-spies/)

------
jrockway
I have a webcam on top of my monitor, but since it blends into the bezel and
is mostly outside my field of view, I never think about it and don't care.

If I sit in front of a laptop with a black camera against a grey/metal bezel,
though, I think about it constantly.

Humans. Weird.

------
adrianh
The EFF gives out stickers for this purpose to its donors. You might want to
contact them and offer your thing (though I agree with other comments that
you're making a solution to a problem that's solved more easily and cheaply in
other ways).

------
agarden
I stuck some Velcro on my laptop to create a removable, reusable cover. Your
product looks much nicer.

Most people don't seem to care about this. Your job is not to convince
everyone that they should, but to get your product in front of the people who
already do.

~~~
yepnopemaybe
Thanks, I think that is wise. It is a very difficult target to isolate in
adwords and facebook, but I live and learn.

------
ChrisAntaki
Newegg offers USB hubs with individual on/off switches for $6. If someone
wanted to 3D print an artistic enclosure for that, to the point where it felt
like a nice addition to the desk, that might have a market amongst the
security conscious.

------
thegrif
Those smart enough to realize that integrated webcams pose a security risk are
pragmatic enough to just use a sticker. That said, I think your design is a
good one - and doesn't detract too much from the aesthetics of the device.

------
masto
I'd be much more concerned about the microphone than the webcam.

------
hrrsn
> Even if your device is turned off, even if your device is offline, it is
> possible for hackers to take your images.

Really? Fear-mongering at it's finest.

I don't bother with it personally, although I've seen many people that do put
a sticker/bit of tape over it.

One more thing, your landing page isn't really the best. I like the animation
of the product in action, but the Instagram-esque filter doesn't look
professional at all. Your first paragraph is a full anchor link, and your
other paragraphs are broken at random lines which really kills the reading
experience. The photo, which I presume is a webcam shot with the product
blocker on, isn't actually described at all.

~~~
dredmorbius
Really.

Remember that a hibernating system is actually in a _low power_ state, but
there's still some draw. This means that specific processes might be running.

Baseboard / preboot / bootloader and other execution environments, including
even running within the firmware of specific peripherals, is a concern I've
been aware of since ~2005, from people who are taken exceptionally seriously
in the security community. Context was a presentation following an RSA
conference and Intel's plans at the time for extensive baseboard/preboot
environments (which have largely failed to take hold on consumer hardware,
though many/most server systems now have same).

Do I think the risk is high? No. But it's nonzero.

~~~
hrrsn
> Remember that a hibernating system is actually in a low power state

Not the original quote. The quote was "even if your device is turned off",
which I take to mean 'shutdown -h now'. Nowhere is hibernation mentioned.

If your EFI/preboot environment is rooted by a three letter agency you have
more problems than someone getting your picture.

~~~
dredmorbius
Assessing whether or not an "off" device is truly "off" isn't trivial. That's
a big part of my point.

I _do_ suspect that running a camera would generate sufficient power draw that
you'd tend to notice, though hibernating and taking periodic snapshots might
be much harder to detect.

For the casual user, distinguishing a down-disabled device from one that's got
a slight charge trickling through it, especially if it happens to be connected
to a charger, is going to be easy to get wrong.

------
Mandatum
Very cool, is there options to scale sizing? My webcam is external and I doubt
this would suit it. However if it was scaled 2x or even 3x the size, it'd fit
perfectly on it.

------
bndw
I toggle executable permissions for the iSight-related drivers

------
zevyoura
I never seriously considered it until I saw the IT guy covering his at my last
job. I still don't, though, which may be irrational or just lazy.

------
xanth
IMO If 'they' are covertly using your webcam you have bigger problems than
them catching a glimpse of your naked arse.

------
eudox
Who in his right mind would actually _buy_ a webcam cover? Just find a piece
of paper and fold it over. Good Christ.

------
steven2012
I cover mine with a post-it note, as do my coworkers. Sorry, but a 3d-printed
cover is cmopletely unnecessary.

------
linklet
I saw a product like this once on Shark Tank.

------
techman9
no

------
loupereira
I am currently developing a software solution for this called Webcam Blocker
Pro. It's ideal for parents who wish to prevent their children from using the
webcam and microphone without their supervision. Once the program is locked,
it essentially prevents anyone from using any webcam or microphone attached to
the computer, including malware or hackers, unless they have the password.

~~~
ChrisAntaki
The idea sounds great, but in practice, how will a software implementation
compete with the malware, assuming it too gets root access? If you wanted to
make a hardware based kill switch, that would be interesting.

~~~
loupereira
It's called fighting malware with malware logic. I will make the program
available to the HN community for free once it's released and put it to the
test.

