Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sorry dude, but it's a real thing that is known to happen. Try considering the director of the FBI knows something you don't.
It is not though. I did research into this years back and there were only people who were tricked in turning their camera on but there was no real world case where someone had actually remotely hacked the camera on a Mac. That was about 8 years ago. Apple has since only made the OS tighter as well as implementing hardware safeguards to further make sure the camera is untouchable.

In effect, you have about as much chance of hacking someone's Touch ID remotely than getting access to the camera.

These fossils cover them because they don't care about what ifs. If there is any chance. Any chance. No matter how slim, then protocol mandates that the camera be physically covered (some go as far as breaking the camera altogether). That's when information is so sensitive that nothing is left to chance. Trade secrets from the FBI or Facebook or Google fall into this category.

For the rest of you yucks that generally do nothing of value with your computers, why?
 
They did that on some webcams, and people figured out that if you used the camera to capture individual frames, then the hardwired light would blink too fast to notice. Modern webcams use logic in the controller to ensure a minimum on-time and often patterns to make it more prominent. I have a Logitech where it initially comes on bright, goes to a lower level, then after you stop use, it takes a few seconds for the light to fade out.

you could still do that with a hard wired led, just connect it through a capacitor and it’ll be physically connected and fade out slowly if pulsed on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonmet
Yes, because iPads have cameras on them.



Single shutter clicks aren't going to light that LED long enough for you to see it.



Then I'm consistent. And yes, the mics are a big danger.



Its literally not known to have been hacked. Thats not the same as it never happening. There's a certain infosec company in the middle east that has accomplished some unbelievable things against Apple's amazing security. I think it'd be a safe bet to say they got right on this little challenge.



Yep. The Librem phone, for example, makes hardware camera and mic switches a selling point. And people are buying the phone, despite it being a couple years behind, technology-wise. I'd say Apple could grab some market share by doing it as well. Of course, China will not be happy.



I'm sure you don't have drapes and/or blinds in your home then.




I saw many posts in this same train of thought: my life is boring, I have nothing to hide, if they want to watch go right ahead and waste your time. I just picked these two as representative posts, and I'm certainly not calling you two guys out over anyone else.

People with this mindset look at the most shallow situations here. You're right, "they" simply don't care about you picking your noses or playing with yourselves. They don't care if you've shaved, if you're doing your work-from-home in your sweaty bunny suit, or if you're smoking a big fat blunt while your at your keyboard. But, I just want you to consider something...

It was just twenty years ago that zombie botnets became a thing. Background processes on peoples' computers were hijacked, bots were installed in root, and distributed attacks from compromised machines became commonplace while the machine owners were none the wiser. Banks were hacked, utilities were disrupted, pranks were played. Money was also wasted, as well as taken.

Now, I'm pretty sure of two things :

1). Most if not all of the affected people had absolutely no intention of participating in criminal activity, and
2). Criminal activity did occur, to the tune of billions of dollars over time.

Those same criminal types who had no trouble gaining access to private citizens' computers to plant bots, and able to generate billions of dollars in damage as well as profit in theft - what could those kind of people do with access to a camera? Plenty of still frames of peoples' faces taken over days, weeks, months, in various lighting situations. The mics? Sample those voices under a wide range of circumstances, stresses, and seasons. Put it together with criminal intent and what do you get?

The word "deepfake" comes to mind.

Do you think ransomware is bad? Thats just a bank account being held, or a business site blocked. See how it goes when your very life is held for ransom. Most people who don't care about those cameras and mics also glibly post all the details of their daily lives on social media feeds. What would prevent someone from doing a perfect deepfake of you - voice as well as face - committing a crime, along with an incredible amount of evidence that dovetails into your media posts. A malicious party could wield such a fake to take you for everything you own with no fear of retribution. Or they could simply frame you for their crimes by adjusting the evidence to fit your life and placing you deep in the middle of those criminal activities.

This doesn't even hold a candle to the potential harm that could arise from our government adopting a social credit score like China has in place, and the deep fake being used as one tool to administer it. If you think it won't happen here, sorry to tell you it already has started in the private sector. VISA has begun blacklisting people who hold outspoken conservative views as of June of this year. How long until the government does it?

So when people say to me "what do you have to hide?" I say, "My life".



Whats even more amazing is how many people have become aware of the dangers these technologies represent, and are actually taking action instead of just saying "oh well, green light isn't on, I'm safe".

I have to wonder - does Apple make a separate version of the MBP for the Chinese market, to satisfy the CCCP requirements for total intrusiveness? Or do they just have that ol' T2 switch disabled on Chinese market laptops?



So you think. Wait and see.

if you know the engineering behind the camera then you understand why it is absurd, detrimental paranoia to obscure it and its proximate sensors. The led and camera share the same power supply: it is a hardware level feature! No malware can turn on the camera without the led coming on because, and i repeat, this is a hardware level feature that cannot be bypassed without having physical contact with the device and doing some insane, infeasible and highly improbable modification. And the microphones in MacBooks have a similar hardware level feature: the microphone is physically disabled when the laptop‘s screen is closed, so no software can use the microphones to snoop on you whilst the lid is closed. and when it’s not, there are the usual software security features which apple have been only amplifying and strengthening in newer releases. And, if you know how iOS apps are architected and distributed, that they exist in a sandbox and aren’t able to execute any arbitrary malfeasant code to access the camera in the background. privacy is all about levels of trust, and all of the evidence makes it clear that covering the camera is an unnecessar, detrimental, and frankly quite silly effort on the part of people with more fear than sense. The world is scary, sure, but this is one of the least substantiated and frivolous privacy conscious things one can do
 
Sorry dude, but it's a real thing that is known to happen. Try considering the director of the FBI knows something you don't.

Imagine taking advice on tech security from an FBI director!

I bet he put it on their because he visits naughty cam sites and doesn’t want his cam to turn on when he’s talking to people online.

In the end, this is a false security blanket. Do you guys also disable the mics on your laptops out of curiosity?
[automerge]1594458014[/automerge]
I think it needs to be said that some people place covers on the cameras not out of paranoia or security concerns, but rather that they might inadvertently activate the camera themselves when it is not desired.

Bingo 😂.

For this reason, I do appreciate the shutter on the Lenovo I use at work - I join a lot of conferences and most of the time I don’t need to be on cam.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: sotov
Maybe Apple should include a privacy cover then? They claim to be privacy focused but ironically leave their cameras completely exposed.
How else do you want your camera to be? You should know which apps use the camera. If they come from the app store, they have to ask for permission before using the camera. And you know the green light will go on when the camera is on.
 
I always thought the point of the little green LED next to the camera was so you could tell at a moment's notice whether or not the camera is being utilized.
My thought exactly. People probably think that green dot can be bypassed, but I think it is actually hardwired.
 
On Macs equipped with T2 security chip, T2 acts as a gateway to both the microphone and camera. It is not possible for apps or even system level code to bypass the green LED indicator light when accessing camera.

If you think the green light is not prominent enough, and you almost never use the camera, then I suppose putting a tape or cover over the camera lens make some sense.

If you are truly paranoid, launch Photo Booth once a week to check the green light is coming on - the little LED might be physically broken in a way that the hardware cannot detect.
[automerge]1594460889[/automerge]
They said that earlier and hackers were still able to disable the light. Has Apple addressed this?
When you read something like that, there are several things to check. One is, when was this written? Arn quoted something from 2013, you can be sure that doesn't work anymore.

Two, what kind of access to your Mac does an attacker need to pull this off? I had a look at my old MacBook. I think if you have physical access, then you might be able to put some black nail varnish over the LED light and I wouldn't be able to see it, whether the camera turns it on or not. But if it is done by software, how deep did an attacker have to get into your Mac? If they got into your Mac software deep enough to disable the light, don't you think they could do a lot more damage? Like installing a key logger that steals every character you type, including passwords and credit card numbers?
[automerge]1594461203[/automerge]
Ok let me give you some actual brilliant ides $0.10 Physical cover Built into laptop. business card folded over cover. Tape over camera. Have I earned my millions in CEO compensation?
You didn't read the article, did you? Business card covering your camera, you close your laptop forceful, thick business card produces enough force to damage your screen.
 
Last edited:
Wait till someone explains to you that these lens covers are for laptops, tablets, *and* phones.

Just go here and look at the pretty pictures.

Your quoted 0.022 inch is 0.56mm. Apple strongly recommends at most 0.1mm. This is 5.5 times more, so there's a chance that it destroys your laptop screen.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Love it how paranoid people are.

Is caring about your personal information and freedom paranoid?

It is proven that diverse intelligence agencies can turn on microphones and cameras of devices remotely without the user's and/or manufacturer's knowledge exploiting backdoors they have figured out.
An actual physical barrier is the best protection for those who care about their privacy. You should care too.

Your facial expression matters. Don't let anyone use it without your consent.

Because he’s a person of interest. Everybody else is in a pool of 7 billion uninteresting people.

That statement is an ad hominem. Every individual on Earth is a person of interest. Every human being has the right to privacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sill
Love it how paranoid people are.

Zuckerberg disagrees!

Maybe just use tape instead?

I think the idea that they want to use it sometimes but then just cover it when not needed.

As they said in the article the camera cannot be activated without the green indicator light being turned on and macOS gives you complete control over when and where your camera and microphones are used. So what's the point in that?

I think it was well stated that software security circumvention is possible. You never know when someone finds a "bug" that makes him use the camera while disabling the green indicator light, remember that bug where you could login into MacOS without a password? People want physical solution.
 
Apple should design the next generation of macbooks and iphones and tablets and imacs with a physical camera cover.
 
Yes, because iPads have cameras on them.



Single shutter clicks aren't going to light that LED long enough for you to see it.



Then I'm consistent. And yes, the mics are a big danger.



Its literally not known to have been hacked. Thats not the same as it never happening. There's a certain infosec company in the middle east that has accomplished some unbelievable things against Apple's amazing security. I think it'd be a safe bet to say they got right on this little challenge.



Yep. The Librem phone, for example, makes hardware camera and mic switches a selling point. And people are buying the phone, despite it being a couple years behind, technology-wise. I'd say Apple could grab some market share by doing it as well. Of course, China will not be happy.



I'm sure you don't have drapes and/or blinds in your home then.




I saw many posts in this same train of thought: my life is boring, I have nothing to hide, if they want to watch go right ahead and waste your time. I just picked these two as representative posts, and I'm certainly not calling you two guys out over anyone else.

People with this mindset look at the most shallow situations here. You're right, "they" simply don't care about you picking your noses or playing with yourselves. They don't care if you've shaved, if you're doing your work-from-home in your sweaty bunny suit, or if you're smoking a big fat blunt while your at your keyboard. But, I just want you to consider something...

It was just twenty years ago that zombie botnets became a thing. Background processes on peoples' computers were hijacked, bots were installed in root, and distributed attacks from compromised machines became commonplace while the machine owners were none the wiser. Banks were hacked, utilities were disrupted, pranks were played. Money was also wasted, as well as taken.

Now, I'm pretty sure of two things :

1). Most if not all of the affected people had absolutely no intention of participating in criminal activity, and
2). Criminal activity did occur, to the tune of billions of dollars over time.

Those same criminal types who had no trouble gaining access to private citizens' computers to plant bots, and able to generate billions of dollars in damage as well as profit in theft - what could those kind of people do with access to a camera? Plenty of still frames of peoples' faces taken over days, weeks, months, in various lighting situations. The mics? Sample those voices under a wide range of circumstances, stresses, and seasons. Put it together with criminal intent and what do you get?

The word "deepfake" comes to mind.

Do you think ransomware is bad? Thats just a bank account being held, or a business site blocked. See how it goes when your very life is held for ransom. Most people who don't care about those cameras and mics also glibly post all the details of their daily lives on social media feeds. What would prevent someone from doing a perfect deepfake of you - voice as well as face - committing a crime, along with an incredible amount of evidence that dovetails into your media posts. A malicious party could wield such a fake to take you for everything you own with no fear of retribution. Or they could simply frame you for their crimes by adjusting the evidence to fit your life and placing you deep in the middle of those criminal activities.

This doesn't even hold a candle to the potential harm that could arise from our government adopting a social credit score like China has in place, and the deep fake being used as one tool to administer it. If you think it won't happen here, sorry to tell you it already has started in the private sector. VISA has begun blacklisting people who hold outspoken conservative views as of June of this year. How long until the government does it?

So when people say to me "what do you have to hide?" I say, "My life".



Whats even more amazing is how many people have become aware of the dangers these technologies represent, and are actually taking action instead of just saying "oh well, green light isn't on, I'm safe".

I have to wonder - does Apple make a separate version of the MBP for the Chinese market, to satisfy the CCCP requirements for total intrusiveness? Or do they just have that ol' T2 switch disabled on Chinese market laptops?



So you think. Wait and see.

I mean I get what you're saying but eventually it just comes down to how likely these things are to happen. You're more likely to get hit by a bus today and killed. The point is everywhere in life there are risks. You can either be scared of something that will probably never happen or just accept there are risks and live your life without fear.

Obviously don't PUT yourself in danger by standing in the road but just be a bit streetwise e.g. be aware of scams, phishing emails, downloading dodgy software etc. But life is too short to agonise over these things.
 
This issue with users covering up cameras could of been avoided if the manufacturers wired up the camera correctly.

the correct method is the LED lights up when power is supplied,it should be 100% passive and they way it gets power is from the camera itself when it can only work when powered up so they will be no way to turn off the LED without turning off the camera.

Apple now uses a T2 so only the chip can turn on the LED when ever the camera is required and no software is used so sort of passive, so if this is true then it’s safe but could of easily been avoided by a simple power tap from the camera to LED
 
if you know the engineering behind the camera then you understand why it is absurd, detrimental paranoia to obscure it and its proximate sensors. The led and camera share the same power supply: it is a hardware level feature! No malware can turn on the camera without the led coming on because, and i repeat, this is a hardware level feature that cannot be bypassed without having physical contact with the device and doing some insane, infeasible and highly improbable modification. And the microphones in MacBooks have a similar hardware level feature: the microphone is physically disabled when the laptop‘s screen is closed, so no software can use the microphones to snoop on you whilst the lid is closed. and when it’s not, there are the usual software security features which apple have been only amplifying and strengthening in newer releases. And, if you know how iOS apps are architected and distributed, that they exist in a sandbox and aren’t able to execute any arbitrary malfeasant code to access the camera in the background. privacy is all about levels of trust, and all of the evidence makes it clear that covering the camera is an unnecessar, detrimental, and frankly quite silly effort on the part of people with more fear than sense. The world is scary, sure, but this is one of the least substantiated and frivolous privacy conscious things one can do

Your response is valid but you dodged right around what I said. Never mind the LED and its power path. Whether it behaves the way you believe or not, it simply will not be able to offer any meaningful information about a single camera click. This isn't an incandescent bulb or fluorescent, with a meaningful rise and decay time. The LED can turn on and off instantly. Do you think that you'll be able to see the LED reference to a single shutter click. Has anyone checked that out?

BTW, how is it detrimental to cover the camera?


I mean I get what you're saying but eventually it just comes down to how likely these things are to happen. You're more likely to get hit by a bus today and killed. The point is everywhere in life there are risks. You can either be scared of something that will probably never happen or just accept there are risks and live your life without fear.

Obviously don't PUT yourself in danger by standing in the road but just be a bit streetwise e.g. be aware of scams, phishing emails, downloading dodgy software etc. But life is too short to agonise over these things.



I have to take the position that its very likely. Yes life is risky and there is risk everywhere, but we all prepare for that, do we not? We learn to study our surroundings and take appropriate action for our personal safety. I would think there's nothing wrong with extending that into our digital lives.

There is a huge list of information attacks that took people completely by surprise. A lot of that has to do with the information vectors themselves. Credit cards became popular as a payment method in the late 70s. The old card-roller ticket slips were everywhere. So was the fraud that followed it. The market switched to mag stripe debit cards, and the MitM skimmers became popular. People said "ok I'll only use the card for emergencies and online purchases", and now its commonplace to hear about data breaches. So go use cash, and you don't have to worry about it. If you absolutely must have a card for online purchases, use a credit card with protection.

Speaking of data breaches, I just got hit by one. Not by using a card, but by giving up personal info as part of a requirement for my job. Now I have to deal with something that wouldn't have happened if I'd stuck to my guns and not done what everyone else does as a reflex. The one time I let my guard down. Lesson learned, and my behavior for nearly 30 years has been justified.

So, in summary: there is no fear when you face reality and take every precaution you can to protect your life, and there is no agonizing when you know you've learned your lessons and do everything you can eliminate those vectors.
 
This issue with users covering up cameras could of been avoided if the manufacturers wired up the camera correctly.

the correct method is the LED lights up when power is supplied,it should be 100% passive and they way it gets power is from the camera itself when it can only work when powered up so they will be no way to turn off the LED without turning off the camera.

Apple now uses a T2 so only the chip can turn on the LED when ever the camera is required and no software is used so sort of passive, so if this is true then it’s safe but could of easily been avoided by a simple power tap from the camera to LED

This could be a potential implementation to solve the issue. I know several brands that implemented some sort of physical cover for the camera. For example, some Thinkpad models have a sliding cover for the camera. Huawei MateBook has the camera under the key. You pop it open when you need it although it makes the camera angle weird.
 


Apple this month published a support document that warns customers against closing their Mac notebooks with a cover over the camera as it can lead to display damage.

macbookcamerabrokendisplay.jpg


Image via Reddit

Apple says that the clearance between the display and the keyboard is designed to very tight tolerances, which can be problematic. Covering the camera can also cause issues with automatic brightness and True Tone.The warnings from Apple likely stem from complaints from MacBook Pro owners who have seen their displays crack after covering the camera, and there are multiple reports and warnings on sites that include MacRumors and Reddit. The issue appears to be especially bad with the new 16-inch MacBook Pro models that have thinner bezels.

applemacbookcameracrack.jpg


Image via the MacRumors Forums

MacRumors forum member Dashwin, for example, put a webcam cover on his 16-inch MacBook Pro in April and the result was a crack in the display under where the camera is located.Damage from applying a webcam cover to the camera is considered accidental and can be repaired under AppleCare+, but it's quite possible it's an issue that Apple won't fix for customers that don't have AppleCare+, and it's an expensive fix.

Apple says that customers concerned about illicit camera access should watch for the green light that comes on when the camera is activated. The camera is engineered so that it can't be accessed without the indicator light turning on.

MacBook owners can also control which apps have access to the built-in camera as users must grant permission for camera use on any operating system after macOS Mojave. For those who do need to cover the camera, Apple recommends a camera cover that's not thicker than the average piece of printer paper (0.1mm) and that does not leave adhesive residue.

Article Link: Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera
Maybe just use tape instead?
MacBook camera cover: $3.99
Roll of electrical tape: $1.99
Just sayin...
 
I thought this was common knowledge... simple, cheap, and yes, you can change colors.

Although for my work laptop, I now have a neat sliding camera cover that I got as part of a swag bag. I liked their company logo so I used it. If it wasn't for that it would be a little square of a post-it note. I'm concerned with spying at work because that's what companies do.

If someone manages to get my personal laptop or MBP to turn on, they won't see anything more than various faces of emotion and the occasional picking of teeth. Can't tell what turns people on these days.

Isn't that little sliding camera cover exactly what Apple is telling you not to use? I know it is work laptop, but knowingly doing something that can causes damage to company equipment is not cool.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.