Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera

[donetus]

maybe because they're buying those camera cover and it doesn't really "fit" in a way where when the close the lid, it doesn't close properly?

tape leaves some residue. I use the sticky part of the post-it.

II use tape though so should be fine.

 

[PassiveSmoking]

It's amazing how many people refuse to take Apple's word that the camera WILL NOT WORK without the green light coming on.

Of course not! You'd have to be an idiot to take any software company at their word regarding the reliability and security of their software.

I've worked in software engineering for years, I know just how fragile software is, and trust me, if you think that Apple's claims that the camera can't be enabled without the little green light coming on and haven't seen a hardware schematic that show that the two devices are electrically coupled, then you're in for a nasty shock. If both devices are software -controlled then either can be activated independently of each other, regardless of how carefully the software has been implemented.

Apple say the camera can't operate without the light being on, I say, release the schematics and code listings that prove it.

 

[Sill]

I’m pointing out the futility of it all if that’s all people do.

Blocking laptop camera’s whilst still leaving all the other avenues exposed is privacy theater.

You seem to think it’s a straw man argument with me pointing out all the other risks: it’s not, no matter how much you want it to be.

Your argument is that if someone says that they always keep their Windows locked tight with unbreakable bolts, you can’t point out the futility of all that if they always leave the front door unlocked 24/7.

You not wanting to understand all this is your problem.

Either you've forgotten what you said or you're deliberately reframing it. Let me help.

This is a qualified statement:

I’m pointing out the futility of it all if that’s all people do.

The emphasis is mine, obviously. Contrast that with your post:

So today’s “clever, security & privacy minded” people cover up their Webcam and extol their virtue to the world.

Of course they forget the microphone on the laptop,and microphones on watches and smart hubs, TVs etc.

They’re happy to have the cameras and microphones on smart phones & tablets go everywhere with them, including the bathroom, the bedroom, and work.

Also they ignore the security cameras dotted around the house, and internet connected baby monitors.

They also throw their receipts directly in the trash, along with old paper bills and other personal documents.

They broadcast their movements on Facebook and Instagram etc.

But hey, they covered up the Webcam, so they've got that going for them...

No qualified statement there. You're making a blanket statement against all people who cover up the cameras in their computer. I responded, pointing out that was the wrong thing to say as it was a personal attack.

And once again, you try to reframe the discussion by misrepresenting what I said.

Your argument is that if someone says that they always keep their Windows locked tight with unbreakable bolts, you can’t point out the futility of all that if they always leave the front door unlocked 24/7.

You not wanting to understand all this is your problem.

Of course, that's not what I said...

Rather than debate the merits of camera blockers, you've set up an imagined case that everyone who uses camera blockers is obvious to every other privacy risk in life, and used that to shoot those people down.

You're just not getting this. And rather than debating - or at least, just stating your position and moving on - you're having an argument with a version of my post that exists only in your head.

I am perfectly sure that there are people - some people - who cover their cameras yet consciously or unconsciously ignore the other privacy leaks in their daily lives. There are also a greater number of people who consciously make compromises in order to gain some traction in their lives. I never stated otherwise. I pointed out you made a blanket statement, mocking anyone who covers cameras, and you said outright that it comes from a position of moral superiority, or "extolling virtue", if I'm allowed to paraphrase you.

There's that "projection thing" I've been hearing about so much lately.

Relax Tigger, and understand, I'm not attacking you. I'm trying to demonstrate Socratic method and proper debate. If you're going to mock people as a group, without qualification, you've already lost. If you'll allow me some humor here, without trying to turn this around and say "Oh look who's having the imaginary debate in their own head! Ooh! Burn!", the way your post reads you might as well say, "Oh Futility! Oh cam blockers! Would that thou knew how thy efforts were of waste! If only you would climb to my mount, to my very temple, and wouldst learn of the many eyes you ignore! Oh Futility!"

Dramatic, but true.

 

[Gorms]

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.

I was all ready to be like, okay, this guy is gonna be tinfoil hat material, but actually, yes, this is an actually terrifying worst case for doing this that in my flippancy I hadn't considered. That is horrifying to think that with the right amount of data any party, be it a state or bad actors, could have the data to really fake anything and we could potentially have no way to prove otherwise, that is something that could affect anybody.

It won't make me change my habits but I can see there could be a very, very, dangerous use for this data now

 

[TiggrToo]

some people

Given the massive explosion of all the other ‘elephants’...totally more than “some”. And I work with people who totally don’t get it.

And I do not need a lecture from you - too old for that **** so I’m done with this.

 

[Sill]

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

Perhaps you're short on time and haven't had the opportunity to respond. I certainly don't care to spend too much time on this myself, so I can symphathize. When you have time, please answer the questions I posed to you.

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?

Speaking to those mic security features you hold up as a protection to privacy...

I'd like to add that when the warranty is up on my current iMac, I will be pulling the screen out and taking the mic subsystem out. In order to block the mic on my iMac, I have to keep System Preferences open to the Keyboard pane, Dictation tab, and also keep the Audio MIDI Setup app open. Even though I set my Sound preferences for Input to the base position on the slider - notice there is no "off" switch there - I have to go to Dictation to select "off", and I have to select "mute" on AudioMIDI -otherwise its very plain that the mic accepts sound input.
With all of Apple's "amplified and strengthened" software security features over the past 5 years, they've consistently refused to address that the mic is never fully off in software unless you stay on top of it. And even then, how can you be certain that the mic is really off? Because there isn't any indication on the Dictation pane?
Software doesn't work to protect you against privacy risks in software. It can't. You have to have a hardware solution. Short term- cam covers and mic blocks (non-resonant substance like putty). Long term - hardware that includes physical, user-oriented disconnects for privacy leaks. Even better, make those things optional.

 

[k1121j]

Maybe Apple should include a privacy cover then? They claim to be privacy focused but ironically leave their cameras completely exposed.

Use a post it if ur that paranoid

 

[LillDrutten]

The hardware quality has now dropped so they are on par with cheep PCs. I don't mind paying premium, but the I want premium.

 

[I7guy]

Perhaps you're short on time and haven't had the opportunity to respond. I certainly don't care to spend too much time on this myself, so I can symphathize. When you have time, please answer the questions I posed to you.



Speaking to those mic security features you hold up as a protection to privacy...

I'd like to add that when the warranty is up on my current iMac, I will be pulling the screen out and taking the mic subsystem out. In order to block the mic on my iMac, I have to keep System Preferences open to the Keyboard pane, Dictation tab, and also keep the Audio MIDI Setup app open. Even though I set my Sound preferences for Input to the base position on the slider - notice there is no "off" switch there - I have to go to Dictation to select "off", and I have to select "mute" on AudioMIDI -otherwise its very plain that the mic accepts sound input.
With all of Apple's "amplified and strengthened" software security features over the past 5 years, they've consistently refused to address that the mic is never fully off in software unless you stay on top of it. And even then, how can you be certain that the mic is really off? Because there isn't any indication on the Dictation pane?
Software doesn't work to protect you against privacy risks in software. It can't. You have to have a hardware solution. Short term- cam covers and mic blocks (non-resonant substance like putty). Long term - hardware that includes physical, user-oriented disconnects for privacy leaks. Even better, make those things optional.

Personally, if I were that worried that I would disassemble my computer to cut out the mike, I would go off the grid. I have two laptops and one desktop that I use for business related zoom calls. (the desktop is easy the camera and mic are external usb accessories). I'm will to live with the risk my computer systems were hacked and my webcams could be used without my knowledge.

 

[BigMcGuire]

I have a piece of tape over my work laptop's webcam. Why? Because the damn software we use for web conferences randomly decides to turn on the webcam whenever I join.

I do not have a piece of tape over my MacBook Pro's webcam. I use http://objective-see.com software to notify me whenever the webcam goes active. (Same for Mic).

I'm not that interesting and I don't have any $ so I doubt that I'm being spied on.

I have seen quite a few of those "webcam" plastic tabs that slide - on MacBook Pros in the "wild" --- makes me cringe every time I see people close the lid with a tiny gap because of that "webcam" privacy slider... Most of these I've seen at university. <cringe>

 

[gnasher729]

"Covering the built-in camera might also interfere with the ambient light sensor and prevent features like automatic brightness and True Tone from working". If that is true, then imagery can be read from the camera without the green light being on. All a hacker need do is send that imagery to themselves, and your camera is being used to spy on you without you knowing.

Non sequitur. You can design a camera that is capable of sending high quality images while putting the led light on, and transmitting a brightness reading (one single value) and/or an analysis of light conditions (a dozen values) without the led light.

 

[x-evil-x]

If it was possible to remove the mic without damaging other stuff, I’d do that.


Exactly. I wish my computer didn’t have a camera. But that’s not an option, so I disable it. I use tape though so should be fine.

Be sure to not say anything bad at home. Your mic might get the fbi on you for saying you took a candybar 3 years ago without paying for it. Everybody is listening. Your mic is more important than your camera do you not realize that?

 

[TheHaterSlayer]

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?

Do you're one of those guys that believe everything they tell u I see. lol

 

[Wando64]

I never understood people who want to cover the camera on their MacBook for "privacy" reasons and yet leave the camera on their phones (which they bring everywhere they go) uncovered. Like what's the logic there? Hackers and snoopers only exist on the Mac but not on phone and tablets?

Absolutely, and that’s why I dislike FaceID as much as I do.
[automerge]1594571222[/automerge]

Why do I need to cover my camera when I’m not doing anything wrong?

Edit: lol I get a thumbs down from a forum stranger for saying that!!

I’d say, give us a live feed to your cam and we’ll be the judges of that. 😂🤣

 

[Macnified]

I guess I was an early mover. I bought a new 2018 Macbook Air and barely after setting it up, I closed the lid ... and dust particles on the keyboard mauled my screen. The Apple warranty covered no damages to the screen from any physical source. To repair the damage entailed replacing the entire lid including the screen, a $500+ add-on to an underpowered machine costing $1100. I said no thanks and consigned my new MBA, hooked up to an HD monitor, to the role of desktop composition and storage.

...And Apple's disappointed that I, who have owned only Macs (and one great Starmax) since my first Apple II, haven't ponied up for a new $3000+ MBP or $2000 MBA? Hey, folks, "Fool me once, etc., etc."

 

[ajfahey]

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?

Because sometimes you don't notice that the green light is on, especially if you're not using the damn computer and even if you are.

 

[Macnified]

The potential for screen damage from tight tolerance with a case has been an ongoing issue. Since Apple likes to make their MacBook Pros paper thin, they should consider including a paper clip inside the box.

Also, don't make Mac components so fragile they can't personally be acquired and repaired, e.g., via Fixit.com. That used to be one of the joys of owning a Mac.

 

[C blast]

I just know I'm dirty dude, and I know I'm gonna do the dirty things. So my cam is covered out of shame😓

 

[iMi]

If Apple would stop obsessing over making everything wafer-thin then this probably wouldn't be an issue. Why does using a screen privacy protector risk damaging the PC?

We're a long way from the early days of Apple. I think the 1984 ad was prescient - Apple's gone from making PCs that are both aesthetically pleasing and easy to use to making (for the most part) pretty social-media boxes. Now it's like buying a car. It's all about either avoiding repairs or dealerproofing Apple products so you don't get shafted on a visit to the Apple Store.

so, Apple should fundamentally change its design philosophy to accommodate a small percentage of paranoid users want to cover up the camera?
[automerge]1594582233[/automerge]

I have covers on those as well.

However I would point out that my phone is in my pocket, most of the time - not a lot to see in there. 😁

That‘s what she said 😂😂😂
[automerge]1594582515[/automerge]

I guess I was an early mover. I bought a new 2018 Macbook Air and barely after setting it up, I closed the lid ... and dust particles on the keyboard mauled my screen. The Apple warranty covered no damages to the screen from any physical source. To repair the damage entailed replacing the entire lid including the screen, a $500+ add-on to an underpowered machine costing $1100. I said no thanks and consigned my new MBA, hooked up to an HD monitor, to the role of desktop composition and storage.

...And Apple's disappointed that I, who have owned only Macs (and one great Starmax) since my first Apple II, haven't ponied up for a new $3000+ MBP or $2000 MBA? Hey, folks, "Fool me once, etc., etc."

I am not buying it. I believe your screen was damage, but not by dust particles. Not a chance. No way, no how.

 

[bigpoppamac31]

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'm pretty sure that hackers could turn on your camera and microphone on your devices without you knowing that they are turned on. I'm sure even Apple could do this if they wanted to.

 

[x-evil-x]

Because sometimes you don't notice that the green light is on, especially if you're not using the damn computer and even if you are.

Do you just stare aimlessly into the ceiling when you sit in front of a laptop orrr?
the light is very obvious if you are using the computer. Sure if it’s open and off to the side you wouldn’t notice it. Still don’t see why it matters. Let those people stare at the wall of they want the hassle of trying to hack a Macs camera.

 

[jrichards1408]

I don't use any cover on my lenses.
.I don't have anything to hide.

But u may see me do some solo activities that may scar you for life so best you don't spy on me

 

[Catman8976]

This is what paranoia and have no clearance between the screen and screen bezel gets you.

 

[Internet Enzyme]

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?

Wouldn't an LED, with its instant response time, be far more optimal in this hypothetical? If the indicator light used a bulb with a more languid activation speed, it would be worse for detecting what software is using the camera and at what time. If you take a single image with the camera, this means that the camera has been enabled and that therefore the LED has also been enabled. Now, it may have been enabled for a short period, but at least the LED would make a very noticeable, conspicuous flash, rather than some kind of protracted breathe in: if you are looking at or using your computer, you would notice this happening, even if it were relatively instant. As for how obscuring the camera is detrimental, well, firstly, there is the obvious: you have to remove this obstruction every time you want to use the camera. This is very much by design, so I don't expect this reason to change your mind. The other, forgotten reason for why covering your camera is not advisable has little to do with the camera itself, but the sensors that it is immediately proximate to; namely, the ambient light sensor and the TrueTone sensor. The ambient light sensor is a passive, practical tool that both saves battery life and allows the display to automatically adjust itself so that it is comfortable to view in varying environments. The TrueTone sensor in newer MacBooks adapts the display's white point dynamically based on the lighting conditions, and keeps your display at a comfortable color temperature based on its readings. These two sensors may seem like minor conveniences, but when you consider the fact that obscuring the camera is largely a paranoid placebo and the myriad benefits that come with leaving it unobstructed, I think it should be time to remove this blemish off the top of your Mac's screen.

 

[Tech198]

This is what paranoia and have no clearance between the screen and screen bezel gets you.

Apple can't look out for everyone