Think about the fact that Zuckerberg has a cover over his camera. What does he know that we don't?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Warns Against Closing MacBooks With a Cover Over the Camera
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Especially you. I've seen what you get up to in front of your laptop. You think the camera can't see through a thin piece of tape just because you can't see the camera through it?
Thats certainly possible, and it would be dependent on how bright the LED is, relative to the surroundings. Possible, but not likely.
Rise, period, brightness, and decay are the big reasons that a flashed light source would be noticeable to people who are in the normal sensory range. The LED eliminates the first and last, leaving period and brightness*. The LED in question can work as fast or faster than the camera shutter itself - easily 1/25 (practical minimum) up to 1/8000 (practical max, and yes I know it can go higher or lower) - and since the human mind (never mind the eye) generally can't distinguish a single odd frame with minimal information changes in a 24fps movie, I'd say there'd be little chance of the eye or mind distinguishing an LED flash at a higher speed like 1/2000. There's your flash period.
Also consider that we're not talking about a projector LED or TV screen or camera flash or headlamp - this is a low-wattage indicator akin to what you might find on a home stereo receiver for a status light. Those are typically 3-5 watts, fully exposed (protruding from the face of the equipment) to the viewer. I'd say the MBP shutter indicator LED is no more than 3 watts, and its behind the screen, and masked to prevent light leakage around that tiny dot. There's your brightness.
Given the shutter working at such high speeds, and the low light output from the LED, do you think the LED flash would cross the awareness threshold, given the short period I described above? I don't believe it would. In the interest of science and fairness and all that, I think it would be an interesting project for someone to manipulate the camera and LED subsystem in a high quality laptop like the MBP and see how fast they would need to go on shutter speed before the LED isn't visible.
*(or luminosity, or what have you. I've also heard candlepower, lumens, nits, and a few other terms. There are strict definitions and uses for each term, and once those terms enter general public usage they get corrupted. I'll just use whatever term feels right for the present discussion - in this case, brightness)
All very good points. I can't speak for how others have handled this, but I'll give you my own use case.
With my iMac, since I have no use for video conferencing I have the camera permanently obstructed. The same goes for my two laptops, an MBP and 2008 era MB black. Neither of those have the screen-to-case tolerance that is referred to in this thread and neither of them have the sensor array you mention. If they did, I'd most likely do what I've done with all of my iPhones: a piece of clear tape over the camera, cut to the smallest size necessary, treated with whiteout. As long as the tape doesn't drift, this doesn't affect the proximity or ambient light sensors in the phones. You're very correct about that interference though, as its quite the pain to set that tape in the proper size, shape and position - with the release of the iPhone X and beyond Apple has done a great job of hiding those from the viewer. Once a year I do a "deep clean" on the phone, which isn't too dramatic since I always keep my phones in waterproof cases with face shields, and I re-do the tape at that time. I keep the phone in a belt clip, display facing out, which blocks the rear camera- just to complete my privacy regimen.
If I can find it, I have a very small hole punch of a sort that doesn't seem to be available anymore. Where the typical punch makes three-ring binder sized punches, this one was less than 25 percent that size. I want to try that with an adhesive backed sheet and see if I can make a peel and stick cover that will work within the sensor array.
All of this works for the moment, of course, but eventually Apple is going to go the way of the major display manufacturers and try to make pixel cameras. At that point, I'll hang on to my iPhone X as long as I can keep it working, but eventually go to something like Librem (and hope they're not using compromised displays), or go back to a dumb phone. The only other thing I could think of to protect the user would be 850nm lighting to wash out the display, and that may or may not work by the time these things become prevalent.
Because he's a high profile individual who is highly likely to be the target of hacking from sophisticated attacks. I wouldn't be surprised if his computer's mic wire is also snipped off. It's not as necessary for the vast majority of us especially with the now hardwired indicator light.
I don't like the guy, but the quote attributed to him at the end was very good advice: “So I think people ought to take responsibility for their own safety and security.”
Thats what he was doing, thats what he recommends everyone do for themselves. He had an entire cyberterrorism unit to protect his laptop, yet he blocks his camera. Probably because he feared the NSA, but thats just my guess.
Its far too often that I see people make their privacy "someone else's problem".
People who reuse freely-available program libraries from places like Google and Facebook assume they're ok to use because "someone" would have found any malicious code by now. I have yet to find anyone who can prove those libraries have been properly vetted. Because no one has vetted them.
People assume that all of these connected devices are being used solely according to their advertised purpose because the legal terms state the vendor would never do anything suspicious, yet Google in particular has been caught numerous times violating those terms, also publicly denying that they did, then getting exposed, followed by saying it was a one-time thing and the purpose wasn't fully understood by the press but they'd never do it again thanks for pointing it out... and then it happens again and again.
And now, people assume that the camera can't be misused because Apple says so, and therefore its stupid to do anything else to thwart misuse.
Software libraries and hardware fail safes, while related, are not always comparable. The indicator light isn’t fail proof, but it’s a reasonable enough protection that I don’t feel like I need to cover the camera. I’m simply saying that security measure that the FBI director undertakes doesn’t always apply to everyone. Do you also cover up your phone cameras and physically disable all microphones in all your devices? If not then you are also trusting Apple/another OEM with protecting you. If you believe that you need a security measure, then by all means go ahead and do that if it makes you feel safer. Everyone’s needs and use cases are different after all.
Gee, why would the director of a national investigative agency be paranoid or be the target of directed hacking attempts?
I'm sure he's no more likely to be targeted than some random citizen.😂
[automerge]1594675354[/automerge]
So what's your point?
Because of what you do, you are likely more of a target.
But the question also is, what could anyone see or hear with the webcam that would be of use to anyone?
Do you regularly state your passwords aloud? Your credit card number? Show off your illegal stash of whatever on FaceTime?
I mentioned my privacy regimen in another post, regarding everything in the house. I trust none of the companies out there, Apple or otherwise. My point re: the software libraries wasn't to provide a direct comparison to hardware, but to look at it in the larger picture of trust and how people rely on others for their security; people are depending on Apple to tell the truth about the camera and LED, just as people in programming are depending on everyone else in the profession to figure out if their software libraries have malicious capacity. There's a certain ratio of trust and effort there to results. I'm sure if I had more time I'd come up with something flip and pointed, but dinner is waiting... 😁
Paranoia has nothing to do with it - numerous video conferencing services have had client software with bugs that allow for remote camera activation. The stupid green light only helps if you are directly in front of your machine and you happen to notice it. I'll stick with my physical cover, thank you.
I remember in the 90's when the first SPARCstations had microphones added and people who expressed concern were mocked. Then there was this worm that started going around turning the microphones on and streaming them across the 'net. Not a new problem at all. Heck today it's easier since you don't need OS exploits, just buggy software from a popular vendor people willingly install.
[automerge]1594677288[/automerge]
What works even better are the post-it message/tab thingies - the vinyl little tabs with messages like "Sign Here" you affix to documents to mark or point stuff out; they are even thinner and more durable than the paper post it notes and leave the least residue of anything sticky I have found.
The iMac has an ambient light sensor.
And yes, I do think that humans are capable of detecting a light flashing up to pretty impressive speeds, and i also think that there is certainly a minimum—detectable!—duration for which the light can be enabled, irrespective of how instantaneously the software wishes to keep the camera enabled
Last edited:
It was, there is a French guy who worked for Apple involved in the mess.
[automerge]1594689116[/automerge]
I read they were, but I don't care and won't defend anyone but myself.
I wish I had the programming know-how to find out. Sadly, my coding experience ended with the mpu number you see under my screen name.
As an aside, I'm certain there are all manner of people who can pick out minimal stimuli under test conditions. The sense of smell is a superpower in a lot more people than you would suspect, to the tune of 10 ppm or less for certain organic solvents. Folks with paraesthesia are particularly interesting since they perceive stimuli under different senses and different references than typical folks, therefore they have far different thresholds. They're few and far between, though. I'm just wondering about your garden variety yutz sitting at his iMac, like me, and if we're able to see that little green light.
Speaking of the iMac - the current one has the ambient sensor, but I don't think my 2017 has it. Despite having a fairly large square of black cardboard taped over the camera, my screen still brightens and dims automatically. I believe thats according to the clock, not by the ambient light.
i own a 2017 iMac and it definitely does have an ambient light sensor. Open system preferences then select displays and you should see that theres a checkbox at the bottom that enables it.
I just checked Displays, there is no ambient sensor enable checkbox on mine. I went through the help file and saw that it was only on "selected" models. Mine is a Retina model; perhaps it was standard on non-Retina?
Here's a good one: I usually leave my System Preferences open to the Keyboard pane, Dictation tab, so I can monitor the mic input. I accidentally closed my System Preferences after I looked at the Displays pane, so I reopened it and set it to Keyboard/Dictation, and behold the mic was receiving input again, despite it being disabled just seconds ago. I disabled it, again.
I will be exceeding happy when I have the chance to pull this thing apart and rip the mic out.
Yes, I have that box. You said there'd be a checkbox "at the bottom" for enabling the ambient sensor. Thats not even the middle, and it says nothing about the ambient light. I think it just ties to the local sunrise/sunset, doesn't it?
In any case, mine is checked, there's a large square of cardboard (card paper, really) blocking my cam, and the screen darkens and lightens at appropriate times.
[automerge]1594697338[/automerge]
... then again, I just held a high-power LED flashlight up to the display at the camera cover, and the screen noticeably lightened. I stand corrected - thank you, my internet protein-devouring chemical friend!
i wasnt at my computer when i replied so i described the prefpane from memory, and I was mistaken. If you don't believe me, here's what Apple has to say:
Unless you are a high profile person or work for a major corporation with high clearance, no one wants to see your face or whatever there might be in the background. It's not worth exposing such vulnerability over a nobody. Seems to me only paranoid and stupid people cover up their cameras.
Then why do you have blinders on your home windows? Serves the same purpose.
Probably good on Apple to avoid litigation from broken macs.
Great job, Apple! Shareholders like myself are very pleased about the money you saved.
Great job, Apple! Shareholders like myself are very pleased about the money you saved.