These little sliding covers are just silly. We keep a roll of 3M black stickers to place over the cameras, cheap as chips and does the job.
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
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?
Covers on a mac are less about security paranoia than it is about video conferencing apps changing their defaults and joining meetings with video on by default.
They said that earlier and hackers were still able to disable the light. Has Apple addressed this?
Research shows how MacBook Webcams can spy on their users without warning
Your laptop's Webcam has a light that's supposed to turn on any time the camera does. But research shows it's possible for hackers to disable the light.
www.washingtonpost.com
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.
Computers let you, and others, run untrusted software.
100%. People who chalk any form of Internet security -- be it physical (camera, etc.) or software (VPN, etc.) -- up to unfounded paranoia are uninformed. Unfortunately, it's arguably impractical for the average consumer to be properly informed about what really happens on the Internet.
And if you're interested in cyber warfare and cybersecurity, these are great reads. They're also great reads in general:
Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World's First Digital Weapon
The virus now known as Stuxnet was unlike any other piece of malware built before: Rather than simply hijacking targeted computers or stealing information from them, it proved that a piece of code could escape the digital realm and wreak actual, destruction—in this case, on an Iranian ...
www.amazon.com
Sandworm: A New Era of Cyberwar and the Hunt for the Kremlin's Most Dangerous Hackers
In 2014, the world witnessed the start of a mysterious series of cyberattacks. Targeting American utility companies, NATO, and electric grids in Eastern Europe, the strikes grew ever more brazen. They culminated in the summer of 2017, when the malware known as NotPetya was unleashed, penetratin...
www.amazon.com
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
So it was out of warranty, is what you are saying, but you wanted something fixed for free. Got it.
On a pre-2008 mac, possible, but the LED light is hardwired to the camera sensor. There is no firmware control to enable/disable the LED.
Someone should tell these people that every mac laptop since 2018 has a T2 chip that controls the camera and has literally never been hacked.
Or at least ask them why they aren't covering up their iPhone camera.
Or at least ask them why they aren't covering up their iPhone camera.
As reliable as LEDs are they still sometimes go bad. Unless there's a LED failure sensor and notification process which I doubt exist you're relying on blind trust. Simple built-in physical shutter in comparison is fool proof and cheaper.
Last edited:
My 2015 MacBook Pro has a small lip around the periphery of the display. The camera cover I use is lower profile than that lip - so I'm not particularly concerned.
I seem to recall an anti-theft software program that was able to disable the camera indicator light in order to take photos of potential thieves discretely and email them in the background.
I think with T2 that is (hopefully) less necessary, but still. Can anyone recall if that was indeed possible or is now?
I think with T2 that is (hopefully) less necessary, but still. Can anyone recall if that was indeed possible or is now?
A good attacker will take single photos very specifically. You won't even notice if the light is only on for a fraction of a second.
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. 😁
Hmm.. I'm using a moshi antiglare cover for my screen which I absolutely love. I'd hate to have to remove it.
My phone is often times pointed at my computer monitor when I'm using it. I find that much more concerning.
I guess if a hacker wants to take a picture of my ugly face from my laptop, I'd tell him to go for it. He/she might be waiting a while for me to hold up my social security card in front of it.
The point of a camera cover is:
- To know that nothing is recording without having to look for the light.
- To know that nothing can turn on the camera and take a picture before you have a chance to cover the camera.
Personally, I'd like to see computers coming with a physical switch for both the camera and microphones. 99% of people may not need it, but it's an inexpensive and easy solution to the problem. (Obviously this should be tied in to software to remind you if the switch is off.) Considering the extent to which most people seem to value their privacy, I'm not holding my breath.
To be clear, I do have multiple cameras in my house which I'm comfortable leaving uncovered. But, that's because I've been very selective about who I actually trust to handle my data. Nothing goes off-site without my explicit say-so, and each device is either blocked from communicating with the internet or comes from a trusted company. And, since I keep everything more or less up to date and am very careful when granting app permissions, the chances of an active exploit being an issue are close enough to zero not to worry.
I'd never criticize someone for wanting to physically disable any recording device in their house.
