3 ms·

So that'd mean some schools (or is it the same one?) did such spying without even trying to conceal it. That it hadn't occurred to students to cover the camera

by f_sav 17y ago

So that'd mean some schools (or is it the same one?) did such spying without even trying to conceal it. That it hadn't occurred to students to cover the camera with something is a bit troubling too (either they don't realize the possibility/risk or they don't care). I may sound paranoid, but having integrated cameras in almost every electronic device around, with no easy physical (vs. software) way of blocking it somehow, is a recipe for such situations happening one day or the other (of course that doesn't make it any more OK).

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
cgranade 17y ago
As opposed to pocket electronics with integrated microphones? Think of all the embarassment that has occured due to pocket dialing, and now consider if that had been intentional. It's harder to block a microphone than a camera lens, too, and less obvious where the microphone is.
- f_sav 17y ago
  True. At least with cameras there's an obvious way of disabling it. Yet there's just no enough market pressure to get manufacturers to include a clear electronic switch-off mechanism. Maybe with a few more stories like this one...
  - cgranade 17y ago
    I think one reason for that is because of the sheer number of sensors included in modern devices. It would greatly clutter interfaces and physical form factors to include privacy switches for each kind of sensor.
    - f_sav 17y ago
      Makes sense (esp. these last few years where device come with the least physical switch possible, e.g. the iPhone), but given the benefit, I personally wouldn't mind the added clutter. One good first step would be to cut the link to the microphone on lid close (for a laptop or a cellphone, say). Or have a global "privacy switch" which would still allow apps to run to but electrically cut off the privacy-invading sensors (mostly gps, camera, microphone... other?). Just dreaming out loud here...

by f_sav 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

cgranade 17y ago

As opposed to pocket electronics with integrated microphones? Think of all the embarassment that has occured due to pocket dialing, and now consider if that had been intentional. It's harder to block a microphone than a camera lens, too, and less obvious where the microphone is.

f_sav 17y ago
True. At least with cameras there's an obvious way of disabling it. Yet there's just no enough market pressure to get manufacturers to include a clear electronic switch-off mechanism. Maybe with a few more stories like this one...
- cgranade 17y ago
  I think one reason for that is because of the sheer number of sensors included in modern devices. It would greatly clutter interfaces and physical form factors to include privacy switches for each kind of sensor.
  - f_sav 17y ago
    Makes sense (esp. these last few years where device come with the least physical switch possible, e.g. the iPhone), but given the benefit, I personally wouldn't mind the added clutter. One good first step would be to cut the link to the microphone on lid close (for a laptop or a cellphone, say). Or have a global "privacy switch" which would still allow apps to run to but electrically cut off the privacy-invading sensors (mostly gps, camera, microphone... other?). Just dreaming out loud here...