8 ms·

I would rather have a physical (manual) switch to disconnect the power to the microphone and camera hardware on all my devices (laptop, phone, ...). This way th

• deadmutex 7y ago
  I think it makes a lot sense to have it on devices like the Nest Mini: https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/8/23/20828854/google-home-mini-mute-switch-button-privacy-microphones https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/8/23/20828854/g... I am not sure if I'd want my phone to have another button just for that though.
• bb123 7y ago
  That’s fair enough but you have to accept you’re in the huge minority there. The average consumer does not want to have to flip a switch for every microphone on their devices when they want to use it. Not to mention the reliability implications of adding more moving parts and dust/water ingress points. There has to be a trade off between usability and security.
  • jimhefferon 7y ago
    So, the device comes with a slide switch, set to on. A user who cares can slide it off.
    • jsiepkes 7y ago
      It's not that simple. People will accidentally set the switch to off and won't understand why their mic doesn't work anymore. At this point there is a good chance they will call support. This also happend with the hardware wifi kill switches we used to have on notebooks.
      • alexis_fr 7y ago
        Since we’re integrated between OS and hardware on Apple platforms, they could implement a “Turn on your microphone” dialog. I think this support excuse is too commonly used, when there is obvious value in the result. He’s not a minority, even my grandparents shared the photo of Mark Zuckerberg saying “If this guy hides his camera, so should you”...
        • skocznymroczny 7y ago
          You already have dialogs on macOS like "app X wants to use the microphone, allow?"
      • Milner08 7y ago
        God the number of times people complained about their laptops being broken only to find out they'd turned WiFi off. Either through a separate kill switch or through a function key. It was a pain the arse.
        • ekzy 7y ago
          I recently installed linux on a MSI laptop that has a webcam function key switch. For some reason (could have been me), it was off and I just assumed that the camera wasn't working with linux, or that there was a hardware issue. I almost sent it back. I never owned a laptop with that kind of switch before, so I wasn't looking for this, and the keyboard icon [1] looked like some kind of screen contrast button to me... [1] https://imgur.com/a/2Oe2k4e https://imgur.com/a/2Oe2k4e
          • freedomben 7y ago
            Oh man, this happened to me many years ago as well with wifi. The keyboard had a wifi toggle (which in linux translated into rfkill) as a mod to an Fn key. Took me hours to realize that was a thing. I was literally debugging the kernel trying to figure out why the driver was spitting out "rfkill enabled" when "it shouldn't" only to realize a simple hold of Fn + F9 (or whatever it was) fixed the problem right up :facepalm:
    • HatchedLake721 7y ago
      It’s Apple. If you want switches on your computers, use ThinkPad or Dell.
      • pulse7 7y ago
        The latest ThinkPads have a physical/mechanical switch, but just for the camera... The mic can not be turned off with this switch...
        • jann 7y ago
          Just a warning (I don’t know the specs of that ThinkPad) but just because it’s a physical switch doesn’t mean it actually physically disconnects the device.
          • deleted 7y ago
            [deleted]
          • jaywalk 7y ago
            It's called ThinkShutter and it physically covers the camera lens.
            • mvanbaak 7y ago
              so it doesn't turn it off, it just puts some plastic in front of it. Plastic that is easier to break then something inside the case that will cut the power. While I am a big fan of the idea of the thinkshutter and friends, a real switch that cuts the loop to the cam/mic is a better option.
              • jaywalk 7y ago
                I think a physical shutter is superior, if only for peace of mind. If the lens is covered, nothing else matters.
                • 7y ago
    • mamon 7y ago
      Even the user that cares can sometimes forget to do it. With Apple solution you'll never forget to switch microphone off, but on the downside, you now have to trust Apple.
  • karatestomp 7y ago
    My teacher wife and a bunch of the folks she knows (non-nerds) cover their webcams with stickers or whatever. They’d all love (separate!) kill-switches for their cameras and mics. Plus everyone working in tech I know. So that’s... everyone I know who’s aware their laptops have cameras and microphones.
    • RankingMember 7y ago
      Not for mics, but you can essentially add the equivalent of a webcam kill switch with something simple like this: https://www.amazon.com/C-Slide-Sliding-Computers-Chromebooks-Consoles/dp/B00AZ639VG https://www.amazon.com/C-Slide-Sliding-Computers-Chromebooks...
      • kevindong 7y ago
        My company's IT department has said in passing that they've had many cases of laptop screens being cracked by those sliding webcam obscurers.
    • reaperducer 7y ago
      I think you're overstating your position. If all of those people had to flip a hardware switch every time they wanted to use their phones, they'd complain about it.
      • karatestomp 7y ago
        Not phones, but for tablets and laptops I think a lot more than just privacy geeks would like a way to know for sure they won’t accidentally transmit video or audio, and would put up with a little annoyance for the peace of mind.
      • folmar 7y ago
        On a laptop it may often be once in a lifetime.
        • reaperducer 7y ago
  • Dahoon 7y ago
    Anecdotally even my old 69yo father who thinks Google Chrome is the same as Google.com has covered his webcam with tape and bought a laptop with a mic hardware switch so I really don't see this as a usability problem in 2020. What do you mean with "flip a switch for every microphone on their devices"? Why would you want to have more than one mic and one switch per device? And turning it on in hardware is way faster than in software so a hardware switch is both faster and more secure and breaking a hardware switch seems a lot less likely than custom OEM made software failing or stop getting updated. Dust and water is no problem as lots of phones already have hardware switches, including my Android phone. I really see no problem in hardware switches at all.
    • javagram 7y ago
      > What do you mean with "flip a switch for every microphone on their devices"? Why would you want to have more than one mic and one switch per device The ipad has 4 microphones. iPhones have at least two. They’re located in different places to either catch different sounds or implement noise canceling
      • ClumsyPilot 7y ago
        Clearly anyone sensible would have a single switch for all of them. Would turning on a single microphone of the array have any meaning?
        • folmar 7y ago
          Since iPhone microphone quality is well below market average maybe it would improve?
  • iso1631 7y ago
    After months of zooms and many #PoorJennifer moments I'm sure that the number of us with camera covers will increase
  • chapium 7y ago
    I doubt this is the case.
  • johnnycab 7y ago
    Once such compromise is PilferShush Jammer for Android/Windows. There might be a similar iOS version, but I haven't found one yet. Android. Also on Play Store. https://github.com/kaputnikGo/PilferShushJammer https://github.com/kaputnikGo/PilferShushJammer Windows 10 app. https://appforwin10.com/pilfershush-jammer-app-for-windows-10.html https://appforwin10.com/pilfershush-jammer-app-for-windows-1...
  • Shorel 7y ago
    Actually, I have not though about this before, but now I want it. It totally makes sense, and in the modern world too many people put covers on their cams for this not to be considered a valuable feature. There used to be such flip switches for Wi-Fi, so it is not too far-fetched.
• marcinzm 7y ago
  Based on the linked page this functionality is separate from the security chip and a compromise of the security chip cannot disable it.
• fsflover 7y ago
  Then you should consider Purism Librem laptops and phone.
• qubex 7y ago
  I can understand your preference, but the prevailing aesthetic seems to be going in the direction of completely removing physical controls. To be perfectly frank, seeing earlier-than-current iPads and iPhones with physical home buttons strikes me as kind of quaint. I greatly prefer the entirely software-defined interface of the latest devices. I suppose I can trace that preference all the way back to being fascinated with the Star Trek: The Next Generation LCARS (Library Computer Access & Retrieval System), which (to quote the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual written by Mike Okuda and Rick Sternbach from teenage memory) was “expressly designed to suggest a highly simplified manner of managing vastly complicated processes” or some such. If you really want to be sure it isn’t listening to you you can turn it off and/or leave it in another room.
• derefr 7y ago
  Perhaps Apple aren’t doing this so much for you-the-individual-consumer, as for government buyers who don’t want devices that might, if root-kitted by some foreign government, become listening devices even when nominally “off.” Hardware interlocks like this ensure that, at least, the device can only be recording audio while in use, while making it evident by their physical state (lid closed), even from across the room, that they can now no longer possibly be recording. That makes them more interesting to such buyers. (But if Apple cares about this market, wouldn’t you expect their laptops to have a lot more security features to appease these buyers? Not necessarily. This sort of thing is pretty much “enough”—governments are used to having signals intercepted by foreign intelligence, and so they have mitigations in place, like shutting off all electronic devices before having important conversations, or creating secure rooms known to not leak emissions, and then requiring that nobody bring anything electronic into them. For non-classified but “off-the-record” conversations, the ability to say that there’s no known hardware in the room actively recording the conversation is usually “good enough.”)
• PascLeRasc 7y ago
  A manual switch is still an attack vector, and I'd bet one of the lightswitches in your home has already been "compromised" where you have to wiggle it a bit to activate it.
  • reaperducer 7y ago
    A manual switch is still an attack vector So we should chuck all of our electronic devices into the bin in the name of security? Good security is sometimes better than perfect security.
  • darkarmani 7y ago
    > A manual switch is still an attack vector Like remote targeted attack would force the roomba to sneak up on someone and bump the switch on? Otherwise, i don't see how this is a remote attack.
• celeritascelery 7y ago
  My laptop actually has this switch for the camera. It slides a physical cover it behind the glass and tells the software it is disconnected. So even if the software was compromised it is physically unable to see anything. Wish there was an equivalent for the mic