4 ms·
So you have to perpetually watch out for the LED indicator to see if it ever randomly turns on for 3 seconds? And what if it does come up unexpectedly? At this
by dasudasu 6y ago
So you have to perpetually watch out for the LED indicator to see if it ever randomly turns on for 3 seconds? And what if it does come up unexpectedly? At this point it's too late and you've already been captured. A mechanical cover that can slide on and off the camera seems like much better security.
- valuearb 6y agoExcept that people will forget to use them
- mthoms 6y agoYou don't "have to" do anything. The point is that the hardware has been designed properly. Combined with the OS-level permissions, it should be assurance enough for the majority of use cases. If you need further assurances, then by all means, use a physical cover.
- dasudasu 6y agoThe claim was that single-frame grab attempts are prevented by an indicator that stays on for 3 seconds. First, you do have to be alert for all of these potential 3 seconds windows, and second, it doesn't prevent anything but only tell you that it has already happened.
- saagarjha 6y agoNo, it wasn't. The claim was whether it was implemented correctly, as the entire conversation started with examples where it was not implemented correctly.
- smsm42 6y agoProperly designed hardware would add one small - and in every way possible, since we've already identified the circuit that drives the single power source - addition. A physical switch that prevents camera from being turned on. Same for the microphone. Unfortunately, this is never done. So people put covers on.