4 ms·
I think the third point is especially strong argument for having the cover. It gives you a second physical layer of security rather than possibly a button you m
by harha 6y ago
I think the third point is especially strong argument for having the cover. It gives you a second physical layer of security rather than possibly a button you might automatically click away and it gives you the opportunity to join the call first and then decide to actually share (e.g. if the setting is more formal than expected or if the other side isn’t sharing).
Relying on the light going on after the fact is a much weaker protection, the user may have opted in to always letting an app use a camera and between the 15 or so UIs that the conference apps have the user might miss that it actually turns the camera on unless the button is clicked.
Now if apple were to release an os Level protection that automatically pulls up a screen showing what is shared from the view of the camera and asks for that approval, that would improve this situation.
- saagarjha 6y ago> Now if apple were to release an os Level protection that automatically pulls up a screen showing what is shared from the view of the camera and asks for that approval, that would improve this situation. That doesn’t help for the attack that many people are using here, which is if the software on your machine is compromised.
- harha 6y agoI didn’t refer to that concern, that’s a different discussion - in a corporate setting the policies might help avoid that by limiting what can be installed. where they don’t help is accidentally activating the camera and only realizing afterwards. That’s a UX issue with so many different video conference technologies that all behave slightly differently.
- saagarjha 6y agoYes, I think that’s a legitimate concern. I can’t say I haven’t started videoconferencing software with a thumb over the camera ;)