6 ms·

I would love for Apple/Google to introduce some tech that would make it provable/verifiable that the camera/mic on the device can only be captured when the indi

by pyaamb 2y ago

I would love for Apple/Google to introduce some tech that would make it provable/verifiable that the camera/mic on the device can only be captured when the indicator is on and that it isn't possible for apps or even higher layers of OS to spoof this

herval 2y ago
That’s allegedly the case in iOS (not the provable part, but I wonder if anyone managed to disprove it yet?)
- pyaamb 2y ago
  I'm thinking perhaps a standardized open design circuit that can you can view by opening up back cover and zooming in with a microscope. feel like privacy tech like this that seemed wildly overkill for everyday users becomes necessary as the value of collecting data and profiling humans goes through the roof
  - sneak 2y ago
    The value of the data you willingly transmit (both to data brokers, as well as in terms of the harm that it could do to you) via the use of apps (that are upfront about their transmission of your private data) and websites is far, far greater than the audio stream from inside your house. If you don’t want your private information transmitted, worry about the things that are verifiably and obviously transmitting your private information instead of pointlessly fretting over things that are verifiably behaving as they claim. Do you have the Instagram or Facebook apps on your phone? Are you logged in to Google? These are much bigger threats to your privacy than a mic. The sum total of all of your Telegram, Discord, and iMessage DMs (all of which are effectively provided to the service provider without end to end encryption) is way more interesting than 86400 images of you sitting in front of your computer with your face scrunched up, or WAVs of you yelling at your kids. One you knowingly provide to the service provider. The other never leaves your house.
- Rebelgecko 2y ago
  It's annoying difficult to try and find an article about it, but IIRC there was a hack for the MacBook Pro's green camera LED where toggling the camera on and off super quickly would wouldn't give the LED time to light up
  - JakeStone 2y ago
    I didn't know that, but I'm glad I have my MacBook in clamshell mode with an external camera with a physical cover. I mean, I appreciated the little green light, but the fact that it seemed necessary indicates to me that humanity still needs some evolving.
- j5155 2y ago
  Definitely not. Neither Face ID nor the recently added “screen distance” feature in Screen Time use the camera indicator, and both use cameras (and lidar scanners) continuously
beachy 2y ago
Red nail polish would like a word
- pyaamb 2y ago
  I missed the reference. Red nail polish?
  - beachy 2y ago
    Used to paint over the indicator LED
krono 2y ago
Thinkpads come with that, an unspoofable indicator that will tell you with 100% certainty that your image is not being recorded or even recordable unless the physical operator of the machine allows it. Can't beat a physical cover if you really want to be sure!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jerbear4328 2y ago
  Now make a cover for the microphone :)
  - krono 2y ago
    Good point, I did conveniently gloss over that one didn't I! A switch to break the physical wire connection is about the only thing I can come up with out of hand right now. I believe the PinePhones come with physical switches for their antenna's so there's that.
  - j5155 2y ago
    Framework laptops have physical power switches for camera and microphone. The devices completely disappears from the OS when the switch is moved.
    - mananaysiempre 2y ago
      What feels like a self-inflicted issue though is that the switches are fail-open, not fail-closed. To allow for swappable bezels, the switches (on the plastic bezel) in fact just introduce obstructions in optocouplers (on the camera board screwed to the metal lid), which—I don’t know what they do due to Framework’s refusal to release the schematics, but I guess just cut the power line of the camera resp. the signal of the microphone using a couple of MOSFETs. The problem is, the camera and the microphone are live if the obstruction is absent and disconnected if it’s present, not the other way around. So all it takes a hypothetical evil maid to make the switches ineffective is to pick up the edge of the bezel with a nail (it’s not glued down, this being a Framework) and snip two teensy bits of plastic off to make the switches nonfunctional while feeling normal. This is not completely invisible, mind you—the camera light will still function, you’ll still see the camera in the device list if you look—and probably not very important. But I can’t help feeling that doing it the other way around would be better. I vaguely remember another vendor (HP?) selling laptops with a physical camera switch, but given the distance between the switch (on the side near the ports) and the camera (on the top of the display), I’m less than hopeful about it being a hardware one.
everforward 2y ago
You could probably add that if you were sufficiently motivated. Either by adding an LED on the power or data path, or by adding a physical switch. I think it should be fairly easy on laptops; I'm not sure where you'd jam the hardware in a phone or if you can access the cables for the camera/mic without messing with traces. I'm a little curious if iPhones could be modified to route the {mic,camera} {power,data} through the silent mode switch, either instead of or in addition to the current functionality. I don't really have a need for a physical silent mode toggle, I'm totally fine with doing that in the settings or control panel.

by pyaamb 2y ago

herval 2y ago

That’s allegedly the case in iOS (not the provable part, but I wonder if anyone managed to disprove it yet?)

pyaamb 2y ago
I'm thinking perhaps a standardized open design circuit that can you can view by opening up back cover and zooming in with a microscope. feel like privacy tech like this that seemed wildly overkill for everyday users becomes necessary as the value of collecting data and profiling humans goes through the roof
- sneak 2y ago
  The value of the data you willingly transmit (both to data brokers, as well as in terms of the harm that it could do to you) via the use of apps (that are upfront about their transmission of your private data) and websites is far, far greater than the audio stream from inside your house. If you don’t want your private information transmitted, worry about the things that are verifiably and obviously transmitting your private information instead of pointlessly fretting over things that are verifiably behaving as they claim. Do you have the Instagram or Facebook apps on your phone? Are you logged in to Google? These are much bigger threats to your privacy than a mic. The sum total of all of your Telegram, Discord, and iMessage DMs (all of which are effectively provided to the service provider without end to end encryption) is way more interesting than 86400 images of you sitting in front of your computer with your face scrunched up, or WAVs of you yelling at your kids. One you knowingly provide to the service provider. The other never leaves your house.
Rebelgecko 2y ago
It's annoying difficult to try and find an article about it, but IIRC there was a hack for the MacBook Pro's green camera LED where toggling the camera on and off super quickly would wouldn't give the LED time to light up
- JakeStone 2y ago
  I didn't know that, but I'm glad I have my MacBook in clamshell mode with an external camera with a physical cover. I mean, I appreciated the little green light, but the fact that it seemed necessary indicates to me that humanity still needs some evolving.
j5155 2y ago
Definitely not. Neither Face ID nor the recently added “screen distance” feature in Screen Time use the camera indicator, and both use cameras (and lidar scanners) continuously

beachy 2y ago

Red nail polish would like a word

pyaamb 2y ago
I missed the reference. Red nail polish?
- beachy 2y ago
  Used to paint over the indicator LED

krono 2y ago

Thinkpads come with that, an unspoofable indicator that will tell you with 100% certainty that your image is not being recorded or even recordable unless the physical operator of the machine allows it. Can't beat a physical cover if you really want to be sure!

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jerbear4328 2y ago
Now make a cover for the microphone :)
- krono 2y ago
  Good point, I did conveniently gloss over that one didn't I! A switch to break the physical wire connection is about the only thing I can come up with out of hand right now. I believe the PinePhones come with physical switches for their antenna's so there's that.
- j5155 2y ago
  Framework laptops have physical power switches for camera and microphone. The devices completely disappears from the OS when the switch is moved.
  - mananaysiempre 2y ago
    What feels like a self-inflicted issue though is that the switches are fail-open, not fail-closed. To allow for swappable bezels, the switches (on the plastic bezel) in fact just introduce obstructions in optocouplers (on the camera board screwed to the metal lid), which—I don’t know what they do due to Framework’s refusal to release the schematics, but I guess just cut the power line of the camera resp. the signal of the microphone using a couple of MOSFETs. The problem is, the camera and the microphone are live if the obstruction is absent and disconnected if it’s present, not the other way around. So all it takes a hypothetical evil maid to make the switches ineffective is to pick up the edge of the bezel with a nail (it’s not glued down, this being a Framework) and snip two teensy bits of plastic off to make the switches nonfunctional while feeling normal. This is not completely invisible, mind you—the camera light will still function, you’ll still see the camera in the device list if you look—and probably not very important. But I can’t help feeling that doing it the other way around would be better. I vaguely remember another vendor (HP?) selling laptops with a physical camera switch, but given the distance between the switch (on the side near the ports) and the camera (on the top of the display), I’m less than hopeful about it being a hardware one.

everforward 2y ago

You could probably add that if you were sufficiently motivated. Either by adding an LED on the power or data path, or by adding a physical switch. I think it should be fairly easy on laptops; I'm not sure where you'd jam the hardware in a phone or if you can access the cables for the camera/mic without messing with traces. I'm a little curious if iPhones could be modified to route the {mic,camera} {power,data} through the silent mode switch, either instead of or in addition to the current functionality. I don't really have a need for a physical silent mode toggle, I'm totally fine with doing that in the settings or control panel.