5 ms·
It's not difficult, but it makes the system unflexible... Um. That would be exactly the point of doing it, in this case. The camera indicator (and the micropho
by Lagged2Death 13y ago
It's not difficult, but it makes the system unflexible...
Um. That would be exactly the point of doing it, in this case. The camera indicator (and the microphone indicator that every laptop should but currently does not have) should be completely inflexible.
What "flexibility" is added by having an indicator that only sort-of indicates, anyway?
- Moto7451 13y ago+1. Seems like, at worst, any sort of manufacturing inflexibility is solved the same way they usually deal with this stuff: A ribbon cable. Then you just have to worry about the physical security of the machine which is its own independent issue regardless. Personally, I assumed they did it this way since it seems obvious (that's what I do in my own electronics projects) and much simpler than using a microcontroller to do it. I forwarded this idea to concerned friends. Looks like I'm eating my own words.
- winstonx 13y agoI'm freaked out there's no microphone indicator.
- midas007 13y agoThere needs to be a LittleSnitch for I/O (camera, mic, USB, Thunderbolt, FireWire and Bluetooth)
- userbinator 13y ago"flexibility" is the same reason for why we have software designs that are many times more complex than necessary, an IMHO it's a line of reasoning that should be questioned more. As a compromise, the indicator could be wired-OR: software can turn on the indicator if it wants to, and it gets turned on if the camera is on, but software cannot turn it OFF if the camera is on.
- Arelius 13y agoAs a consumer, from a privacy standpoint I agree. But engineers and designers of the actual hardware don't tend to feel quite the same way.