Not really, unless you exchange top secrets on Skype or undress or something. You knkw when your microphone and camera are attached and cam act appropriately.

If some cute female twentysomething FBI agent wants to see that weird face I make when the laptop buzzes too loudly, I don't really care. There are worse things to be concerned with in life from an information security perspective than a picture of your face, and I figure for the truly dedicated a good game of OSINT mining could yield much more in the results category.

So in short, no.

I think the reason why the likes of *spits*Zuckerberg cover the camera is because they may have trade secrets on display or, possibly, a picture of them "in a compromising position" could cost them money.
Personally, I don't have anything remotely worth any money and I'm a middle-aged, slightly gone to fat, average, "bloke". There's no money to be made from any pictures of me and, within reason, exposed pictures on the internet wouldn't make much difference to me. (My ex manager and her sister " starred in a porn movie" together and that didn't affect their careers at all, the sister still works in the same place)
I block my camera so if I accidentally hit video-call when I'm naked my friends don'lt get to see just how bad my lifestyle is for my body.
I think built-in webcams should be distrusted because you do not know when they are on. With a laptop from work, or whatever, you don't even have control of that. Not an issue for me, but could be for others.

No way 273, its because he and others understand why it was created and what its true purpose is. Similar to why Steve Jobs did not permit iPhones/iPads in the house and the kids were only allowed to use the computer in the living room, computers were not allowed in bedrooms and the router had time restrictions etc... Bill Gates did a similar thing with his kids. In other words, they understand the dangers of the devices because they created them.

Ref: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a8017136.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/f...ch-parent.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/here...l-media-2017-3

Great article, very interesting.

Since we know that GCHQ was caught watching American cameras a few years ago, I thought that it's best to cover them just to give them the finger.

It might not be possible to cover cameras in the future-- two manufacturers are working on phones with the camera behind the screen.

I also think encouraging/endorsing 1984 is a dealbreaker for me. We know there are programs that activate cameras used by spy agencies. If they want to bug my home, they can do it themselves. I'm not going to do it for them. Same goes for the Amazon speakerbugs. And yes, my mic is covered (I disconnected it.) If they want to listen to me they will, but I'm not bugging myself to help them.

I gather it's common for webcam lights to be controlled by software rather than slaved to some part of the camera, so the light is no more reliable than whoever is controlling its driver. I remember a report years back about a lass who learned that the hard way.

As for me, most of my cameras and mics are covered when not in use as a matter of course. I agree that a good user-controlled OS massively reduces any risk, but post-its and tape are cheap and easy to use.

Incidentally, it's worth reading the terms and conditions of any commercial software you use. I have a (non-rooted) 'phone with a pretty good GNSS receiver but usually keep that feature turned off because the manufacturer requires access to location data whenever it's on. It might not be a huge security risk but my considered opinion is that my daily movements are none of Samsung's dang business.

Amen.

I only had time to read one article but if the gist is they raised their kids tech free fro some reason it's both irrelevant to cameras and worthy of a seperate thread.

No.


Motorcycle shop cam is always on. Pretty boring stuff for anyone watching with short bursts of crazy stuff.

Laptops?

No.

I sit nakkid sometimes. " Pity the fool "

If you take the time to read them then you will see why I said: "its because he and others understand why it was created and what its true purpose is. Similar to why Steve Jobs did not permit iPhones/iPads in the house and the kids were only allowed to use the computer in the living room, computers were not allowed in bedrooms and the router had time restrictions etc... Bill Gates did a similar thing with his kids. In other words, they understand the dangers of the devices because they created them."

Those devices are mainly for spy purposes. Imagine 10 years ago being told that one day you will carry a device in your pocket that sees, listens to and records all of your actions and locations of those actions. That you will store your information on systems (cloud) that gives agencies easier access to all of your private data, that you will have cameras in your home in the name of security and microphones in your home in the name of entertainment and convenience. Oh, almost forgot one, that you will allow Amazon to have access to your home or garage to deliver your packages.

Yup, nothing nefarious about any of that, nothing to see hear (pun intended). Three letter agencies and private detectives used to work hard and spend alot of resources collecting data on people, now people willfully volunteer that information for "free". Windows and i(eye)devices have those names because they were designed to allow certain people/agencies to see what you're doing. Otherwise Microsoft could have chosen The Great Wall OS, or Apple could have used pPhone for privacy, etc.... Nope, the names reveal the intentions.

roky? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbtxLMW0qfc

Although sometimes videos like this are interesting:
AMSTERDAM��LIVE 24/7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M8u4jaCCJs

Spectacular View of Grand Canal - Live view from Hotel San Cassiano
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjCmsRjxVL0

I'm busted. But. My voice was dubbed. I don't scream like a afeared little girl.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0w5oGVwJ_Q

Everything you just posted is irrelevant to this thread.
This thread is about covering cameras and the reasons to do that. Most of us have no reason to do it other than, as I suggested, accidentally answering video calls from friends whilst naked, and similar. Well, OK, any attractive members or those with children would probably be worried about naked video and the list for that goes on.

Your point aout modern equipment, social media and the like I don't dismiss -- I just think they deserve a thread of their own to discuss as they don't have much to do with covering the camera on my Debian laptop, for example.

Sorry to contradict you but I disagree. Cameras and microphones can be and are accessed without user knowledge, so it is relevant to the thread and part of the reason I asked the question. If you think the only motivation for taping over a camera is to not accidentally answer a video call while naked, you have to take your head out of the sand.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rophone-spying

What is the third word in that headline? What is the sixth word in this thread title?
The interesting diversion made by ChuangTzu does not, in my opinion, have any bearing upon those of us using Linux on laptops. Or do you know something about Linux distros that suggests this is an issue?