You could even just use band-aids. The cotton section would protect the lens from the adhesive. You could probably even commission a run of them with some sort of branding printed on the back.
edit: Not sure why this is getting downvoted. The price difference is unlikely to have much to do with the physical costs involved. Political campaign stores typically have inflated prices as they're fundraising efforts.
Nope, this has been around for a while. It's not an original idea, but it isn't meant to be. He didn't "steal" it anymore than he stole campaign yard signs or promotional pens.
If anyone is exploiting my system, microphone would be my top priority. Getting image doesn't really tell as much as listening to what, how and when you talk.
It establishes that you were there at a particular time. A jury or secret tribunal would probably believe a picture that they can see for themselves easier than an expert's voice print testimony.
You have an array of microphones in your phone alone, not to mention the speakers, which are just low-fi mics. But in any case, you can do it with one microphone.
That first technique A) is very audibly noticeable B) requires you to put the laptop on a chair and wheel it around the room to make up for the fact that you only have a single microphone.
The second technique basically only understands gestures.
I wouldn't be at all worried about this in the wild...
You can produce a depth map from a single lens camera by manipulating the flash across multiple captured images. Similar results could be achieved with a single microphone if the device also has speakers capable of producing sound at certain frequencies.
Varies from model to model, but on my 15" Retina MBP, it's tucked in under the left speaker grille, near the Tab key. Pull up some software that shows you a live mic level (e.g. System Preferences -> Sound -> Input tab), and rub your finger gently over the grille, and you can usually tell roughly where it is by the spike in input volume.
If you're wondering about blocking it off, though, that's much harder than the camera. You'd basically have to open the laptop and unsolder the mic capsule -- or mount a little white noise generator right over the mic, but then you can't close your laptop. :-)
The website is also using Google Analytics without disclosing this in their privacy policy, which violates Google Analytics' TOS[0] and is a pet peeve of mine. Hard to take the site too seriously but I like that privacy is a campaign issue, so it isn't all bad news.
"You must post a Privacy Policy and that Privacy Policy must provide notice of Your use of cookies that are used to collect data. You must disclose the use of Google Analytics, and how it collects and processes data."
I'm OK with a bit of fear mongering if it means that warrantless spying actually becomes an election issue. These tactics have been used to go to war and substantially reduce individual rights; at least this is a cause I can somewhat get behind.
In this case, "the means" are raising awareness to documented fact (that the NSA spies on its own citizens). If that causes fear, then so be it. It should cause fear, because it's scary. People should care about what their government does, and fear is one emotion that leads to caring.
If history has shown anything, it's that the American electorate doesn't get invested in purely intellectual debate. They need some skin in the game.
When those means are merely exercising free speech rights it really isn't a case of ends justifying the means because there's no need to justify.
Free speech doesn't require justification. Plus they're using those free speech rights to keep people ware of a real crime that is being committed and real rights that are being violated.
When I was in a grad school I remember a professor who bought an SGI machine without enough RAM so he couldn't do work with it but he left it plugged into the wall outlet and ethernet for 5 years or so and didn't even know the root password when it got hacked.
Those machines came with a camera that had a little door you could slide to cover it, so at least he had that protection.
Those machines came with a camera that had a little door you could slide to cover it, so at least he had that protection.
Yes. Here's one in the closed position.[1] That feature seems to have disappeared.
There was a time when people were bothered about phones where the switchhook didn't physically disconnect the microphone. All the Western Electric phones had a hard disconnect when the phones were hung up. Many digital office phones don't have that, and can be used for eavesdropping.
Nice idea but I wish more manufacturers had something like this built into their laptops. An old ASUS of mine came with a sliding piece of plastic that you could use to cover the webcam[1] when not in use.
Would this not just stop you from closing your laptop lid? I have a piece of tape over my laptop's webcam and that doesn't impinge on much (and actually has a useful purpose since I've been able to avoid the dreaded video interview when applying for jobs).
While I'm sure there are other projects at NSA and GCHQ that actually break into targets and records without user knowledge, the Optic Nerve project was meant to simply grab unencrypted video stream data from Yahoo Messenger from people willfully recording themselves while "tapping" parts of the Internet.
Yahoo only decided to provide the option to enable encryption sometime in 2014 after they found about it and it's pretty shameful on their part.
There's mention of MS too with Kinect but I'm not sure if it was sending out encrypted video or simply using weak encryption.
Believe it or not.... This is actually a GREAT business idea. Just him being a politician, and having access to that ultra targeted customer base. Not that this product is actually useful or anything.
Without having looked at any wiring schematics for the iSight module... does anyone know if it's even possible to apply power to the iSight hardware module, without the LED becoming illuminated?
I would presume the LED is wired directly to the module's power. Then, it would be physically impossible to turn on the camera, without the LED becoming illuminated. (And, in my opinion, obviate much of the need for these silly stickers.)
It would also be an odd design for Apple to make the camera's LED indicator an independently controllable component.
Well, not exactly. At one point you were able to, but the flaw has been fixed for over 5 years now. It affected cameras on some Macs sold between 2006 and 2009 I believe.
This is a testament to how helpless the average person is when it comes to using, much less understanding, modern computer technology. It is the equivalent of "duct tape and WD-40" to repair a broken down vehicle.
As a software developer I'm regularly ashamed by the inaccessibility of computer technology. The non-technical individual's inability to control what happens to them and around them in regards to electronics and software is rapidly outstripping their capacity to act in their own self interest.
I think the low-tech solution is the correct one in this case. If one wants to be sure their camera is not recording them they can a) audit the entire source code of their OS and relevant applications (including the complete chain of compilers that have ever been used to compile compilers for their device all the way back to the very first one), device firmware, and inspect the circuit layout of all integrated circuit devices in their computer to look for backdoors or b) they can put something in front of the lens.
I agree that this is a pretty regrettable state of affairs that we basically can't trust anything with a turing-complete processor in it somewhere.
For this specific case I'd argue that a switch which severs the power from both the camera and the mic simultaneously is the right solution. A physical sheath could also cover the camera for peace of mind. As others have pointed out the mic is probably the more dangerous of the two.
As a software developer, I know enough to realize that this is in fact the only solution for this particular problem.
Apple and others have decided they will happily save 1 millionth of a cent for a proper hardware solution and instead relegated camera LED indicator control to software. And obviously, it is impossible to prove that software will not activate the camera without also activating the LED.
True, duct tape would work, but you can never be 100% sure whether the device is being used without disconnecting the cables, which is difficult for some laptops and displays.
