Slashdot Mirror
Portables Without Cameras?
crankyspice writes "I work routinely in environments where a camera cannot physically be present (e.g., federal court), which really limits what I can carry with me. For instance, I'm a Mac guy, but there's no way to order a MacBook without a built-in webcam (which I've never used on the machines I've owned that have had one). Ditto the iPhone. I'm left with a BlackBerry 8830 and the bottom rung of the [W|L]Intel portables. Even then, when I ordered a Dell Mini 9, I had to wait more than a month because I specified no webcam when I placed the order. This is a relatively common (government, law, sensitive corporate environments) requirement; what have other Slashdotters done? Disabling the camera with a script or somesuch won't convince the $12/hour security guard that there's no camera. How can one easily find portable devices without a built-in camera?"
I've just cruised through this list of netbooks over at Amazon. It returned just over 5,000 results and I can't find one without a camera. I'll keep looking but this leads me to believe that you may just need to look at a regular laptop. And the wait is probably going to exist otherwise because you are obviously looking for something that is just outside the norm for these.
This discussion from last September didn't turn up anything, except the Mini 9 - which you already mention. Though they do bring up one option that I think is the best bet; to open up the case, yank the camera and fill in the spot where it went. It can't be that hard. If some guy can fit an LCD behind the apple logo - you can get the camera out.
The phone issue I find being brought up going back to 2005 and it's probably older - this seemed to offer hope and mentions a few models but it's old and I'm not sure how stuff would have carried forward. Most stuff I find mentions Blackberry which you already have. So my guess is that there is no treasure trove of camera free devices that you have missed. You are just in a tough spot.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
The answer is simple. Break the camera device. It won't break your computer or portable. . it will break the camera.
Make it so it is obvious when you point it out.
what the 20$/hour techy doesnt get is that the 12$/hour guard knows that a camera that is switched off, can easily be switched back on.
Many high security establishments, both government and commercial, realize that they can't stop technology without serious concessions. What some do are to put a special tamper-proof tag over the camera. Then they just inspect the tag when you exit and, if tampered, confiscate the device until it can be validated.
What good would confiscating the device after the fact do? If these are really "high security" establishments as you say, wouldn't they be concerned that you might "tamper" with the tag, use the camera to photograph or record video of sensitive materials or discussions, then encrypt and transmit said photos or videos to a far-off website, all before leaving the establishment? Confiscating the device at that point would be like closing the barn door after the horses escaped.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
> Disabling the camera with a script or somesuch won't convince the $12/hour security guard that there's no camera.
It also would not convince me.
A friend of mine had his P38 (old military style) can opener taken off his keychain in the Bucks County Courthouse (PA)
A P38 can opener, for those of you who don't know, is quite possibly the least expensive can-opener possible. It could be accurately be described as a "hinged razor-blade."
It's really no surprise at all that the security guard wouldn't let that pass. Especially as they're made of stamped aluminum and probably worth about .10 cents each.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Or paint, or plastic, or whatever.
Do you really think the guys he works with are so stupid that somebody won't eventually say "hey, is that covering up a camera?" then peel it back and discover the camera there? And then the guy in question will get fired and probably face legal charges for knowingly bringing a functional camera into the place.
You're best off just getting something without a camera, really. If you absolutely have to get a device with a camera, find a technician who will physically remove the device for you. The feds do not appreciate people who think they can half-ass security measures and get away with it.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
This isn't about outwitting security. That's the easy part. The real problem is if you get caught in a high security facility with a camera, it's your job and probably worse. If you add to that the fact that you were actively trying to hide it (with "automotive class trim") you might be accused of espionage.
John
The main thing wrong with having a low end device is that you end up needing two devices. One for use in the camless environment, and one for your normal work--when the latter would function just fine for everything if it didn't have the camera.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
Places that need really good security tend to have it provided by Marines. ;)
The government can't save you.
As for the cameras issue. That is legit. Not only do courts sometimes deal with cases where identities must be protected (I.e. It's bad enough little Sandy has to testify against her Daddy for molesting her, but putting her picture on the net would make it a whole lot worse) but there are other "institutions" that have vested interest in being photograph free. I.e. Many titty Bars ban Cams to protect the day jobs and church membership of part time strippers as well as the Senate seat of tonight's #1 tipper.
The ability to effectively enforce a ban on cameras is something that's only possible for the current relative sliver of history. What are those organizations going to do when technology allows virtually anyone to covertly record what they see through their eyes (organic or cybernetic)? They should start thinking about that now, because in the not-too-distant future they will have no choice but to allow it.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
One would think. I used to work at a major defense contractor that dealt with nuclear materials. There was a five foot high fence around the facility and I knew people who had jumped it (without triggering a security alert) when they had forgotten their badges. Oh, and cars used to get stolen out of the "secure" parking lot on a regular basis.
Is that in the top hundred by actual attacks committed, or just estimated by some politician to be worthy of using to scare people. Do you know how many terrorist attacks there have been on US soil between 1961 and 2003 ?
7
And several of those were cases of one man with a mission, which we normally call "criminals" not terrorists. So explain the top 100 terrorist targets please. You have way more attacks in schools than you do terrorist incidents.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school-related_attacks
How dare they leave off those attacks from 1952 and 1954 from their list of terrorist attacks from 1961-2003! Conspiracy!!