Slashdot Mirror


The FBI Director Puts Tape Over His Webcam (npr.org)

Martin Kaste, reporting for NPR: FBI Director James Comey gave a speech this week about encryption and privacy, repeating his argument that "absolute privacy" hampers law enforcement. But it was an offhand remark during the Q&A session at Kenyon College that caught the attention of privacy activists. Kaste points to a tweet by The Kenyon Collegian, "Comey admits he puts a piece of tape over the webcam lens on his laptop." The thought of the FBI chief taping over his webcam is an arresting one for many. His comment Wednesday was in response to a question about growing public awareness of the ways technology can spy on people, and he acknowledged sharing in the surveillance anxiety. "I saw something in the news, so I copied it. I put a piece of tape -- I have obviously a laptop, personal laptop -- I put a piece of tape over the camera. Because I saw somebody smarter than I am had a piece of tape over their camera." Not everyone is a fan. Security and privacy activist Christopher Soghoian said, "FBI Director Comey has created a "warrant-proof webcam" that will thwart lawful surveillance should he ever be investigated. Shame on him."

202 comments

  1. Must have something to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only people who would object to such surveillance are those who have something to hide.

    1. Re:Must have something to hide by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just because you aren't doing something wrong doesn't mean you don't have something to hide.

      Example, many companies prohibit cameras and devices with cameras (phones, tablets, laptops, etc) in their offices and other facilities, This is to help protect their intellectual property from being seen by the competition.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    2. Re:Must have something to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh...

    3. Re: Must have something to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!!!!

    4. Re:Must have something to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course we have something to hide. You do too. Do you not understand the meaning of the word "privacy"?

    5. Re: Must have something to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he forgot to use sarcasm tag

    6. Re:Must have something to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh.

    7. Re: Must have something to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snap. I claim both these comments.

    8. Re: Must have something to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You expected someone to not see it as a joke, seeing that people say that all the time with a straight face, and there were no hints that it was a joke? What an idiot... hahahahahaha

    9. Re:Must have something to hide by shubus · · Score: 1

      Very few people will agree with that argument. Anyway, I too have a piece of tape over my webcam.

    10. Re:Must have something to hide by flyingfsck · · Score: 2

      So both the FBI director and the PM of the UK are now worried about privacy?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    11. Re:Must have something to hide by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Meanwhile the CIA directory was wide open to the press, or maybe she was wide open to him.

      At that level if they spill secrets they are above the law - so much for Magna Carta and all the rest. Manning rots in jail for the same crime that Petraeus committed.

    12. Re:Must have something to hide by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Well, you're one penguin who just got Whoooooshed.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    13. Re: Must have something to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poe says hi.

    14. Re:Must have something to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FBI Director James Comey is obviously a criminal and terrorist. It's the only possible explanation.

      According to the Thoughtcrime Legislation of 2021 (helpfully requested by the FBI), merely disabling the Patriotic Crime Prevention & Detection devices is a felony. He'll rot in jail, just desserts.

      It goes to show that the enemy is within and without. Perhaps we should have some kind of Hearings, where upstanding citizens can air the information they have on their neighbors. And examples of the enemy can be held up to scrutiny and ridiculed by all right thinking persons. We could call it the Committee on UnAmerican Activities or something like that...

    15. Re:Must have something to hide by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Unethical people http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1118373109

    16. Re: Must have something to hide by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      seeing that people say that all the time with a straight face, and there were no hints that it was a joke?

      No hints other than this being the guy who probably says it the most and the boss of most of the other people who say it. If in doubt, assume sarcasm.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    17. Re:Must have something to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every woman with a laptop that works from home puts a torn piece of a post-it note or tapes a piece of paper over the camera. They fear they are being recorded while they work naked.

    18. Re:Must have something to hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realise that the Magna Carta was about establishing the rights of the 1% to have protections from and rights over the Monarch?

    19. Re:Must have something to hide by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes. Hence "and all the rest".

  2. Shame on him, indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'll bet he also locks his doors, doesn't write his passwords on sticky notes, and doesn't believe the Nigerian "Princes".

    Tempest, teapot.

  3. Tape is messy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems to me that in the beginning, webcams in laptops had little sliding covers on them.

    1. Re:Tape is messy by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That was before people started broadcasting their boring life 24/7.

    2. Re:Tape is messy by geek111 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself – anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality"

        - George Orwell, 1984

      Sounds like Orwell's "facecrime" is dangerously close to becoming a real thing.

    3. Re:Tape is messy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      related news story:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/americas/neuropolitics-where-campaigns-try-to-read-your-mind.html?_r=0

    4. Re:Tape is messy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long until is mandatory to chip every newborn
      or worst
      how long until we have wetware radios capable of sending your brain signals to server farms capable of interpreting and/or analysing dangerous thoughts?

  4. I thought most intelligent people did that by ChodaBoyUSA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I believe manufacturers should add a mechanical switch that disables camera and microphone that cannot be overridden via software.

    1. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      That would probably add 25 cents of cost to a $500 device.

      But yes, yes they should.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can make sure the LED doesn't turn on and that the camera/microphone is "disabled".. until a specific set of commands is received via the firmware.

      You need to trust the manufacturer before you can trust their off switch.

    3. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anpatt7 · · Score: 1

      I also would like that. Of course, that would be something other than thinner or faster, so...

      --
      If we start ignoring all of our constitutional rights because of terrorism, then what are we fighting for at that point?
    4. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Max_W · · Score: 2

      Not a switch, please. A light plastic manual shutter, a blind, both for the camera and microphone. So that I can physically close it and unequivocally see that it is closed.

      Electronics can be hacked, but not physics.

      However, it seems that physically closing camera is in the same league as a strong encryption. I never saw it on any device, and I am sure it will remain this way.

    5. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That would probably add 25 cents of cost to a $500 device.

      It would cost far more than that just to handle all the tech support calls from people complaining that their cameras and microphones don't work.

      But yes, yes they should.

      No, they shouldn't. I trust black tape far more than I trust a mechanical switch that someone else installed.

    6. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2

      They can make sure the LED doesn't turn on and that the camera/microphone is "disabled".. until a specific set of commands is received via the firmware.

      You need to trust the manufacturer before you can trust their off switch.

      That's why a mechanical switch is required or else it's a completely useless exercise. You can verify that the circuit is interrupted, and there's nothing software can do to circumvent this. No trust is required.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    7. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't add the physical shutter/switch because these cameras were designed to be backdoored... to be able to spy on you and leave no evidence.

    8. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      I have a Dell all-in-one desktop at work that has a manual camera shutter. Wish that were standard.

      Same goes for microphone, wifi, and USB read-only sticks.

    9. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The driver should just show the information in the captured image: "To use the camera, move the protective slider which covers the camera at the top of the screen." Likewise for the microphone: Loop a sample explaining that the microphone is turned off.

    10. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      That's why a mechanical switch is required or else it's a completely useless exercise. You can verify that the circuit is interrupted

      Only if you open the case and use a multimeter.

      and there's nothing software can do to circumvent this.

      Yes there is, if the hardware designer is motivated to snoop on you. A trivial example would be a double-pole switch, with the "off" pole selecting firmware-accessible circuitry. What you can verify, without disassembling the BIOS, is an opaque object.

    11. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I trust black tape far more than I trust a mechanical switch that someone else installed.

      Same here - but occasionally it's a problem. The black tape doesn't visibly stand out against the black bezel on my laptop, so it's easy to forget the tape is there on those two or three times a year I need to use the darn thing...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    12. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually owned a laptop like that. The camera had a little black plastic slide switch that would cover the lens, mechanically. It wasn't really a matter of trusting the mfg, because unless they'd made some secret kind of plastic that looked black to the human eye but was transparent to the camera, it seemed pretty much as good as the classic solution of electrical tape.

    13. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Zeroko · · Score: 2

      The surface has to be opaque to all frequencies the camera can sense, not just those the user can see. Many cheap webcams can sense near-infrared (try pointing a TV remote at one & pushing a button), & there are black paints & plastics that are IR-transparent. Some webcams are also probably UV-sensitive to varying degrees. Normally, manufacturers try to avoid the IR response because it can make well-lit pictures look slightly off, but a particularly nefarious manufacturer could make an IR-transparent black slide that disables the camera's IR filter when engaged (& activates a firmware mode to report a black image to unauthenticated software).

    14. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by bdeclerc · · Score: 1

      That wouldn't actually be that difficult - most digital sensors are somewhat sensitive in the infrared, so with the right kind of plastic, they could set it up so it looks black and closed to the user, but the sensor can still easily see something through it.

    15. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      It used to be that WiFi and Bluetooth came with mechanical switches on the laptop.

      I love mechanical switches - sure, they wear out and are a pain to replace, but unless you have teleporting electrons, they kill the attached devices.

      They should make a comeback.

    16. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Livius · · Score: 1

      Because I saw somebody smarter than I am

      Comey is acknowledging that *everyone* is smarter than him.

      I found his honesty refreshing.

    17. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by bbelt16ag · · Score: 1

      but then what would they do with all the data they collect on you? how would they know you bought that awesome new Bra and the new cup from amazon? Don't you want them to over hear your conversation with your wife about back pain? Doesn't the sheriff deserve to know how fast you are going on the freeway? the reality is privacy is dyhing, you need to deal with it when they start black bagging people out of the their homes and shipping them off it will already be too late.

      --
      NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
    18. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've just described an IR pass-through filter, used in millions of television remote controls...

      Something like this, I think, that took all of 20s of web searching to find.

    19. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      If a hardware designer is that motivated to snoop on you, then they probably wouldn't bother installing a fake physical kill switch. After all, the current status quo is no hardware switch at all. Do you seriously imagine that they're going to add a hardware kill switch, but then secretly add a method for software to bypass it? It really doesn't make a lot of sense.

      For me, I'm more concerned about the actual, documented cases of spy software, malware, or simply badly designed systems used to snoop on people surreptitiously. I'm pretty sure a simple on/off switch would work wonders in these cases. And hey, if you don't trust the switch, there's always the old "piece of tape over the camera" fallback.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    20. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      Also, what if you buy a device with a faulty switch? I think it needs another light to indicate the switch is off.

    21. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      mechanical shutter/slide for the camera, hardware disconnect for the microphone.

    22. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      My wifi switch already has this as long as wifi is on light is lit flip the switch light goes off wifi quits working.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    23. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the night vision 'scope I have around somewhere. I was checking it out one night and thought the image, though reasonably clear, was somewhat dimmer than usual. Then I realized I'd left the plastic lens cap on.

      Hmmm....

      Metal lens caps FTW.

      --
      -- Alastair
    24. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's okay. When you do your test of your webcam, you'll find that that it isn't working. You should then use your troubleshooting skills to look at the camera lens and discover that you cannot see it at all - it is being covered by some tape!

    25. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Do you seriously imagine that they're going to add a hardware kill switch, but then secretly add a method for software to bypass it?

      Sure: if it has a switch, it may con the customer out of going the tape route.

    26. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by emacs_abuser · · Score: 2

      Everyone knows, you peel off one of the dozens of stickers that the vendor installed, then you place it over the camera.

    27. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That's how you know if your remote has died. If you change the batteries and it's still not working then you point it at your cell phone's camera and check and see if the IR is detected. It has come in handy several times.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    28. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. The camera is ok - tape is cheap - but the mic is hard to fix. Big chunk of foam? Cotton wool?

    29. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      You could use duct tape or aluminum tape. Or don't get a black laptop.

    30. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Hmm, so I'll just put the switch on the LED.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    31. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Metal lens cap - pin-hole camera - just looks like a metal lens cap.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    32. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      So, I'll just put the real spy camera next to the shutter and your dummy camera, underneath the translucent plastic bezel.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    33. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      The little sliding cover is like the dummy pedestrian switches on traffic lights - it keeps you happy. The sliding cover is translucent. It just looks black to you, not to the camera.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    34. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except that these 'physical' rfkill switches were usually software controlled, depending on the device in question to varying degrees - but they weren't really dumb switches the way you might think they are.

    35. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by antdude · · Score: 1

      How will that work for microphone? Close the hole? Would it really block all audio input?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    36. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I love mechanical switches - sure, they wear out and are a pain to replace, but unless you have teleporting electrons, they kill the attached devices.

      Except those switches for WiFi just send a signal to the WiFi card. That's it. It's up to the WiFi card to actually do something with that signal. The mini PCIe slot has a line for that switch - the switch just brings the line high or low and it's up to the card and firmware/driver to actually do something with it.

    37. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had an old EEEPC that had not only a mechanical switch to disable the camera, but the mechanical switch also controlled a blinder that slid over the camera lens. I have been begging for this feature to come back.

    38. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by twms2h · · Score: 1

      And you would trust that switch?

      I wouldn't.

    39. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can always rmmod the camera and microphone drivers from Linux. I've got that by default because the drivers don't exist yet for my laptop.

    40. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should be pretty easy to test, if true. If I had any devices with a shutter I'd test it, as I don't do you have any sources to back up your claim?

      As to the switches on traffic lights, that depends on how they are configured. Some have a specific pedestrian crossing phase that will only come on if the button has been pressed, there are some pedestrian crossings, ones whose only purpose is to stop traffic so pedestrians can cross, which change the instant you press the button (if it hasn't already been active too recently). And yes, there are some where it really doesn't have an effect. For the record I live in London, my experiences with these crossings are almost exclusively from ones in the UK, and obviously may not apply to other countries.

    41. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it actually possible to make a pin-hole camera with a pin hole that is invisible to the naked eye?

    42. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      25 cents multiplied by a million units is still a significant value.

      SCOPE.

    43. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Yeap, I've experienced a Linux laptop that didn't care one bit about that switch. Wifi worked either way. Is more of a curiosity as I pretty much leave that switch set ON at all times. I like the idea of a blinder that physically moves in front of the camera, but it'll probably add .1 mm to the thickness and that makes it a total no-go nowadays.

    44. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use a band-aid instead to keep glue from getting on the lens.

    45. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "I like the idea of a blinder that physically moves in front of the camera, but it'll probably add .1 mm to the thickness and that makes it a total no-go nowadays."

      A decade ago, Logitech (among others) sold webcams with flip-down privacy covers. They flopped because noone bought them.

      A decade ago, several laptop makers sold models with sliding covers on their webcams. They flopped because noone bought them.

      Perhaps these ideas might return.

    46. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      My wifi switch already has this as long as wifi is on light is lit flip the switch light goes off wifi quits working.

      Is there anything to let you know if the light stops working?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    47. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Well the light wouldn't be on when I switched the wifi on.

      But I suppose its not really the same as wifi is on 99% of the time so it would be more noticeable if its light didn't work than it would if the light on one of the built in webcams on one of my laptops didn't work as I don't remember checking to see if the webcams themselves even work.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    48. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You mean like all those tech support calls about wifi not working that are troubleshot down to the switch being turned off?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    49. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You mean the dummy pedestrian switches that actually work? Try standing at a light where no one hits the button, and you will find you never get a walk symbol.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    50. Re:I thought most intelligent people did that by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      The EFF has you covered (in a literal sense).

  5. High quality satire by Cytotoxic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Christopher Soghoian said, "FBI Director Comey has created a "warrant-proof webcam" that will thwart lawful surveillance should he ever be investigated.

    That is some high-quality satire right there. Too bad it will be lost on pretty much everyone outside our community. It is rare to see something so concise and on-point - thanks for including that quote!

    1. Re:High quality satire by khasim · · Score: 2

      And he confuses "secrecy" and "privacy".

      Secret - criminals are secretly planning a crime.

      Privacy - Your daughter getting dressed in her bedroom.

      There is NOTHING wrong with "absolute privacy". The government needs to put more effort into their job and not just lobby to get more access to webcams.

    2. Re:High quality satire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are synonyms.

      A criminal wants to privately plan his crime.

      Your daughter wants to keep how she looks naked a secret.

    3. Re:High quality satire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does the government know if your daughter is (un)dressing or planning a crime until they spy on the webcam? With the ability to remotely spy on a webcam without indicating it to the owner available, how do you know it's *only* the government doing the spying?

    4. Re:High quality satire by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Christopher Soghoian said, "FBI Director Comey has created a "warrant-proof webcam" that will thwart lawful surveillance should he ever be investigated.

      That is some high-quality satire right there. Too bad it will be lost on pretty much everyone outside our community. It is rare to see something so concise and on-point - thanks for including that quote!

      And if it were Joe Sixpack the FBI were investigating and his taping-over of the webcam annoyed the FBI, he'd be looking at a raft of charges like various (and possibly multiple) flavors of 'obstruction', interference in an investigation, evidence tampering, etc etc. An imaginative prosecutor/DA could likely come up with many more.

      Even if found innocent of all charges, poor Joe S. would be broke from legal expenses and out a significant amount of time, some even possibly behind bars, lost job, maybe lose his family's house/land.

      If you're one of the elite, however, these types of things are simply wiped clean, like with a cloth or something.

      Some animals are more equal than others.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:High quality satire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking joking?

      Security and privacy activist Christopher Soghoian said, "FBI Director Comey has created a "warrant-proof webcam" that will thwart lawful surveillance should he ever be investigated. Shame on him."

      Anyone who passed 5th grade would be able to pick up the sarcasm there assuming they can still read.

    6. Re:High quality satire by evilviper · · Score: 1

      "FBI Director Comey has created a "warrant-proof webcam" that will thwart lawful surveillance should he ever be investigated.

      I think we should sue Apple... to force them to go remove the tape from his webcam.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  6. Webcam & Microphones by jimtheowl · · Score: 2

    I've always had tape on devices I own with embedded cameras (which are few), so this is not much of a 'thought' for me. Controlling the embedded microphone is far more difficult, especially on a tablet running a proprietary OS. For Android, there's always cyanogenmod,

    1. Re:Webcam & Microphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the radio signal intel chips send out to the government?

    2. Re:Webcam & Microphones by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Controlling the embedded microphone is far more difficult

      Nah. A pair of wirecutters or a penknife "controls" the microphone in a monitor or laptop just fine. You can add your own switch to the broken conductor, and then you're back to "it's physics." Failing that, stick a pin in the hole and swish it around until it doesn't work any longer.

      If you simply kill the built-in mic, when you need one, plug in a USB mic. Painless. Probably a better mic, too.

      For a phone you can't really get into, keep it in a nice thick black bag. Or get rid of it entirely. It's always fun to actually, you know, talk to people in person. For those of us who still remember how... :) But again, you can probably kill the mic outright with nothing more than a pin. Then use a bluetooth headset when you want to talk.

      This isn't all that hard to solve. Yet.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:Webcam & Microphones by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh, that's easy. You just take off your tinfoil hat and wrap it around the laptop or phone. I hear that dipping the phone in maple syrup also helps stop the signals.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:Webcam & Microphones by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Okay, that solves the phone problem - but what about the fillings in my teeth?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:Webcam & Microphones by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Dentures, my brother. Or sister. You end up with really nice teeth, and it totally quiets the voices.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    6. Re:Webcam & Microphones by jimtheowl · · Score: 1

      I might be at odds with Frank Hebert's fiction, but my view on control does not include destroying the device. You controls only the act of destruction (which is always much easier). Once you destroy it, it is no longer in your control, and it obviously was not in your control before you did.

      I know that a lot of devices have USB ports, but not all of them do (including my Samsung tablet). I do not believe that they are to be found on iPads either.

      I do believe in talking to people in person, not carry chains, and do not carry nor own a cell phone.

    7. Re:Webcam & Microphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did start with saying how to add an inline switch...

    8. Re:Webcam & Microphones by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      iPads support external microphones. Some really good ones, in fact.

      But in any case, as I clearly stated, I was talking about monitors and laptops there, not ipads and phones.

      When I moved on to phones (and for that, you can read tablet in general if you like), I suggested destroying the mic and then using bluetooth and/or wifi. And if your tablet has no ability to handle such features (the iPad definitely does), then if this is important to you, just switch tablets.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    9. Re:Webcam & Microphones by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      I hope you mean dipping it in artificial pancake syrup because as a Canadian I find the waste of real maple syrup to be appalling.

    10. Re:Webcam & Microphones by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      "not carry chains" - Well, depending on the neighborhood, carrying a chain could be very useful. I once chased off five guys with a chain in my hand. It was the only thing I had available (my steering wheel anti-theft device) and it worked really well. I didn't even have to use it - just let it dangle visibly - and they took off at great speed.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    11. Re:Webcam & Microphones by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Yeah, put it inline with the LED...

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    12. Re:Webcam & Microphones by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's not a waste. Step two is to hold the phone in your mouth at all times.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    13. Re:Webcam & Microphones by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Solution is here.

  7. More common than you would think. by sims+2 · · Score: 1

    Here in my area I'd say about 1 in 20 have the cameras taped over and once in awhile I see someone with the camera taped over on their phone and tablet.

    Although I have not seen one person that's set up a defense for a hot mic yet.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:More common than you would think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old stereo headphone plug with the wires clipped off. This solution fails with some drivers that support all the functions of my soundcard.

    2. Re:More common than you would think. by v1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      most computers with a built-in mic use software control to select between audio input sources, based on detecting the presence of that plug in the mic jack. And as with the cameras, that has the possibility of a software override. I have NO problem recording from my built-in mic while i have a mic plugged into my comuter - I just go into sound prefs and switch mics, because the software defaults to external when present.

      And that green light that shows your webcam is on, that may also be under software control. Some manufacturers run that light off the power that runs the CCD etc in the camera when it's in use, and others turn it on (or OFF) in software, so it's not necessarily an accurate indication of camera activity.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:More common than you would think. by AC5398 · · Score: 1

      I tape the cameras on cell phone and laptop. Have done so for years. It helped me retrieve one cell phone that I'd lost - "what does your cell look like?"

      "It has blue painters tape over both cameras."

      "Yeah, someone turned it in."

  8. Trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe my trust is misguided, but when the light is off on my MB's camera, I – perhaps rather naively – trust that the camera really is off.

    Yes, silly me, I know.

    However he, perhaps, is in the best position to know about any back doors that the government may have in his laptop's OS.

    Seems to me like possibly he has just spilled the beans on something that perhaps he shouldn't have.

    1. Re:Trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ability to activate a webcam without activating the (software-controlled) light is not a new revelation by any stretch.

    2. Re:Trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No shit, really?

      Did it occur to you that that's exactly why I prefaced my comment with "...my trust is misguided ... naively ... silly...."

      Before you go, let me reward you with a lens of obviousness detection, +2. Use it wisely.

    3. Re:Trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then what on earth could he have "spilled the beans on" if you already knew that information?

      Your statement makes no sense if you already knew that information.

    4. Re:Trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh?

      If I already knew what?

      I asked – rhetorically – whether he has just implicitly confirmed that there's a back door in the OS on his laptop.

      The thing about rhetorical questions is that nobody needs to answer them, because the answer is often already known.

    5. Re:Trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus making your entire post redundant.

    6. Re:Trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you're a real barrel of laughs at parties!

      Or do you even get invites any more?

    7. Re:Trust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If his OS is from MS, I'd bet there is a backdoor.. After all who *else* is gonna fill up that giant datacenter the NSA has in Utah..

  9. Do as I say peasant!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not as I do!

  10. Who doesn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, are there really people who don't put tape on their web cams?

    1. Re:Who doesn't? by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't, but then I make sure Dell sends me the SKU that the DoD orders when I order my laptops. You know, the one that is camera delete. Every major manufacturer has a SKU for the DoD that eliminates the camera and has a physical switch that disables the wireless chip, and the DoD tests to make sure the wireless is really disabled. If the company sales rep says he doesn't know anything about it tell him to talk to the DoD sales rep.

      Yes, they will sell to non-DoD customers. You would think the head of the FBI would do this too.

    2. Re:Who doesn't? by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bitch I run Linux on my laptop!
      If the NSA can get the camera to work in the first place, then more power to them!

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    3. Re:Who doesn't? by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

      I don't, but then I make sure Dell sends me the SKU that the DoD orders when I order my laptops

      Sure, but since it's a SKU for government purchase, your laptop will cost $25,000.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    4. Re:Who doesn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point isn't that anyone's saying it's weird that he tapes over his laptop camera, but rather that there's an apparent philosophical contradiction in intentionally disabling a potential surveillance device while complaining that the American people should not be allowed to prevent his bureau from surveilling them.

    5. Re:Who doesn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personal anecdote: I have installed Linux Mint on a fair number of different semi-modern laptops over the last few years. On every single one of them, everything has simply worked, out of the box, including webcams, networking (wired as well as wireless), bluetooth, sound and graphics.

      So, I get the joke, but it doesn't have much bearing on reality these days, in my experience.

    6. Re: Who doesn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better to distract people than to allow them to freely discuss the real issue. Can you imagine if everyone becomes more concerned about government hypocrisy than how smar Joe thinks he is?

    7. Re:Who doesn't? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      I use a square of the sticky part of a yellow sticky note.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    8. Re:Who doesn't? by godrik · · Score: 1

      Actually that is my strategy too. I run linux and my life is essentially on my laptop. If you can read my camera, I am already way more fucked than I would like. At this point, I don't care if they take a picture of me.

    9. Re:Who doesn't? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      sudo modprobe -r uvcvideo should do the trick. Hmm... Yeah, you can push that to run on boot and then just enable it when you need it. For the mic? I dunno. I guess you can tear it out of the kernel. There's the master volume thingy and you should be able to switch it off in that. Well, not off. You put it on mute. alasomething-or-other? I dunno, Google probably does. I'm not gonna go digging through books and my bash_history to find it.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    10. Re:Who doesn't? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Geez, you know how to unload the video module, but you don't know how to unload the sound module?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    11. Re:Who doesn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On every single one of them, everything has simply worked

      Are you sure that is not patented by Apple?

    12. Re:Who doesn't? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably wants to keep the sound output, but only disable to input, as they are most likely controlled by the same kernel module, then it probably isn't that simple unless you want to do without sound altogether.

    13. Re:Who doesn't? by WallyL · · Score: 1

      No, that's how much the government spends on the device. It costs way less.

  11. Rent-A-Center spyware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was about 10 years ago, the PCs were loaded with spyware where laptop cams could be viewed remotely without the user knowing. No indication at all that the cam was on. I tell everyone NOT to leave their laptop or smartphone anywhere that they wouldn't want spying eyes.

    1. Re:Rent-A-Center spyware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Rent-A-Center spyware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And... it also now includes microphones and speakers. Yes, speakers can be used to record audio. All you have to do is pipe the audio input to the output, easy to do with code, no rewiring needed.

    3. Re:Rent-A-Center spyware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have an actual source for this claim other than pure speculation?

    4. Re:Rent-A-Center spyware... by Zeroko · · Score: 1

      My sound card's preferences allow you to select different I/O configurations, & at least some of the options make the microphone jack be an output, so why not the reverse? Or at the very least, just switch to the stereo+microphone configuration if someone has a 7.1 setup...so you could at least spy on people with too many speakers.

      It might not work with sufficiently fancy (powered or filtered or some such) speakers, but I have used a speaker as a microphone in an electronics project before. One schematic actually called for using an earphone as a microphone (because that was all the kit had).

    5. Re:Rent-A-Center spyware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've used earbuds as a microphone before when I didn't have an actual microphone handy. Try it yourself. It won't sound great, but it will do in a pinch.

    6. Re:Rent-A-Center spyware... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Dude... Did you grow up in a barren wasteland? *sighs*

      Kids these days.

      Alright, go get a speaker. Any speaker will do, some work better than others. Go get a pair of headphones. Mono work best but you can do whatever. Cut off the end - with enough wire left over to have room to strip it. Hook them up. There will be four wires, you will be attaching two. There will be two wires if you're using mono. Plug them into your computer. Speak into the speaker.

      A microphone is just a speaker from the other direction. You can do it with just the headphones but they don't pick up the sound very well - you'll have to be REALLY loud. You really want a bigger speaker. They're designed differently but they're essentially the same thing. They both work by making contact and moving air - just in opposite directions. A speaker works as a microphone, just not very well.

      (I'd not worry about laptop speakers being able to pick anything up when used as a microphone, they're just not going to be that effective.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:Rent-A-Center spyware... by CSMoran · · Score: 1

      Dude, that a coil and magnet can be both a speaker and a microphone is no revelation for anyone with a basic grasp of physics. What the GP seems to imply though, is that the D/A converter that drives the speakers can be turned into an A/D converter "easily with code, no rewiring needed", in other words, that you could talk to your earbuds and record off them while they are not plugged into the mic socket. This does sound like an extraordinary claim and asking for extraordinary evidence is pretty sensible.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    8. Re:Rent-A-Center spyware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it an extraordinary claim? Given the capabilities of today's electronics it doesn't seem particularly extraordinary.

    9. Re:Rent-A-Center spyware... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Some sound cards can do this. Plug in a device and it'll even ask you what you plugged in. This is mostly used to reduce the number of 3.5 mm jacks on the sound card. Surround sound setups may use the mic/line in jack to drive some of the surround speakers, especially one you start going past 5.1 set ups. Some laptops will combine the headphone out and mic/line in so that they can only put one jack on the computer.

    10. Re:Rent-A-Center spyware... by CSMoran · · Score: 1

      Thanks. Fair enough, I get the headphones plugged into a multi-purpose jack hijacked to switch to mic in scenario, maybe that could be pulled off. Not to move the goalposts, but with speakers though, wouldn't you have an analog amp layer in between the coil and the jack? How do you make the power amp driving the speakers function backwards?

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    11. Re:Rent-A-Center spyware... by CSMoran · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but "given the capabilities of today's electronics" is so vague, it comes nowhere near. You could use this argument to claim exascale computing in a sand grain is already possible today.

      --
      Every end has half a stick.
    12. Re:Rent-A-Center spyware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a major acoustical impedance matching problem here but it will barely work. You need an impedance matching network since the majority of the pressure wave will bounce off of a typical speaker. In fact, your ear actually contains such an impedance matching network.

  12. IS comey actually a law enforcement officer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This guy continually says things that make me doubt his technical competence, but this summary reads like an april fools headline.

    "I saw something somebody smarter than me did, so i copied it"

    If it takes someone smarter than Comey to think of taping over a webcam then that should be a pretty major no-confidence indictment of his leadership.

  13. Is it news? by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I vividly remember that one of Snowden's documents said that CIA had been dealing with webcam OEMs for years and CIA basically made them implement a special feature in their drivers which allowed them to spy on the user without turning on the camera LED.

    Which means you cannot trust your camera LED anymore. Which means you should cover it at all times unless you're OK with someone unknown videotaping you.

    1. Re:Is it news? by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh, here it is: FBI can spy on you through your webcam without triggering the indicator light... and has had the technology for several years. That's from 2013. I really doubt anything has changed in this regard, i.e. most, if not all, computer webcams are spying devices.

    2. Re:Is it news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, so long as you have something mainstream and are using an open source driver you should be fine. When credible reports appear that claim there's surveillance features built into the H/W, that's when you should start to worry.

    3. Re:Is it news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I have a copy? The LED indicator on this HP laptop is too bright to spend much time looking at the camera while using it, and it's a work laptop so I can't just physically damage the light.

    4. Re:Is it news? by Solandri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't some new capability, nor is it exclusive to the FBI. Hackers and script kiddies have turned it into an underground industry primarily aimed at spying on young women.

      If you don't use your webcam, you'd be stupid not to cover it with tape. Comey isn't doing it because he knows the government can use it to spy on him as TFA and summary implies. He's doing it because he knows the emperor has no clothes and anyone can use it to spy on him.

    5. Re:Is it news? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      He's doing it because he knows the emperor has no clothes and anyone can use it to spy on him.

      Which drives home the point that anytime you open a backdoor for the government, it will inevitably be found and used by others.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    6. Re:Is it news? by Scot+Seese · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It has been alleged for years that they can also remotely activate the built in microphone(s).

      This is problematic as the internal microphones - such as the one(s) used in most Apple MacBook models - are internal, and don't feature a single, easily plugged or taped-over hole. Rather they use the thousands of perforations in the speaker grille (in the MacBook Pro) or other non-obvious openings.

      The real issue here is that Americans used to believe their intelligence services were careful, and used traditional investigative techniques to build significant evidence to obtain wiretapping or eavesdropping warrants. In the post-Snowden world in which we live, that curtain was savagely ripped away, revealing the malevolent bulk meta data trawling, phone tapping, email sifting cloud storage plundering intelligence agency wizards trampling the constitution underfoot on a scale that should have Mount Rushmore weeping giant granite tears.

      I have yet to see a single article where a single one of these federal agencies has been asked by a journalist to provide an example of a spectacular attack that was thwarted by all this Stazi level intelligence apparatus. Not one. You would think they would trot out precrime planning stage arrests on a regular basis to assuage the fears of an anxious public, but NooooOoOo, no such luck. Just trust us, folks!

      --
      THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
  14. Who doesn't do this? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

    I use medical adhesive tape because it's opaque and doesn't leave much residue. And a 1/2" wide roll was the first thing I found last time I looked for tape. It's not about back doors and government spying for me. It's about malware. I don't put tape on my phone, tho. Most of the time, one camera's pointed at the ceiling and the other is pointed at the table.

    If you want something less tacky, you can get slider covers. Search for "webcam cover".

    1. Re:Who doesn't do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like an opportunity to remarket medical adhesive tape as webcam privacy tape with a markup.

    2. Re:Who doesn't do this? by AJWM · · Score: 1

      You'd think there'd be some demand for 3D-printable clip-on lens covers for popular webcams, laptops, etc.

      Last time I looked (a while back) I couldn't find such.

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re:Who doesn't do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To keep the lens clean just hold a tiny bit of tape, reversed (ie sticky side out), over the lens and put your tape over that the normal way. That way the tape is stuck to the case around the camera but not the camera itself.

  15. proof he is uneducated in tech... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dont really care about watching him.....

    Now using the built in microphone to listen? a LOT more information is gained that way... If he was a competent FBI director he would order hardware WITHOUT a webcam or built in microphones and would have a team inspect it first.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:proof he is uneducated in tech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now using the built in microphone to listen? a LOT more information is gained that way...

      Unless your phone is hacked, in which case you're carrying around your own recording device, and it's critical to the use of the phone, so physically disabling it isn't an option.

      At some point, paranoia is fine if the CIA is after you, but if not, okay, you can expect all the privacy you want, but paranoia's exhausting. Some government agency wants to know what I'm doing, just call me up and I'll tell you.

    2. Re:proof he is uneducated in tech... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      If he was a competent FBI director he would order hardware WITHOUT a webcam or built in microphones and would have a team inspect it first.

      The FBI Director is a lawyer by training. It's been obvious for years he's not particularly technically savvy.

      Frankly, while I realize he's not out-and-out stupid - he doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the box.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:proof he is uneducated in tech... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "so physically disabling it isn't an option."

      Maybe for those that dont know electronics. It is trivial to install a physical disable switch, phone and laptop makers just dont want to give you this ability. Less than $0.12 in cost to add a simple switch to 100% hackerproof your microphone.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:proof he is uneducated in tech... by FrozenGeek · · Score: 1

      Not meaning to be snotty, but can you suggest a decent laptop that has neither a camera nor a microphone? I cannot recall the last time I saw such a beast.

      --
      linquendum tondere
    5. Re:proof he is uneducated in tech... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Any HP or Dell business class has a high security or DOD model with that deleted.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  16. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Because I saw somebody smarter than I am had a piece of tape over their camera." Snowden.

  17. 'Above the law' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah sure everyone else has to submit to being surveilled by law enforcement in order to be a Good American -- unless you're in the 'above the law' category, like apparently law enforcement themselves.. and politicians, I'm sure.. and people with enough money..

    Fuck this bullshit. They worry about terrorists? The fucking terrorists won a long time ago. Our entire system of government is completely rotted on the inside. Just burn the whole goddamned planet down to the ground and all of us with it, we don't deserve to continue living if this is the way shit is going to go.

  18. I point my webcam at tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Works far better, because then the hackers see the tape and say, "Oh, it must just be a warehouse full of tape, better mark it down on our list of the least interesting places." When they see black, they say, "Oh, it must be someone smart, like an FBI Director, better mark it down on potential targets for follow-up."

    See?

    1. Re:I point my webcam at tape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I labelled my webcam "The most interesting webcam in the world" but have it pointed at a beige wall where, using an automated system, a fresh coat of paint is applied every hour. There is a countdown timer, but it is inaccurate. I have probably saved dozens of people from having their webcams hacked.

      Sometimes when I'm really bored, I'll log into it and think "Well, I guess it could be much worse."

  19. So do I. Doesn't mean I'm paranoid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's defense in depth. There are extortion trojans which tell the victim that child porn / illegal downloads have been found on their computer, and they need to pay a given amount of money to the FBI to make the problem go away. Those trojans turn on the camera and show the picture to the victim, as proof that they've been "caught".

    BTW, if you also tape the camera, make sure that it's very dense, dark tape. Cameras can see through two or three layers of clear tape with black marker.

  20. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Snowden might be smarter than Comey, but so is my pet gerbil. And he's been dead for years.

  21. I use Black Electric tape for this... by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    As thick as they come.

    I also tape over the little MIC hole, even on my Wii U console and any other devices that comes with a camera/mic.
    Other than that, I've got mechanical switches on my Studio Mics. They're almost always set to OFF.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  22. Ah, that explains it! by tgibson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comey admits he puts a piece of tape over the webcam lens on his laptop.

    And I just thought his webcam was broken. Silly me.

    1. Re:Ah, that explains it! by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      Naw, if it was broken, he'd'a used Duct Tape...

  23. Everyone has something to hide. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only people who would object to such surveillance are those who have something to hide.

    If one were to look closely enough at anyone, one can find something they are doing that is illegal. On average, everyone commits three felonies a day. I guarantee you that if I looked into your life, I'd find something to put you in jail for.

    And with out wars on drugs, terrorism, child pornography, and the Patriot Act, we have turned into a police state. And with political parties having the elite choose who we get to vote for, I for one do not think we live in a free country any longer.

    We have given our freedoms away for security and there's no turning back.

    1. Re: Everyone has something to hide. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anonymous cowards everywhere cheer your comment but don't have the points to mod you up.

    2. Re:Everyone has something to hide. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      s/he yelled at the judge while being dragged away

    3. Re:Everyone has something to hide. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and the idiot who wrote that article are projecting because you have guilty consciences and find comfort in believing that everyone is as immoral as you.

      Sorry, but some of us simply don't commit crimes.

    4. Re:Everyone has something to hide. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Read the WSJ article to understand what they mean by that "three felonies line."

      The point is, you may be committing crimes without knowing it, because of vagueness in the law and the disregard for intent.

      Hell, do you even know all the criminal laws that apply to you right now, let alone whether they could plausibly be interpreted to indict you?

    5. Re:Everyone has something to hide. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But how is video of me picking my nose going to help them prosecute me?

    6. Re: Everyone has something to hide. by Budgreen · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you don't commit the crime of posting anonymously.

      --
      The greatest right given is the right to be wrong...
    7. Re:Everyone has something to hide. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      FTFA linked above:

      Sometimes legislators know when they make false distinctions based on technology. An "anti-cyberbullying" proposal is making its way through Congress, prompted by the tragic case of a 13-year-old girl driven to suicide by the mother of a neighbor posing as a teenage boy and posting abusive messages on MySpace. The law would prohibit using the Internet to "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person." Imagine a law that tried to apply this control of speech to letters, editorials or lobbying.

      AC, I believe you are guilty of a felony, expect the police at your door any minute.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    8. Re:Everyone has something to hide. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Or the video of you wanking while facebook on another tab (than the porn) has your 12 yo niece's profile up.

      There are many ways in which things you do can be used to destroy you.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    9. Re:Everyone has something to hide. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's the first thing I thought of when I read this article - video from the webcam is kind of useless most of the time unless they also are capturing what's on your screen.

  24. "absolute privacy" hampers law enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good.

  25. He 'saw something in the news' by OpinOnion · · Score: 0

    That means the Director of the FBI did not think of putting tape on his laptop camera or that it was a security concern before seeing it on TV. This is why we should be be afraid of the FBI when it comes to technology. Just ignore them and they will die off like all the other old out of touch people.

  26. Use linux fool director by wnfJv8eC · · Score: 1

    Remove the mic and video drivers on boot, install a script to keep them unloaded. Or use windows and put tape over the one and hope someone isn't listening.

    1. Re:Use linux fool director by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux is the safest bet in this situation. I doubt even the collection of the best and brightest in the world that work for the NSA would have a chance at getting your microphone and camera operational on Linux.

  27. Doesn't everybody do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I actually remember it well, the day all those years ago I was sitting at my laptop, about to start jacking off to something that some people at the time might have found "creepy, or downright worthy of scrutiny" and thinking, "Hmm, if someone's in here with me, not only will they have footage of me with a ridiculous look on my face, but they'll be able to lean on me knowing what's on the screen right now," and at that moment, I folded up some cardboard and hung it on top of the camera. Without the whole dick jacking angle to tie it in to, I mean, hey I'm just looking at some pics of Victoria Justice. You know, innocuous.

    It's something I've done ever since, out of habit, at all times when on a laptop with a cam.

    Whatever sick shit the director of the FBI may or may not be up to, this isn't a big deal, and the only thing it says about you when you do it is that you're not a brain dead idiot with no care for personal security and privacy.

  28. black tape vs microphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would probably add 25 cents of cost to a $500 device.

    It would cost far more than that just to handle all the tech support calls from people complaining that their cameras and microphones don't work.

    But yes, yes they should.

    No, they shouldn't. I trust black tape far more than I trust a mechanical switch that someone else installed.

    How does black tape stop a microphone from working?

    1. Re:black tape vs microphone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      How does black tape stop a microphone from working?

      You put it on your lips.

  29. I use Linux, my WebCam Works by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

    I use Linux, my WebCam Works. So does the LED. But there was a previous Kernel revision where the Camera LED did NOT turn on. This was fixed. If I wanted to be sure my Camera couldn't use used to spy. I either could tape it or unload the driver.

    1. Re:I use Linux, my WebCam Works by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      When an attacker has enough access to your system to switch on your web cam, an unloaded driver won't be too much of a hurdle.

  30. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EVERYbody is smarter than *he* is....

  31. Me too by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    I had a Chiquita Banana sticker on my notebook cameras since they day they didn't come anymore with that plastic slider to close them.

  32. physical switches are not protection by Bill+Privatus · · Score: 2

    First it was having an 'indicator light' when the camera was in operation, and we were assured it was absolutey secure - until this came to light. () I read about someone who overcame a physical switch but have lost the link.

    Nonetheless, I would not assume any physical switch on a computer. It's read and execution based on the sensor is still software (or firmware, or microcode).

    It's not just the camera you need to protect. I used to carry a small audio adapter - plug it into the laptop and the built-in microphone is disabled. I got out of the habit, but the tape is always there.

    --
    Redundancy is good; triple redundancy is twice as good! - Me.
    1. Re:physical switches are not protection by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Why not just remove the drivers or disable the device by the drivers? I suppose it's theoretically possible that they have an operating system underneath that's still able to turn on the camera but that seems a bit unlikely. Just disable the microphone and camera. It might also make a handy use for a 3D printer to cover the camera slot.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  33. So, he's an incompetent idiot after all. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    I guess we shouldn't have been surprised by this.

  34. my camera is sticky too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but mine is covered in a crust, a dry semen crust

  35. Smartphone by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    It is a good idea to mask a laptop's camera, but what about smartphones? They could be hacked too.

  36. I do this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but don't forget the microphone! You may need to manually extract it.

  37. Insanity by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    JFK was actually presented with a plan from our own military to bomb Miami, Fl. and blame it on Cuba in order to justify a war with Cuba. JFK thankfully rejected the idea. My point being is that even when government has good intentions it can be very, very dangerous. Another example is police agencies handing data to places outside of government such that there is no way to subpoena records. Even local police agencies often have exhaustive yellow sheets on almost everyone in their jurisdiction. Those yellow sheets are illegal. But they absolutely do exist. They may be held by groups such as the Officer's Retirement Council or some other gimmick which is not part of the government. But make no mistake. The cops have vast collections of knowledge about almost everyone. Departments do know how to share that information as well. For example, a machinist that i know was awakened in the wee hours of the night and taken to an interview. A vault had been drilled into and the cops were aware that he had machined armament metals in Hungary and Germany. How's that for a handy yellow sheet directory?

  38. Forrest Bumbles Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... I saw somebody smarter than I am had a piece of tape over their camera ..."

    Apparently, Forrest, there are a lot of people smarter than you.

  39. Y'all are kidding! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    The who system - the way we approach life - needs to be seriously and deeply retrospectively reviewed. If pot smoking were accepted, then pot smokers will not care if you see them smoking. Remove narcissism and half the problem is solved.

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  40. Something I have always done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    come on, there has been software to use your camera and microphone to spy on you since the 90s at least.

    I have an empty jack to plug in to the external mic to block out the internal microphone, it's the best that can be done without opening the laptop and manually and permenantly disabling the microphone (read: yank).

    Electrical tape is pretty good, you put a confetti over the area on the lense, and it doesn't leave any smudge so I can use my web cam at will (anyways, I have an external hi-def cam now... (read: yank ?)

    Well I know what I'm doing on Sunday next week ;-) (read: Yank !)

  41. internal microphones exist in some laptops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A couple of years back I purchased an ex lease T410 lenovo, it contained an internally located microphone that was only visible if you literally tore the laptop down.

    A non standard driver appeared to be required for usage under windows.

    However with smart phones literally everywhere, its kind of redundant nowadays as a spying device.

  42. Sure it's on the camera? by BrianMahoney1357 · · Score: 1

    From what I've been reading about the FBI, I'm betting he put tape over the microphone. Then again, we'd all be more interested in what he's saying in his office than we would watching him pick his nose.

  43. Re:Not just any old tape! by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Um, that wouldn't help. It needs to be the milky colored scotch tape, or even better electrical tape.

    Also, the microphones are just as insecure, but much harder to disable.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  44. Why do you need the tape? by allo · · Score: 1

    Let's face it ... your face ist mostly boring. They may take a funny photo of your mimic while watching porn, but that's it.
    The more important part is the microphone and in most laptops it's not that easy to disable it in hardware.