Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the warrant-proof-webcam dept.

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."

35 of 202 comments (clear)

  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 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!
    3. 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.

  2. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.
    4. 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.

    5. 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).

    6. 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.

  3. 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 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.
  4. 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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.

  5. 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: 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. 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 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.

    3. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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: 2, Insightful

      s/he yelled at the judge while being dragged away

  12. 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.

  13. 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.