Hacker News Reader

Comment by RobertRoberts | Hacker News Reader

Yes (front facing cam on phone as well, can't easily cover back one yet), Zuckerberg and FBI director Comey do as well. Seems common sense these days. Which is really, really sad.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/technology/personaltech/m...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3790585/FBI-d...

A highlighted photo of Zuckerberg's setup:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=zuckberg+covers+his+camera&t=lm&ia...

From here:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10102910644965951&se...

View on HN

To put things in perspective, though, Zuckerberg is CEO of an international company that's constantly under attack by state-sponsored actors. He also spends $10 million on physical security.

In contrast, a non-famous person probably doesn't have as much to worry about, hence why I personally don't cover my smartphone camera.

Pretending to be interesting enough to be spied on is one of the main reasons why people care about their cyber security.

None of my computers or servers mean anything to anyone, they are essentially anonymous. But they are all attacked daily.

Do you think no one should cover their cameras because they "believe" they aren't under attack?

I second this.

On one of my sites that barely has 1000 visitors a week, I still have to deal with 1000¨'s of requests every day from "hackers" lol.

Is it paranoia for me to lock my front door, because no one has ever tried to open it without my permission?

Maybe? I usually don't lock the door when I'm at my original house. If I gained notoriety I'd probably be more inclined to lock it.

Just to add to the discussion about how easy it can be to access someone's personal device:

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/08/10/2143219/crestron-tou...

This is just _one_ vulnerability from one company...

> Zuckerberg and FBI director Comey do as well. Seems common sense these days. Which is really, really sad.

Both of these people are public figures. You can argue that it's common sense if you're a public figure. If not, "common sense" seems like an exaggeration.

I have had threats and stalker like situations in my life, and concerns for my children. It's common sense for many people.

Edit: This isn't about the government per se, but anyone can get hacked for any reason. Working on security issues for almost 20 years has made me paranoid.

In the 90s when I first setup a firewall on a dialup modem, I found I was getting attacked at random every minute of every day. (this is nothing compared to the servers I deal with today) Only the ignorant masses think their current device isn't compromised.

I assume all my devices are compromised, or able to be.

This is really sad that the response is so often: you must be just paranoid, when stalking is so common and surveillance software is cheap and so easy to use. Actually stalking/surveying a potential target is a very prolific tactic used by most modern criminals, it's crazy and stupid not to care about it.

Not sad. There is no cybersecurity without physical security. I only hope that people remain this vigilant as cameras become even more ubiquitous and invisible.

Because he knows that his company hoovers any personal data and violates privacy from digital devices at whim.

Only public shock keeps facebook or instagram apps from trying to take surreptitious pictures or audio to gain extra insight into your private life. If there wouldn't be extreme public shock, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

As criminals often know good ways to defend from theft by understanding the nature of theft, privacy thieves knows' the nature of privacy and take steps to ensure the same cannot be done to them as easily.

Could someone really get more information by hi jacking your camera or your microphone? If I wanted to eavesdrop on a conversation, the Mic is much better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com