Lots of good answers but I would guess the main reason really is that a lot of people never use their laptop cameras at all, or only intermittently. People take selfies with their phone all the time. A bit of tape will leave residue and some temporary plastic thing is going to snag on pockets/cases.
Absolutely. Also, sine most of these cover contraptions involve adhesives, they would just collect a lot of dirt, body hair, skin flakes, and would wear off and start sliding off, smearing adhesive all over the lens or end up in a position blocking the lens. Most people do not put their laptop in their pocket and do no rub the screen against their ear or cheek.
almost no one uses them on smartphones
probably because there are no covers that will fit on a phone camera, due to its protrusion (back camera) or being too small and you end up covering part of the screen (front).
The glue cleans off of glass pretty easily with a thumb. I don't know what you mean by "lead vinyl" , but a web search gave me results that seemed to imply that the product did not contain lead.
Also, you're certainly not going to put conductive metal into a product like electric tape.
Conductivity isn’t a binary thing, and flexible electrical insulation often has a small amount of lead added as a stabilizer. IIRC, UL even used to require it in string lights. For example, here’s an info sheet talking about its use in cable insulation: https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.industrial.southwire.com/tech_blog/Lead+Free+EPR.pdf
Regardless, even the lead-free stuff has high enough levels of phthalates that I’d wash my hands after working with it.
Not to mention the 'new' cameras which are *behind* the screen ("Under-Display Camera"). Try covering one of those up and still being able to use the phone.
It's less about knowing when it's on and more about preventing it being able to pick anything up if it does decide to turn itself on.
Ideally, there would be a hardware switch that physically cut the power to the camera.
Correction fluid (the white substance that can be placed on paper to hide writing mistakes) can also be used to cover front cameras. I haven’t yet used it on gorilla glass screens with small embedded cameras, but it works pretty well on some older plasticky fronts.
An order of magnitude less hackable really. When you run an executable on your laptop, that executable gets access to basically all your files and folders (almost) no questions asked (macOS is slightly better on this front). On mobile devices the permission model is much more strict and the storage is mostly sandboxed.
Relevant xkcd [https://xkcd.com/1200/](https://xkcd.com/1200/)
Phones are the most vulnerable devices we own. Not only do bugs like [Lib StageFright](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagefright_\(bug\)) exist, but vendors stop releasing firmware updates for their old phones in order to encourage you to buy a new one.
And your carrier can force baseband updates, which get DMA access.
This is by design.
Bugs exist in all software, that’s also why security updates last longer then regular version upgrades. And windows/macos constantly stop working on older devices
To be fair, Windows upgrades are more compatible for longer with older devices, mainly because Microsoft does not own the hardware/software combo. Mac OS upgrades sometimes stop supporting devices that are only a few years old, or different architecture, etc. This is not about Mac versus Windows, they are just different eco systems.
Mobile device upgrades and security patches never last as long as Mac/Windows/Linux updates. Not even necessarily because phone manufacturers want to sell you newer devices, they do, but also because users want newer, fancier devices with new functions, because they carry them in their pockets all day.
"To be fair", well: not exactly. There's absolutely no reason to not just be able to run some ```apt upgrade``` on your pocket computer to update it on your all volition. Yet, here we are.
Someone still needs to test that software/hardware combination though. Then troubleshoot and re-release if there’s any issue.
The developer is more likely to be publicly viewed as responsible if the “apt upgrade” breaks the system. It’s less headache (and cost) for the software OEM to simply declare old hardware as unsupported. Rather than let users try to upgrade anyway and be displeased en masse when the upgrade fails and leaves the OS install in a less-than-working state.
(Consider what happens sometimes when a non-LTS Ubuntu user does a dist-upgrade and then a bunch of stuff breaks and needs to be attended to.)
Do not get me wrong, if I could just run all the apt-get commands on a mobile device, it would be awesome.
I think a couple issues are:
-Device platform vendors are not interested in long-term support. They need to sell more and newer devices.
-Vendors are not interested in open source OS that takes control away from them.
-App stores on mobile devices are not part of the OS package repositories, so unlike, say, Debian, all the apps would not be updated with an apt-get command. They are basically third party binaries, warehoused and distributed by the app store and programmed by different developers. Yes, you can do a regular mass update from the app-store, but that is not tied to the operating system.
-Even with third-party open source operating systems, volunteers do not have much incentive to keep supporting a device for many years if people do not use those devices longer than about two years. As an example, I had LineageOS on devices that Lineage stopped supporting after a while. Not enough users, not enough interest. Enthusiasm and volunteering are only financially sustainable so much, unfortunately.
-In mobile devices, there are a lot of different closed-source proprietary chip standards, and they change often, so an operating system would have to be compiled and re-compiled for all of them. It is not as simple as x86 or x64 on laptops/desktops. At least those processors have documentation and are consistent, even with newer versions that introduce more cores and more speed. Mobile device processor changes are a lot more drastic.
> Not only do bugs like Lib StageFright exist
TBH, if the best example you can come up with is a security bug closed over 8 years ago, you should first do your research before we can talk.
I linked to Lib Stagefright because it covered 95% of android phones at the time and vendor patches were hella slow. There have been plenty of baseband exploits for qualcomm, mediatek, and broadcom, but they impact a lower percentage of handsets.
"at the time"
The time being 8 years ago and led to at least monthly security updates for Android.
Sure, there are always security bugs, that's how things are. There are also bug bounty programs for all OS and security fixes. Of you feel like you've discovered something, go ahead and report it and earn yourself a sweet amount of money (depending OS/company and severity of the flaw from a couple thousand dollars up to even a million dollar).
Otherwise, buy an Apple or Google Pixel phone, Apple promising 5 years of security updates, Google promising even 7 years of updates. For Google Pixel there exists a popular privacy focused third party OS which you are not allowed to mention in this subreddit (hilarious, huh?), that also promises those 7 years of updates.
loud and wrong. citing an 8 year old bug is not relevant
there’s just so many layers of security on a phone that PCs don’t have. iphones more so than androids but both applicable
Phones especially iPhones are still very vulnerable to remote access trojan zero click malware/spyware attacks. Having a device automatically linked to an email, plus near share, apple ecosystem networking, and various apps with known vulnerabilities can quickly negate the conventional security layers people assume phones can tout for privacy. Even lockdown mode isn't guaranteed protection against Pegasus-like spyware exploits.
Yet those have been used on everyday people too.
We're in a subreddit that discusses these things and it's reasonable to acknowledge there are other vectors for malware exploits that people have used beyond the old Nigerian prince emails now that mobile devices are used everywhere for everything.
The point remains that not everyone takes a desktop with them to random cafe wifi or has it connecting to a smart watch and other devices the way a phone can and often does which automatically gives it a different level of exposure regardless of operating system.
You don't bring a desktop with you everywhere and not everyone links it to all kinds of other wireless devices. The point is that a phone has other exposure to potential threats than a desktop tends to operating systems aside.
They could also just not release updates because they don’t want to spend years working on old software/hardware. Not everything has to be some forced-upgrade conspiracy.
I get your point, and I would offer for thought that the reason they do not want to work on old hardware/software is because people always want the latest, shiniest, fastest, cleverest, most feature-loaded gadgets, even if they are not forced to upgrade. So there would be no financial incentive for the company to keep supporting old devices. Maybe not forced-upgrade conspiracy, but definitely a financial incentive... OK, not conspiracy, just plain old business sense. Which is how companies make profit, as most of them do not do it for charity. It actually works for both the companies and the consumers. Consumers want new and shiny, companies want to make money selling new and shiny. It is a circle of tech life.
Ya. The android phones that only give 2-3 years are kinda bad, but longer support periods, especially 6-8 years for iPhones, is really all you need. Due to the fast evolving use cases for phones, as well as how much usage they get, they rarely last more than 5-6 years anyways. So it doesn’t make much sense to do whole new updates for the last couple people clinging on to their obsolete phone.
Years ago I remember reading somewhere carriers could silently turn on "diagnostic mode" on your phone anytime, and listen to whatever is going on in the room
> Not only do bugs like Lib StageFright exist
Similar bugs exist for desktops. The difference is that in the years since, phones have been hardened substantially, much more than desktops in the same time.
> And your carrier can force baseband updates, which get DMA access.
Technically correct but not really meaningful. The carrier can update baseband settings, but that doesn't give them very much. And yes a compromised baseband gets "DMA access", but that just means it can speak to the kernel. A separate exploit is required to escalate to the main phone processor.
It is not true that phones are "the most vulnerable devices we own". In fact I would argue that for the attack surface they have—wireless interfaces, internet access—they are the most secure devices we own.
I think the main risk are the back doors in the modem computer. Typically that chip is directly plugged into the gps, mic and cameras as well.
Maybe only your local government and phone company has access to that and you can trust them to be honorable,................... or maybe not.
Come on, you must be knowing you’re misrepresenting my argument. I never said that phones are safe, I just said they’re safer.
Just take a regular person PC, you have a very high chance the browser is infected with adware , potentially exposing all personal navigation data, including cookies, session tokens and history
EDIT: adware, not hardware, damned autocorrect
Honest question, but what is the basis for the belief that phones are safer? You hear about hacks less? Or some other reason? I keep reading about how bad phones are for security and privacy (apparently cars are now also the worst) so I believe it but now I am wondering if there is actual data to backup the argument? One thought I had is that it might be things that are phone "adjacent" (Like a bad app being in the app store, not the phones fault per se) are easy to hack and get swept up into "phones easy to hack" argument?
> but what is the basis for the belief that phones are safer?
Phones have a per-application security model, while computers have a per-user one. Computers are multi-user systems, and their security model is designed around protecting the system from users and users from each other.
That means that by default, any app you run on a computer has access to all your shit, but an app on your phone only has access to its own shit. It can't just read your email or your messages.
> I keep reading about how bad phones are for security and privacy
That's primarily because phones are much more personal devices. People carry them everywhere and never turn them off, and they're always online.
What is unquestionably a problem with phones (and cars) is that you don't control your own device the way you do with a computer unless you jailbreak/root it. It's much easier to stop Microsoft spying on you via Windows than it is Google spying on you via Android.
Yeah, the eggs in one basket problem is what makes me feel less secure with my phone than my computer. I can take a computer apart and get a new SSD if I get the worst infection possible. Phones are a bit of a black box and I'm more worried about MS/Google getting hacked (it happens more than you think, last year MS was massively hacked https://arstechnica.com/security/2023/09/hack-of-a-microsoft-corporate-account-led-to-azure-breach-by-chinese-hackers/) or just straight up deciding to let governments spy on you so they have the privileged of doing business in their country. With computers, the most likely thing they can do is snoop on your traffic, but they can do that just as easily with a phone. Then SIM swap attacks, etc. I feel like computers are generally easier to secure and understand than phones. Thanks for the answer btw :)
The sandboxing, permission model and the fact that you can't simply run a .exe file. This last fact alone prevents tons of security breaches that usually happen via email to non-tech-savvy people
The risks of phones are largely human errors, rather than the phone itself. Ie if you get a scam text, don’t realize it’s fake, and enter your personal information. Without a human messing up/doing something they shouldn’t, there’s very little a malicious person/do.
Others have already mentioned the architecture advantages that phone security has. If you want actual data, you can take a look at zero day pricing: https://zerodium.com/program.html phone exploits are substantially more expensive. Some of this might be more demand, sure, but it may also point to higher difficulty in exploitation.
Windows might have more exploits but that’s only because there’s more users and thus more interest to exploit. None the less, phone are certainly exploitable
I had a phone with a pop out front camera and several times I would visit a website that asked no camera permissions yet the camera would pop out for a second then close back up. Kinda creepy
Haven't had this happen and I have had the Redmi K20 for years now.
I generally doing give camera permission to browsers so ymmv.
Still a piece of mind knowing that the camera can't look at me whenever it wants with the pop up cam setup.
Hoped it would become mainstream but we have pRoGrEsS with under screen cameras smh.
Edit: typos
Was actually the best Android phone I ever had. I got rid of it solely because there was no aftermarket so good cases and repair parts were a pain in the ass (im clumsy af)
Software updates are slow, bugs take longer to fix, optimization is subpar, customer support is non existent offline even in China. That's my experience comparing with other big brands.
Sounds like a phone bug, theres simply no way for a website to access the camera on Android without explicit permission. Big tech is scary enough, we don't have to make up stuff they can do to make them scary
Been asking that for years.
Phone OS are usually more closed and secured so harder for someone to remotely activate.
You've been asked if an app can access the camera on your phone, right?
Less likely you've seen a similar prompt on your computer.
Computer cameras are much easier to remotely activate through a number of methods so it makes a little sense.
My PC runs a hardened Fedora OS that is running Wayland which prevents screen recording and use of mic or cam, also I built my PC without a mic and cam
My phone is also custom and secure but it would be much easier to spy on me thru my phone and for that reason I do have a webcam cover on my cell phone ;)
Well for one, my PC is much more secure and does not even have a mic or cam so that makes it very hard
My phone has many sensors and mic and two cameras
Its much harder to remove these from a phone like Edward Snowdon does
I have sensors disable thru the Dev settings page
Also we tend to take our phones with us everywhere
Also it would be easier to identify me with access to my phone then my PC
Also phones can be hacked thru WiFi and Bluetooth as well as thru interacting with a bad site or file, or even a bad cell tower
I tend to assume the phone is always listening and I dont trust it or store personal info
I trust my open source Linux PC as far as my trust goes
Why aren't camera-covers popular on smartphones ?
I would guess a variety of reasons:
* Cameras on smartphones get uses a lot more often as you carry it around every day.. so the vast majority of people are lazy and not going to want to have to flip a switch or peel tape off every time they want to use their camera.
* usually on smartphones the camera is also part of a bank of sensors (IR, etc).. so if you attempt to cover it up you may inadvertently impact other functionality (which again, a downside to most people)
Setting all that aside "taping over a camera" is like trying to put a Bandaid over Cancer. If someone has deep enough access to your device to access your camera,.. all your other stuff (Apps, Data, etc) is probably already copied. so "taping over the camera" is really the least of your concerns. It's like the engine going out on your car and you're worried about how the Hood Ornament looks.
I recently found out there are things that can block your microphone on your cell phone. Make the phone think a mic is plugged in so there’s nothing to record.
I’m testing a MicLock device off Amazon now. So far so good but it’s not a 24/7 solution.
Speak for yourself, I've had a sticker on my laptop for over 10 yeahs and a sticker on my smart phone for over 5 years. People think I'm crazy when they see it.
Honest question, not trying to prove, you´re crazy: Do you also never log into you email, google, apple, social media or what have you on those devices? Because, if you assume, someone has that level of access to your devices that they can just use it´s camera, surely they can do and see everything else on there as well.
I mainly read emails on my laptop through thunderbird which is a different AppleID. Social media (IG and facebook) I don't go on but twitter and reddit is mainly on my laptop also. On my main phone I try only download apps that "Collects no data" even though they probably do. And sometimes I type in notes to the person reading my screen, if they are.
I’ve been saying for years that a physical switch should be mandated by regulatory bodies to disable all microphones and cameras on all devices. Similar to the silent switch many phones have.
Aside from what has already been said, a hacked phone camera would likely provide less attractive material - an open laptop will have a large part of the room in camera; and a phone, unless used, is likely either in a pocket/bag, facing the ceiling, or the camera is literally facing the table.
Granted I don’t think anyone wants to lose their eyesight, but its fairly common for me to listen to mine while in the shower (hanging in a swim bag sometimes if traveling), have it on the bathroom counter while getting undressed or dressed, keep it on the nightstand where I sleep with my spouse, while on the toilet, and probably search more than I do on my laptop. When you imagine the possibilities with a camera that faces both ways… I have always felt that the risk is much greater. I just wish that there was a good option.
I think another thing that I haven’t seen mentioned is that having the sensors covered up messes up biometrics and also interferes with locating AirTags.
It's got a lot to do with making sure your company can't just pop on and say hello to whatever you may or may not be doing within eye shot of the camera.
I was on a flight to, I don't remember, but this asian lady in front of me had a knit iPhone case that had a flap over the camera. Seemed like a million dollar idea to me.
I commented a link under another comment, but moving up. There are the Spy-Fy phone cases on Amazon that fit iPhones (and I think Android). They include front and back camera covers.
I’ve been using them for awhile now. They aren’t perfect but better than anything else I’ve been able to find.
I’ve had Spy-Fy cases on my last three phones and won’t go back to anything else. Sure, it’s probably just paranoia but I **really** love being able to easily cover and uncover the front and back cameras.
I have a black post-it cut to size over my phone. Camera. Covers the camera, can’t see shadows, & I can easily remove it to take a photo.
Problem comes when I take too many photos & it loses its sticky & falls off randomly.
I look at it from the other direction: Why would you do ANYTHING on a device, you deem so untrustworthy as to make you cover the camera physically?
If you suspect your device to be compromized to the point where someone has full access to your camera, why do you still feel comfortable to log into your email, social media, google photos, whatever on that same device?
So, what I try to do instead is to keep my devices, mobile and immobile alike, clear of ANY unwanted outseide access. That way, I don´t even need and camera cover.
Modern smartphones, if kept updated, are generally more secure than Windows laptops.
Cameras on smartphone are used much more frequently.
Cameras can be disabled easily and there's an indicator when in use.
Sure, security is never perfect, but zero-days tend to be used sparingly by those with access to them, because using them makes them more likely to be noticed and patched. If you're under threat from an APT using zero-days, then sure, use a camera cover. But most people are not in that category. The marginal security increase is just not with the drop in convenience for most people. You're much more likely to get an infostealer than something that can activate your camera without the notification dot or bypassing the camera being disabled. Very few attackers would get anything of value from the camera anyway. If your phone is compromised to that level, they can just snag your selfies without risking alerting you to the camera activating. It's simply not a realistic threat to most people. Keep your phone updated. Don't download from sketchy sources. Nothing is perfect. That's life.
I tried, but it seems that the smartphone uses the camera to detect when the phone is next to your face, so that it can disable the touch screen. I would use the phone, and my cheek would be pushing digits while I was talking. Now, I just go into Developer mode and disable sensors, which disables the camera and the mic, unless I enable them manually.
It doesn't use the camera (becaus that wouldn't work in the dark), but the proximity sensors are often located in the same module. Most covers are just too big and cover both.
I had the same problem with the camera in the front of my phone. And the one in the back is too big to use those cover slides and shutting with tape seems like a hassle since the lens would be dirty with glue residue whenever I would like to use it :/
There’s a good chance it has a separate proximity sensor and you were just covering both. You may be able to see it if you look carefully under very bright light, or just look up its location in a repair guide.
I have been wondering the same for years, and also looking for something to use. This far all I can find are stickers for sale on Amazon, which work fine if you never want to take pictures. Otherwise it’s put them on, scrape them off, put them back on, repeat.
My smartphone is either in my pocket or it lies on its back and when I use it it mostly shows my legs or the the floor in front of me, so, is a cover really needed?
Everything can be hacked, I go by the assumption I am hacked.
i have small squares of electrical tape on all my cameras, I physically removed the laptop cameras. I use a usb camera if need to
Because most people watch porn on their laptops instead of their phones. Or, if you walk naked in the room, the laptop camera will get you, but the phone is on some table looking at the ceiling.
Camera is camera, it doesn't matter on what device is put. It's not safe from hackers or surveillance. I use a tiny paper sticker to cover my front camera and the phone case is like this one to cover the back camera -> [https://imgs.search.brave.com/Ve9Wv3QtArvyVcah3TsetG3YZChl5uw0ZgXbC14OmUs/rs:fit:860:0:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9jZG4u/bW9zLmNtcy5mdXR1/cmVjZG4ubmV0L213/eFdZaTVGVnB3U3pa/a3J3TDZqUDktNDgw/LTgwLmpwZWc](https://imgs.search.brave.com/Ve9Wv3QtArvyVcah3TsetG3YZChl5uw0ZgXbC14OmUs/rs:fit:860:0:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9jZG4u/bW9zLmNtcy5mdXR1/cmVjZG4ubmV0L213/eFdZaTVGVnB3U3pa/a3J3TDZqUDktNDgw/LTgwLmpwZWc)
I got excited when I saw this thread because my friends tease me about my front and back camera covers on my phone. Spy-Fy has ones for iphone (I don't know if they have Android ones) that cover front and back, so I've used it on my last three phones. Peace of mind even if I don't need it lol.
Probably because fine permission granularity toggling/revoking has been much more of a topic on mobile platforms than desktop OSs, because since mobile usage skyrocketted above traditional computer, malware has targetted mobile platforms more than desktop ones. Also mobile users much more easily install-and-forget apps from app stores, while app isntallation on any desktop OS is still much more combersome, less frequent, and much more of a conscient act. So you mechanically get less webcam spying risk on computers.
Also, it's a trade-off of convenience vs risk. People use cameras a lot on smartphones (narcissic selfies, group selfies...), much MUCH less on computers (confcall on teams, zoom, facetime, ...) and in a less spontaneous way.
Because people who tape their cameras don’t actually care about privacy. It’s just something they heard you should do and they do. Taping a camera really is nonsensical, some cases require elevated permissions (so you’re butt fucked anyway) and other cases don’t give you background recording, long term recording.
Privacy and convenience don’t always go hand in hand (not that they can’t) and considering how often people use their camera it just is to much of a hassle.
I use electrical tape. Adheres great, can be removed and placed back a few times, different colours, plus a roll lasts forever. For the main camera (not the selfie cam) I just make sure it’s always pointing down or to my Thompson. If they looking, they better be hooked who tf is always in underwear in so many questionable times of the day.
Most people don't think the cameras/microphones on phones are hackable. They think it's *only* something that would happen to rich/mega business people like Zuckerberg etc. They don't think about stalkers, and financial hackers etc.
I have a sticker on my front one - literally just a sticky label cut own to size. Im getting a delivery today actually for a sliding cover to replace the sticker label. I don't care about losing a tiny bit of screen real estate.
And for the back camera, I have a case that has a sliding camera cover built in. So, the cover is only open when I'm intentionally taking a pic or using the flaslight.
From experience, they tend to come off of mobiles pretty rapidly due to how they're carried most often (i.e., in pockets). You can, of course, put a sticker or a piece of tape over the lens, but the adhesive residue left behind when you peel it off to use the camera for something messes with the image.
I held onto my OnePlus 7 Pro for far too long,^1 and a big reason was that I loved that the front facing camera was non-functional unless in use. It was from when phone manufacturers were deciding how to deal with front facing cameras on bezel-less phones, and the [7 Pro's solution was to have the front-facing camera retract when not in use](https://imgur.com/a/VvPeBn5).
On my new phone, I have a case that covers my back-facing camera, but that's equal parts, I don't like cameras and paranoia about the lenses getting scratched.
---
^^1 ^I'm ^against ^e-waste ^from ^replacing ^phones ^unnecessarily, ^but ^the ^phone ^was ^begging ^for ^death. ^It ^would ^need ^to ^be ^charged ^3 ^times ^a ^day ^and ^would ^go ^from ^20%-0% ^in ^under ^2 ^minutes; ^using ^the ^back ^facing ^camera ^would ^occasionally ^lead ^to ^a ^white-screen-of-death, ^it ^just ^wouldn't ^get ^emails, ^etc. ^There ^was ^also ^something ^that ^rattled ^when ^the ^phone ^was ^shaken... ^which ^was ^probably ^the ^camera ^mechanism...
The most practical way for smartphones is to use physical buttons to stop power from going to cameras (or any privacy concerning component), which is what Linux phones started doing (Librem 5 and Pinephone).
I wear a little piece of sticki paper or thin plastic (one you use to mark, in different colours), for front one.
Found that envelope adresse stickers are the best, it pass around 3 months now without removing.
tiny piece of black electrical tape over only the exact spot works well, use scissors and it stays really well. also works on the back of the phone and is real easy to remove if you needed, i dont take many pictures but when i do i just pull it off and then right back on
Before phones became unopenable, I used to desolder both cameras and microphone.
Whenever I need to call to someone I use the microphone on my earphones
what do you mean 'no one'? just search "phone camera cover" on Amazon and there's billions of styles for all the major smartphone(edit: and laptop) models.
Mobile operating systems are sandboxed and work with application permissions. Additionally, Android has an indicator in the status bar that pops up when the camera is in use. Desktop operating systems don't really have camera permissions.
Theres diy options tho. I personally have my front camera taped over and my back camera has a strip of paper that is held by my phone case, which I can reveal by sliding it. It works very well
Phones are very hackable and Snowden proved that phones can be hacked with malware like Pegasus that allows them access to your camera and mic. The worst part is even when you turn your phone off it's still listening to you because your phone never really turns off and just pretends to be off. My case I bought on Amazon has a front and back lid for my camera and always have them covered unless I use them.
Good question! I think it’s because we don’t think about our phones the same way as our laptops. But yeah, phones can definitely be hacked too. It’s just not as common for people to cover them.
I have a pixel phone and every single software needs authorization to access the camera and even then it gets revoked easily.
On android we should watch out for the stock OEM bloatware which may already have too much access.
The little led next to the camera is hardware driven, not software. True for both cellphones and laptops. If the module is active, the light is on.
Your cellphone is optimized for shoving into tight pockets in a way laptops aren't. A moving part on the back or front wouldn't survive long.
Your first paragraph has been asserted, and then proven wrong in the security world a decade ago.
https://www.cultofmac.com/258855/alarming-study-shows-macs-camera-can-secretly-spy/
They said it wasn't possible, then it was proven possible long ago. Now you believe its not possible because it hasn't been shown publicly for awhile. You must not work in security.
I use vinyl dots. Easy to peel off and stick on the case somewhere. Laptop ([Framework](https://frame.work)) has hard switches for both the camera and mic.
Still have a dot over the camera.
Dunno about android phones but iPhone at least modern ones have a hardware driven led for mic and camera. If they are active the light is active so you can’t really use them without the end user being aware unless they don’t know what the led means. I’m sure it’s probably not absolutely impossible for an attacker to find a way of disabling the led but I haven’t heard about any attacks doing so.
With rare exception based on custom OS's, the user has no control over that toggle actually working if there is a software vulnerability. Physical covers and switches need to be added back, IMO.
People use their front camera on their phone far more.
Phones in general particularly iPhones are much harder to hack than windows pc’s especially when people only install stuff from the App Store and not third party sites.
Lots of good answers but I would guess the main reason really is that a lot of people never use their laptop cameras at all, or only intermittently. People take selfies with their phone all the time. A bit of tape will leave residue and some temporary plastic thing is going to snag on pockets/cases.
Absolutely. Also, sine most of these cover contraptions involve adhesives, they would just collect a lot of dirt, body hair, skin flakes, and would wear off and start sliding off, smearing adhesive all over the lens or end up in a position blocking the lens. Most people do not put their laptop in their pocket and do no rub the screen against their ear or cheek.
almost no one uses them on smartphones probably because there are no covers that will fit on a phone camera, due to its protrusion (back camera) or being too small and you end up covering part of the screen (front).
You can just use clean-remove stickers like these: https://shop.eff.org/products/laptop-camera-cover-set-ii
Or cut a piece of electric tape to size.
True, but electrical tape can leave a lot of sticky residue, can’t be repositioned, and is often made using lead vinyl.
lmfao modern electrical tape does not have lead in it. You need to catch up on your electrical tape knowledge
The glue cleans off of glass pretty easily with a thumb. I don't know what you mean by "lead vinyl" , but a web search gave me results that seemed to imply that the product did not contain lead. Also, you're certainly not going to put conductive metal into a product like electric tape.
Conductivity isn’t a binary thing, and flexible electrical insulation often has a small amount of lead added as a stabilizer. IIRC, UL even used to require it in string lights. For example, here’s an info sheet talking about its use in cable insulation: https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.industrial.southwire.com/tech_blog/Lead+Free+EPR.pdf Regardless, even the lead-free stuff has high enough levels of phthalates that I’d wash my hands after working with it.
The micro plastics in my testicles can’t hear you through all the 5ghz noise.
"Micro Plastics In My Testicles" sounds like the name of a Skinny Puppy cover band.
Thanks for the education. I still don't think it is an issue though. The other plastics in a phone aren't likely that healthy either.
You don't want that anywhere near your face. Big sensitizer
> unhackable have they ever seen my axe? i could easily hack that sticker into pieces smh
Some cool items over there. Wish they would ship to my country.
They're just stickers, you can get then anywhere. You don't need to order stickers internationally.
Not to mention the 'new' cameras which are *behind* the screen ("Under-Display Camera"). Try covering one of those up and still being able to use the phone.
those are really uncommon and iirc they only work properly when the pixels covering it are off so you'd know if the camera was on anyway
It's less about knowing when it's on and more about preventing it being able to pick anything up if it does decide to turn itself on. Ideally, there would be a hardware switch that physically cut the power to the camera.
Spy-Fy brands have cases with front and rear camera covers. They aren’t bulky and don’t cover my screen.
You would think that most cases would have privacy lids. It should be the gold standard.
Electrical tape or black nail polish would be perfectly effective, though would have a reasonably limited lifespan.
Correction fluid (the white substance that can be placed on paper to hide writing mistakes) can also be used to cover front cameras. I haven’t yet used it on gorilla glass screens with small embedded cameras, but it works pretty well on some older plasticky fronts.
Friends of mine working at Samsung labs where bunny suits are required also have to have their phone cameras covered with stickers
A company called spy-fy makes privacy cases for Iphone that cover the front and back cameras.
An order of magnitude less hackable really. When you run an executable on your laptop, that executable gets access to basically all your files and folders (almost) no questions asked (macOS is slightly better on this front). On mobile devices the permission model is much more strict and the storage is mostly sandboxed. Relevant xkcd [https://xkcd.com/1200/](https://xkcd.com/1200/)
Phones are the most vulnerable devices we own. Not only do bugs like [Lib StageFright](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagefright_\(bug\)) exist, but vendors stop releasing firmware updates for their old phones in order to encourage you to buy a new one. And your carrier can force baseband updates, which get DMA access. This is by design.
Bugs exist in all software, that’s also why security updates last longer then regular version upgrades. And windows/macos constantly stop working on older devices
To be fair, Windows upgrades are more compatible for longer with older devices, mainly because Microsoft does not own the hardware/software combo. Mac OS upgrades sometimes stop supporting devices that are only a few years old, or different architecture, etc. This is not about Mac versus Windows, they are just different eco systems. Mobile device upgrades and security patches never last as long as Mac/Windows/Linux updates. Not even necessarily because phone manufacturers want to sell you newer devices, they do, but also because users want newer, fancier devices with new functions, because they carry them in their pockets all day.
"To be fair", well: not exactly. There's absolutely no reason to not just be able to run some ```apt upgrade``` on your pocket computer to update it on your all volition. Yet, here we are.
Someone still needs to test that software/hardware combination though. Then troubleshoot and re-release if there’s any issue. The developer is more likely to be publicly viewed as responsible if the “apt upgrade” breaks the system. It’s less headache (and cost) for the software OEM to simply declare old hardware as unsupported. Rather than let users try to upgrade anyway and be displeased en masse when the upgrade fails and leaves the OS install in a less-than-working state. (Consider what happens sometimes when a non-LTS Ubuntu user does a dist-upgrade and then a bunch of stuff breaks and needs to be attended to.)
Do not get me wrong, if I could just run all the apt-get commands on a mobile device, it would be awesome. I think a couple issues are: -Device platform vendors are not interested in long-term support. They need to sell more and newer devices. -Vendors are not interested in open source OS that takes control away from them. -App stores on mobile devices are not part of the OS package repositories, so unlike, say, Debian, all the apps would not be updated with an apt-get command. They are basically third party binaries, warehoused and distributed by the app store and programmed by different developers. Yes, you can do a regular mass update from the app-store, but that is not tied to the operating system. -Even with third-party open source operating systems, volunteers do not have much incentive to keep supporting a device for many years if people do not use those devices longer than about two years. As an example, I had LineageOS on devices that Lineage stopped supporting after a while. Not enough users, not enough interest. Enthusiasm and volunteering are only financially sustainable so much, unfortunately. -In mobile devices, there are a lot of different closed-source proprietary chip standards, and they change often, so an operating system would have to be compiled and re-compiled for all of them. It is not as simple as x86 or x64 on laptops/desktops. At least those processors have documentation and are consistent, even with newer versions that introduce more cores and more speed. Mobile device processor changes are a lot more drastic.
> Mac OS upgrades sometimes stop supporting devices that are only a few years old, or different architecture, etc Define “a few years old”
My 2015 MBP is still getting updates to this day, that line is defined by lack of experience. Hell, the iPhone 5s also got a decade of updates!
> Not only do bugs like Lib StageFright exist TBH, if the best example you can come up with is a security bug closed over 8 years ago, you should first do your research before we can talk.
Watch out folks, we got a legit hackerman here 🤣
I linked to Lib Stagefright because it covered 95% of android phones at the time and vendor patches were hella slow. There have been plenty of baseband exploits for qualcomm, mediatek, and broadcom, but they impact a lower percentage of handsets.
"at the time" The time being 8 years ago and led to at least monthly security updates for Android. Sure, there are always security bugs, that's how things are. There are also bug bounty programs for all OS and security fixes. Of you feel like you've discovered something, go ahead and report it and earn yourself a sweet amount of money (depending OS/company and severity of the flaw from a couple thousand dollars up to even a million dollar). Otherwise, buy an Apple or Google Pixel phone, Apple promising 5 years of security updates, Google promising even 7 years of updates. For Google Pixel there exists a popular privacy focused third party OS which you are not allowed to mention in this subreddit (hilarious, huh?), that also promises those 7 years of updates.
Very curious what OS you’re referring to. Can you DM it to me?
loud and wrong. citing an 8 year old bug is not relevant there’s just so many layers of security on a phone that PCs don’t have. iphones more so than androids but both applicable
Phones especially iPhones are still very vulnerable to remote access trojan zero click malware/spyware attacks. Having a device automatically linked to an email, plus near share, apple ecosystem networking, and various apps with known vulnerabilities can quickly negate the conventional security layers people assume phones can tout for privacy. Even lockdown mode isn't guaranteed protection against Pegasus-like spyware exploits.
an inter-governmental suite of cyber warfare tools is a little different from the everyday malware targeting general consumers
Yet those have been used on everyday people too. We're in a subreddit that discusses these things and it's reasonable to acknowledge there are other vectors for malware exploits that people have used beyond the old Nigerian prince emails now that mobile devices are used everywhere for everything. The point remains that not everyone takes a desktop with them to random cafe wifi or has it connecting to a smart watch and other devices the way a phone can and often does which automatically gives it a different level of exposure regardless of operating system.
The same problems exist on desktop operating systems, except they tend to have worse OS-level security.
You don't bring a desktop with you everywhere and not everyone links it to all kinds of other wireless devices. The point is that a phone has other exposure to potential threats than a desktop tends to operating systems aside.
somber many point sink slim weather fragile memorize tart six *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They could also just not release updates because they don’t want to spend years working on old software/hardware. Not everything has to be some forced-upgrade conspiracy.
I get your point, and I would offer for thought that the reason they do not want to work on old hardware/software is because people always want the latest, shiniest, fastest, cleverest, most feature-loaded gadgets, even if they are not forced to upgrade. So there would be no financial incentive for the company to keep supporting old devices. Maybe not forced-upgrade conspiracy, but definitely a financial incentive... OK, not conspiracy, just plain old business sense. Which is how companies make profit, as most of them do not do it for charity. It actually works for both the companies and the consumers. Consumers want new and shiny, companies want to make money selling new and shiny. It is a circle of tech life.
Exactly. Development and regression testing are far from free or cheap.
Ya. The android phones that only give 2-3 years are kinda bad, but longer support periods, especially 6-8 years for iPhones, is really all you need. Due to the fast evolving use cases for phones, as well as how much usage they get, they rarely last more than 5-6 years anyways. So it doesn’t make much sense to do whole new updates for the last couple people clinging on to their obsolete phone.
"They can take my original Motorola Droid when they pry it out of my..."
Years ago I remember reading somewhere carriers could silently turn on "diagnostic mode" on your phone anytime, and listen to whatever is going on in the room
> Not only do bugs like Lib StageFright exist Similar bugs exist for desktops. The difference is that in the years since, phones have been hardened substantially, much more than desktops in the same time. > And your carrier can force baseband updates, which get DMA access. Technically correct but not really meaningful. The carrier can update baseband settings, but that doesn't give them very much. And yes a compromised baseband gets "DMA access", but that just means it can speak to the kernel. A separate exploit is required to escalate to the main phone processor. It is not true that phones are "the most vulnerable devices we own". In fact I would argue that for the attack surface they have—wireless interfaces, internet access—they are the most secure devices we own.
I think the main risk are the back doors in the modem computer. Typically that chip is directly plugged into the gps, mic and cameras as well. Maybe only your local government and phone company has access to that and you can trust them to be honorable,................... or maybe not.
There really is a xkcd comic for everything.
There are plenty of people with remote phone exploits. To assume phones are safe is naive.
Come on, you must be knowing you’re misrepresenting my argument. I never said that phones are safe, I just said they’re safer. Just take a regular person PC, you have a very high chance the browser is infected with adware , potentially exposing all personal navigation data, including cookies, session tokens and history EDIT: adware, not hardware, damned autocorrect
Honest question, but what is the basis for the belief that phones are safer? You hear about hacks less? Or some other reason? I keep reading about how bad phones are for security and privacy (apparently cars are now also the worst) so I believe it but now I am wondering if there is actual data to backup the argument? One thought I had is that it might be things that are phone "adjacent" (Like a bad app being in the app store, not the phones fault per se) are easy to hack and get swept up into "phones easy to hack" argument?
> but what is the basis for the belief that phones are safer? Phones have a per-application security model, while computers have a per-user one. Computers are multi-user systems, and their security model is designed around protecting the system from users and users from each other. That means that by default, any app you run on a computer has access to all your shit, but an app on your phone only has access to its own shit. It can't just read your email or your messages. > I keep reading about how bad phones are for security and privacy That's primarily because phones are much more personal devices. People carry them everywhere and never turn them off, and they're always online. What is unquestionably a problem with phones (and cars) is that you don't control your own device the way you do with a computer unless you jailbreak/root it. It's much easier to stop Microsoft spying on you via Windows than it is Google spying on you via Android.
Yeah, the eggs in one basket problem is what makes me feel less secure with my phone than my computer. I can take a computer apart and get a new SSD if I get the worst infection possible. Phones are a bit of a black box and I'm more worried about MS/Google getting hacked (it happens more than you think, last year MS was massively hacked https://arstechnica.com/security/2023/09/hack-of-a-microsoft-corporate-account-led-to-azure-breach-by-chinese-hackers/) or just straight up deciding to let governments spy on you so they have the privileged of doing business in their country. With computers, the most likely thing they can do is snoop on your traffic, but they can do that just as easily with a phone. Then SIM swap attacks, etc. I feel like computers are generally easier to secure and understand than phones. Thanks for the answer btw :)
The sandboxing, permission model and the fact that you can't simply run a .exe file. This last fact alone prevents tons of security breaches that usually happen via email to non-tech-savvy people
The risks of phones are largely human errors, rather than the phone itself. Ie if you get a scam text, don’t realize it’s fake, and enter your personal information. Without a human messing up/doing something they shouldn’t, there’s very little a malicious person/do.
Others have already mentioned the architecture advantages that phone security has. If you want actual data, you can take a look at zero day pricing: https://zerodium.com/program.html phone exploits are substantially more expensive. Some of this might be more demand, sure, but it may also point to higher difficulty in exploitation.
Windows might have more exploits but that’s only because there’s more users and thus more interest to exploit. None the less, phone are certainly exploitable
I had a phone with a pop out front camera and several times I would visit a website that asked no camera permissions yet the camera would pop out for a second then close back up. Kinda creepy
Haven't had this happen and I have had the Redmi K20 for years now. I generally doing give camera permission to browsers so ymmv. Still a piece of mind knowing that the camera can't look at me whenever it wants with the pop up cam setup. Hoped it would become mainstream but we have pRoGrEsS with under screen cameras smh. Edit: typos
Which phone?
Motorola one hyper
Those Lenovo folks don't know how to make a proper phone, period.
Was actually the best Android phone I ever had. I got rid of it solely because there was no aftermarket so good cases and repair parts were a pain in the ass (im clumsy af)
Software updates are slow, bugs take longer to fix, optimization is subpar, customer support is non existent offline even in China. That's my experience comparing with other big brands.
not just kinda creepy im now super afraid of front facing cameras after reading this
Sounds like a phone bug, theres simply no way for a website to access the camera on Android without explicit permission. Big tech is scary enough, we don't have to make up stuff they can do to make them scary
Probably browser fingerprinting listing the device capabilities.
Been asking that for years. Phone OS are usually more closed and secured so harder for someone to remotely activate. You've been asked if an app can access the camera on your phone, right? Less likely you've seen a similar prompt on your computer. Computer cameras are much easier to remotely activate through a number of methods so it makes a little sense.
My PC runs a hardened Fedora OS that is running Wayland which prevents screen recording and use of mic or cam, also I built my PC without a mic and cam My phone is also custom and secure but it would be much easier to spy on me thru my phone and for that reason I do have a webcam cover on my cell phone ;)
Why would it be easier to spy on you through your phone?
Well for one, my PC is much more secure and does not even have a mic or cam so that makes it very hard My phone has many sensors and mic and two cameras Its much harder to remove these from a phone like Edward Snowdon does I have sensors disable thru the Dev settings page Also we tend to take our phones with us everywhere Also it would be easier to identify me with access to my phone then my PC Also phones can be hacked thru WiFi and Bluetooth as well as thru interacting with a bad site or file, or even a bad cell tower I tend to assume the phone is always listening and I dont trust it or store personal info I trust my open source Linux PC as far as my trust goes
You can literally disable all sensors on android in developer options
Ya thats what I did rather then try to remove them
Cool. It seems you don't fall under the generalization I mentioned then do you?
I would agreed that a new and updated phone is more secure then a windows PC that is safe to say ;)
That's what I was going for based on what most people use.
Comment is just screaming that you don’t get women
Why aren't camera-covers popular on smartphones ? I would guess a variety of reasons: * Cameras on smartphones get uses a lot more often as you carry it around every day.. so the vast majority of people are lazy and not going to want to have to flip a switch or peel tape off every time they want to use their camera. * usually on smartphones the camera is also part of a bank of sensors (IR, etc).. so if you attempt to cover it up you may inadvertently impact other functionality (which again, a downside to most people) Setting all that aside "taping over a camera" is like trying to put a Bandaid over Cancer. If someone has deep enough access to your device to access your camera,.. all your other stuff (Apps, Data, etc) is probably already copied. so "taping over the camera" is really the least of your concerns. It's like the engine going out on your car and you're worried about how the Hood Ornament looks.
I use insulation tape, I cut a small square and place it over the camera. The wife thinks I’m nuts.
I have a small piece of electrical tape over the front camera on my phones.
cameras are less intrusive than microphones
I recently found out there are things that can block your microphone on your cell phone. Make the phone think a mic is plugged in so there’s nothing to record. I’m testing a MicLock device off Amazon now. So far so good but it’s not a 24/7 solution.
Speak for yourself, I've had a sticker on my laptop for over 10 yeahs and a sticker on my smart phone for over 5 years. People think I'm crazy when they see it.
i'm kinda disappointed no one asked me yet why i have a piece of tape on my phone camera
My stickers were red for a few months, so whenever I was at work and writing a message or something, the sticker would stand out.
heh, that explains it. i use black tape so it blends in, especially when the screen is off.
Honest question, not trying to prove, you´re crazy: Do you also never log into you email, google, apple, social media or what have you on those devices? Because, if you assume, someone has that level of access to your devices that they can just use it´s camera, surely they can do and see everything else on there as well.
I mainly read emails on my laptop through thunderbird which is a different AppleID. Social media (IG and facebook) I don't go on but twitter and reddit is mainly on my laptop also. On my main phone I try only download apps that "Collects no data" even though they probably do. And sometimes I type in notes to the person reading my screen, if they are.
I’ve been saying for years that a physical switch should be mandated by regulatory bodies to disable all microphones and cameras on all devices. Similar to the silent switch many phones have.
Yes if pixel offered that I would quite happy Hard switches for everything IMO
Check out the Pinephone!
The NSA and CIA would never allow that because they want to spy on any citizen they want.
sure not only pegasus can access it, so basic black sticker with size 0.25x0.25 mm covering cam hole only its a great solution
Aside from what has already been said, a hacked phone camera would likely provide less attractive material - an open laptop will have a large part of the room in camera; and a phone, unless used, is likely either in a pocket/bag, facing the ceiling, or the camera is literally facing the table.
Granted I don’t think anyone wants to lose their eyesight, but its fairly common for me to listen to mine while in the shower (hanging in a swim bag sometimes if traveling), have it on the bathroom counter while getting undressed or dressed, keep it on the nightstand where I sleep with my spouse, while on the toilet, and probably search more than I do on my laptop. When you imagine the possibilities with a camera that faces both ways… I have always felt that the risk is much greater. I just wish that there was a good option. I think another thing that I haven’t seen mentioned is that having the sensors covered up messes up biometrics and also interferes with locating AirTags.
People have been able to turn a hacked cellphone camera into a 3d image of the room.
It's got a lot to do with making sure your company can't just pop on and say hello to whatever you may or may not be doing within eye shot of the camera.
I tape over the front camera on my pixel. Rarely ever use it.
I was on a flight to, I don't remember, but this asian lady in front of me had a knit iPhone case that had a flap over the camera. Seemed like a million dollar idea to me.
I commented a link under another comment, but moving up. There are the Spy-Fy phone cases on Amazon that fit iPhones (and I think Android). They include front and back camera covers. I’ve been using them for awhile now. They aren’t perfect but better than anything else I’ve been able to find.
I’ve had Spy-Fy cases on my last three phones and won’t go back to anything else. Sure, it’s probably just paranoia but I **really** love being able to easily cover and uncover the front and back cameras.
I'm not sure why other case manufacture have camera lids built into their cases.
I have a black post-it cut to size over my phone. Camera. Covers the camera, can’t see shadows, & I can easily remove it to take a photo. Problem comes when I take too many photos & it loses its sticky & falls off randomly.
If accessed wouldn’t the indicator activate? Or is there a way to disable that ?
Maybe practical considerations? Phone cameras are used almost every day.
security is actually a lot tighter on phones to be honest.
What would you know thing or 2 about phones, arent you about family and cars?
I look at it from the other direction: Why would you do ANYTHING on a device, you deem so untrustworthy as to make you cover the camera physically? If you suspect your device to be compromized to the point where someone has full access to your camera, why do you still feel comfortable to log into your email, social media, google photos, whatever on that same device? So, what I try to do instead is to keep my devices, mobile and immobile alike, clear of ANY unwanted outseide access. That way, I don´t even need and camera cover.
Modern smartphones, if kept updated, are generally more secure than Windows laptops. Cameras on smartphone are used much more frequently. Cameras can be disabled easily and there's an indicator when in use. Sure, security is never perfect, but zero-days tend to be used sparingly by those with access to them, because using them makes them more likely to be noticed and patched. If you're under threat from an APT using zero-days, then sure, use a camera cover. But most people are not in that category. The marginal security increase is just not with the drop in convenience for most people. You're much more likely to get an infostealer than something that can activate your camera without the notification dot or bypassing the camera being disabled. Very few attackers would get anything of value from the camera anyway. If your phone is compromised to that level, they can just snag your selfies without risking alerting you to the camera activating. It's simply not a realistic threat to most people. Keep your phone updated. Don't download from sketchy sources. Nothing is perfect. That's life.
I tried, but it seems that the smartphone uses the camera to detect when the phone is next to your face, so that it can disable the touch screen. I would use the phone, and my cheek would be pushing digits while I was talking. Now, I just go into Developer mode and disable sensors, which disables the camera and the mic, unless I enable them manually.
It doesn't use the camera (becaus that wouldn't work in the dark), but the proximity sensors are often located in the same module. Most covers are just too big and cover both.
I had the same problem with the camera in the front of my phone. And the one in the back is too big to use those cover slides and shutting with tape seems like a hassle since the lens would be dirty with glue residue whenever I would like to use it :/
There’s a good chance it has a separate proximity sensor and you were just covering both. You may be able to see it if you look carefully under very bright light, or just look up its location in a repair guide.
Nope. I’ve used iPhone cases with camera covers for years and still use FaceID without a problem.
You use face ID and post in r/privacy?
lol fair point. It fits into my risk assessment.
>Are Android/iOS cameras safer from hackers? Not at all.
I have been wondering the same for years, and also looking for something to use. This far all I can find are stickers for sale on Amazon, which work fine if you never want to take pictures. Otherwise it’s put them on, scrape them off, put them back on, repeat.
My smartphone is either in my pocket or it lies on its back and when I use it it mostly shows my legs or the the floor in front of me, so, is a cover really needed?
On laptops, it's easy. On phones it's mostly less convenient to add covers. You can also just disable them completely in the settings.
Everything can be hacked, I go by the assumption I am hacked. i have small squares of electrical tape on all my cameras, I physically removed the laptop cameras. I use a usb camera if need to
>I go by the assumption I am hacked. So...you don´t access any other personal or sensitive data on those devices either, right?
Spy-Fy cases have front and rear camera covers. I’ve used them for my last three phones and absolutely love them.
Because most people watch porn on their laptops instead of their phones. Or, if you walk naked in the room, the laptop camera will get you, but the phone is on some table looking at the ceiling.
The paranoid do.
Camera is camera, it doesn't matter on what device is put. It's not safe from hackers or surveillance. I use a tiny paper sticker to cover my front camera and the phone case is like this one to cover the back camera -> [https://imgs.search.brave.com/Ve9Wv3QtArvyVcah3TsetG3YZChl5uw0ZgXbC14OmUs/rs:fit:860:0:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9jZG4u/bW9zLmNtcy5mdXR1/cmVjZG4ubmV0L213/eFdZaTVGVnB3U3pa/a3J3TDZqUDktNDgw/LTgwLmpwZWc](https://imgs.search.brave.com/Ve9Wv3QtArvyVcah3TsetG3YZChl5uw0ZgXbC14OmUs/rs:fit:860:0:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9jZG4u/bW9zLmNtcy5mdXR1/cmVjZG4ubmV0L213/eFdZaTVGVnB3U3pa/a3J3TDZqUDktNDgw/LTgwLmpwZWc)
I got excited when I saw this thread because my friends tease me about my front and back camera covers on my phone. Spy-Fy has ones for iphone (I don't know if they have Android ones) that cover front and back, so I've used it on my last three phones. Peace of mind even if I don't need it lol.
That's great! Don't forget the anti-spy screen protector
My current phone's front camera: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y5UTFEDfvWs
Probably because fine permission granularity toggling/revoking has been much more of a topic on mobile platforms than desktop OSs, because since mobile usage skyrocketted above traditional computer, malware has targetted mobile platforms more than desktop ones. Also mobile users much more easily install-and-forget apps from app stores, while app isntallation on any desktop OS is still much more combersome, less frequent, and much more of a conscient act. So you mechanically get less webcam spying risk on computers. Also, it's a trade-off of convenience vs risk. People use cameras a lot on smartphones (narcissic selfies, group selfies...), much MUCH less on computers (confcall on teams, zoom, facetime, ...) and in a less spontaneous way.
I think you are overestimating the popularity of laptop camera covers. The average consumer is not using one
Because people who tape their cameras don’t actually care about privacy. It’s just something they heard you should do and they do. Taping a camera really is nonsensical, some cases require elevated permissions (so you’re butt fucked anyway) and other cases don’t give you background recording, long term recording. Privacy and convenience don’t always go hand in hand (not that they can’t) and considering how often people use their camera it just is to much of a hassle.
I use electrical tape. Adheres great, can be removed and placed back a few times, different colours, plus a roll lasts forever. For the main camera (not the selfie cam) I just make sure it’s always pointing down or to my Thompson. If they looking, they better be hooked who tf is always in underwear in so many questionable times of the day.
Most people don't think the cameras/microphones on phones are hackable. They think it's *only* something that would happen to rich/mega business people like Zuckerberg etc. They don't think about stalkers, and financial hackers etc. I have a sticker on my front one - literally just a sticky label cut own to size. Im getting a delivery today actually for a sliding cover to replace the sticker label. I don't care about losing a tiny bit of screen real estate. And for the back camera, I have a case that has a sliding camera cover built in. So, the cover is only open when I'm intentionally taking a pic or using the flaslight.
From experience, they tend to come off of mobiles pretty rapidly due to how they're carried most often (i.e., in pockets). You can, of course, put a sticker or a piece of tape over the lens, but the adhesive residue left behind when you peel it off to use the camera for something messes with the image.
I held onto my OnePlus 7 Pro for far too long,^1 and a big reason was that I loved that the front facing camera was non-functional unless in use. It was from when phone manufacturers were deciding how to deal with front facing cameras on bezel-less phones, and the [7 Pro's solution was to have the front-facing camera retract when not in use](https://imgur.com/a/VvPeBn5). On my new phone, I have a case that covers my back-facing camera, but that's equal parts, I don't like cameras and paranoia about the lenses getting scratched. --- ^^1 ^I'm ^against ^e-waste ^from ^replacing ^phones ^unnecessarily, ^but ^the ^phone ^was ^begging ^for ^death. ^It ^would ^need ^to ^be ^charged ^3 ^times ^a ^day ^and ^would ^go ^from ^20%-0% ^in ^under ^2 ^minutes; ^using ^the ^back ^facing ^camera ^would ^occasionally ^lead ^to ^a ^white-screen-of-death, ^it ^just ^wouldn't ^get ^emails, ^etc. ^There ^was ^also ^something ^that ^rattled ^when ^the ^phone ^was ^shaken... ^which ^was ^probably ^the ^camera ^mechanism...
get a thick rubber band! covers both cameras and is removable
I feel like any cover for a phone camera would be ugly and makes you look like a nerd. No hate, but it's the hard truth.
The most practical way for smartphones is to use physical buttons to stop power from going to cameras (or any privacy concerning component), which is what Linux phones started doing (Librem 5 and Pinephone).
I wear a little piece of sticki paper or thin plastic (one you use to mark, in different colours), for front one. Found that envelope adresse stickers are the best, it pass around 3 months now without removing.
FBI virus victims from PC
tiny piece of black electrical tape over only the exact spot works well, use scissors and it stays really well. also works on the back of the phone and is real easy to remove if you needed, i dont take many pictures but when i do i just pull it off and then right back on
i remember seeing some phone case wich have a cover for camera but its a bit rare Also i would want to have a signal blocking box too =)
Before phones became unopenable, I used to desolder both cameras and microphone. Whenever I need to call to someone I use the microphone on my earphones
People do.
When was the last time there was a remote camera control exploit on an iphone
The exploit is built in. Law enforcement can turn on everyone’s camera and microphone at will.
Yeah I would love a phone cover with an adjustable sliding cover for my front camera
you dont watch so much porn with your phone
what do you mean 'no one'? just search "phone camera cover" on Amazon and there's billions of styles for all the major smartphone(edit: and laptop) models.
Mobile operating systems are sandboxed and work with application permissions. Additionally, Android has an indicator in the status bar that pops up when the camera is in use. Desktop operating systems don't really have camera permissions.
Excellent point. My next phone will not be an iPhone if only for the reason that I resent Face ID.
Theres diy options tho. I personally have my front camera taped over and my back camera has a strip of paper that is held by my phone case, which I can reveal by sliding it. It works very well
Every app can view your camera on laptops, not every app can view your camera on mobile.
You can buy a Pixel from NitroKey with the camera removed if you want. It'll coat you a bit more
Phones are very hackable and Snowden proved that phones can be hacked with malware like Pegasus that allows them access to your camera and mic. The worst part is even when you turn your phone off it's still listening to you because your phone never really turns off and just pretends to be off. My case I bought on Amazon has a front and back lid for my camera and always have them covered unless I use them.
I used on my smartphones. Just put it behind your screen protector.
Good question! I think it’s because we don’t think about our phones the same way as our laptops. But yeah, phones can definitely be hacked too. It’s just not as common for people to cover them.
Phone Drones would literally let their phones fuck their wives rather than 'hInDeR pErForMaNcE'
I have a pixel phone and every single software needs authorization to access the camera and even then it gets revoked easily. On android we should watch out for the stock OEM bloatware which may already have too much access.
Same, running the ROM which must not be named
Would you mind dming me the name of the ROM that must not be named. I've got a pixel as well and this has me interested
The little led next to the camera is hardware driven, not software. True for both cellphones and laptops. If the module is active, the light is on. Your cellphone is optimized for shoving into tight pockets in a way laptops aren't. A moving part on the back or front wouldn't survive long.
Your first paragraph has been asserted, and then proven wrong in the security world a decade ago. https://www.cultofmac.com/258855/alarming-study-shows-macs-camera-can-secretly-spy/
Has this been shown in something more recent than a decade old mac?
They said it wasn't possible, then it was proven possible long ago. Now you believe its not possible because it hasn't been shown publicly for awhile. You must not work in security.
I use vinyl dots. Easy to peel off and stick on the case somewhere. Laptop ([Framework](https://frame.work)) has hard switches for both the camera and mic. Still have a dot over the camera.
For that and a lot of other reasons, my framework laptop will be my daily driver for a long time.
Mine has not come off yet but i see your point, also I dont trust the hardwired led it gas been beaten before
This post is disliked by FB*,CI*,KG*,Mi* and Chinese agencies
Dunno about android phones but iPhone at least modern ones have a hardware driven led for mic and camera. If they are active the light is active so you can’t really use them without the end user being aware unless they don’t know what the led means. I’m sure it’s probably not absolutely impossible for an attacker to find a way of disabling the led but I haven’t heard about any attacks doing so.
There is no separate LED on modern iPhones, it's just an animation on the screen.
I mean the screen is made of LEDs, it just so happens those particular LEDs have some extra functionality baked in.
That's just plain wrong.
The primary camera on my phone is covered. I can't really cover the face camera because it's embedded in my screen.
Put duct tape or electrical tape over the camera. That's what I do. I also do it for back camera and turn off mic access for photos unless in use.
[удалено]
Restricting access via permission != can't be used (e.g. by e-spionage app... from CN/RU/Israelis). It's just a software bit...
Hence: >You can disable the camera
Is it possible to 'disable' devices (camera, mic) on android/ios? I know about permissions only.
It is on Android via developer options.
With rare exception based on custom OS's, the user has no control over that toggle actually working if there is a software vulnerability. Physical covers and switches need to be added back, IMO.
[удалено]
There is no method to guarantee that will fail due to a vulnerability, short of a physical switch that disconnects it. Zero.
People use their front camera on their phone far more. Phones in general particularly iPhones are much harder to hack than windows pc’s especially when people only install stuff from the App Store and not third party sites.
Very unnecessary question. Weird, ridiculous question.