That's backwards.
The LED should be connected to camera's power, or maybe camera's "enable" signal. It should not be operable via any firmware in any way.
The led also has to be connected through a one-shot trigger (a transistor + a capacitor) so that it would light up, say, for at least 500 ms no matter how short the input pulse is. This would prevent making single shots hard to notice.
Doing that, of course, would incur a few cents more in BOM, and quite a bit more in being paranoid, well, I mean, customer-centric.
or, you can have a physical switch, like the Framework. that also hits your BOM but its not complex!
You can buy/print and stick a physical «webcam cover»[1] manually on your notebook or phone.
My current notebook, manufactured in 2023, has very thin bar on top of screen with camera, so I need a thin, U-like attachment for the switch, which is hard to find.
[1]: https://www.printables.com/model/2479-webcam-cover-slider
Am I the only one that is not worried at all about the camera and super concerned about microphones ? The camera may see me staring into the screen, woo hoo. The microphones will hear everything I discuss, incl. confidential information.
There is no physical microphone cover there, is it ?
Sound is usually more sensitive, yes. But even if there is a physical switch on the laptop, only very exotic smartphones have them.
Also, loudspeakers can act as microphones, too.
In other words, paranoia gets exhausting in modern times.
(And my smartphone has a replacable battery for that reason to at least sometimes enjoy potentially surveillance free time)
My Pinephone has a switch for the microphone and also my Pinebook Pro laptop. But I also would agree that this is exotic hardware.
"But I also would agree that this is exotic hardware."
No shit. How is the current state btw?
I suppose still not ready to be a daily driver to replace my normal phone?
Modern (2019-ish? forwards?) MacBooks have physical disconnect for microphones when the lid is shut.
A picture of you with the subject "I know what you were looking at when I took this picture of you" is pretty good blackmail--I think there's an active campaign doing this even.
This would've been blackmail 20 years ago.... nowadays it's just "of course you know, I shared my OF likes publicly", will not even raise an eyebrow; or perhaps I'm living in too bohemian society circles
I honestly like the physical switch on the framework, which disconnects the microphone/webcam fully.
As someone who often speaks gibberish to myself due to ptsd, if someone recorded me in my room they could convince anyone I am utterly insane, beyond any hope. It is a great way to blackmail people with coprolalia or other verbal tics.
And yeah, if they had access to my webcam, they would just see a guy staring into the screen or walking back and forth in the room.
Would a bit of Post-It Note (for minimal adhesion) damage the screen coating if left on most of the time? Would even that much thickness stress the screen when opened and closed thousands of times? Is there a better (self-service) material?
> Would a bit of Post-It Note (for minimal adhesion) damage the screen coating if left on most of the time?
Possible, I have one IPS monitor with a spot on screen where the color is pale. I had a post-it note there and I guess something bad happened when I tore it off.
Plastic slide covers that stick on are pretty cheap if your laptop doesn't already have one. I also think that the open microphone issue is a greater problem, especially with the current ability of speech-to-text, but what you utter may not be as important as being seen "doing a Toobin" during an online meeting. YMMV :) (I won't expand that acronym!)
This is the right solution. And a hardware switch cost is completely negligible in a $1000 laptop.
Yet some laptops (Thinkpads ironically) come with a built in camera shutter that's entirely mechanical.
> The LED should be connected to camera's power, or maybe camera's "enable" signal.
Wiring it in like this is suboptimal because this way you might never see the LED light up if a still photo is surreptitiously captured. This has been a problem before: illicit captures that happen so quickly the LED never has time to warm up.
Controlling the LED programmatically from isolated hardware like this is better, because then you can light up the LED for long enough to make it clear to the user something actually happened. Which is what Apple does -- three seconds.
Pray read the third paragraph of my reply :) It specifically mentions a way to make the LED be lit for long enough.
Which is not an adjustable method -- without changing the hardware design later in production to just tweak a delay -- and surely causes the LED to slowly fade out?
The mentioned one shot circuit does precisely that, in hardware for less cost and 100% non-overridable.
The only time that isolated hardware approach is benefitial in terms of costs would be when you already have to have that microcontroller there for different reasons and the cost difference we are talking about is in the order of a few cents max.
Well there is a microcontroller there, isn't there? For the camera.
You can design a simple circuit such that both long and short pulses light up the led for atleast 500ms. There is no tradeoff needed to be made at all.
I mean can't you just have the input signal to the light be a disjunction of signals? So it's on if the camera is on OR if some programmatic signal says turn it on?
I don't see why they should be mutually exclusive