- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
Ummm, I used to work in a high security area and phones simply weren’t allowed.
Yeah. This was probably just medium-high security area.
Wow thanks Grok. I love having images of genocidal maniacs explained to me by “MechaHitler”
Not an uncommon practice, been sold all over the place for a while
We got those for work, but then they changed our laptops to ones that have thin bessles and now they don’t fit…
Multi billion dollar company, doesn’t bother to test their physical security on new devices…
I’ve been using the ones from Eyebloc for the last decade. They are paper thin and don’t destroy your screen, and the ones I use for my work MacBooks stay on just using the magnets already in the bezel, so no adhesives and I can slide it over to cover or uncover if I’m taking a meeting while traveling. Not an ad, just really happy with them
Those are notorious for breaking the screens of laptops, so really for the best to never use them.
Most business laptops have integrated webcam covers now.
I’ve had the same tiny strip of electrical tape covering the camera on my MacBook for 3 or 4 years now.
On Windows, uninstalling the webcam driver also works.
Would you trust windows to not automatically reinstall it at the next windows
downgradeupdate*Virus fixes your broken drivers*
Interesting but most of us don’t have the same threat profile as the Israeli prime minister. If you do then you may want to do this.
Remote camera activation isn’t on the standard threat profile because it’s particularly technically unfeasible.
If the device is compromised enough to enable any number of other unauthorized ingress/egress, it’s already more than likely compromised enough to activate the camera.
It’s not been a part of the standard threat profile because for a long time it would just generate a noise/signal ratio that would be operationally more arduous to sort through than any possible operational benefit it could bestow.
Further, when that concern mattered, the nation-state level actors like Mr. Genocide and his ilk didn’t’t have populaces that had begun to be acclimatized to both unwanted camera feeds, and technological over reach in exchange for the “conveniences” of digital life.
In case it’s not clear, both of those hurdles have been cleared to various levels of success, within the fascist toolkit, already.
So, someone was close enough to take a photo, but not to take a shot or use a knife? Sad.
They did take a shot, just not the one we wanted.
oi, in this time and age English still sometimes gets me XD
snakes lack opposable thumbs
Fangs, tho.
You’re welcome.
He blocks the camera but not the mic… you’d think someone accessing his microphone would be much more of a security risk that accessing his camera.
when every other word out of your mouth is a lie it’s pointless to trust anything said.
killing children is a messy business
deleted by creator
Alright. Chill out and fuck off.
deleted by creator
Apple, the official hardware of war criminals… Apple, murder differently
I mean, the top one is a Samsung.
I mean its a solid endorsed. If he was using grapheneos it would make even more sense too.
Apple is letting him run whatever hardened OS he wants on that hardware
If that were the case, he’d have gotten one of the hardened ones without cameras at all, like they give to nuclear workers and other classified positions.
