119
Cover up
(lemmy.nz)
Ummm, I used to work in a high security area and phones simply weren't allowed.
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.
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.....
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 ~~downgrade~~ update
*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.
it’s not in a threat profile because phones are not allowed around those places of higher security
well unless you are Trump or this ahole
I'll risk being pedantic, because it matters and I was very careful with my prior wording, enough that if you apply the same mental trick on a re-read, maybe what I intended will land.
Phones are not allowed in some forms of high security settings for most people, because that is the response to their place in the threat profile.
The fascists have to be abide by the same concepts, and they have their own threat profiles to contend with.
Doofus pictured is breaking the easiest solution to his profile with tape, because he's decided the convenience of having the phone outweighs the easy security of an assistant outside the secure digital perimeter standing by to relay messages, and has enough backing resources to even possibly back that hubris up.
Your comment has nothing to do with mine however.
Which is that the kind of person who needs to worry about having their camera remotely operated without their authorization, the kind of person for whom that level of care in their threat profile applies to, is no longer limited to just being the Head of Shitheads somewhere.
The technology to sort through a bunch of random cock and ball flashing random pictures to find the one time a target's phone captured something useful six months ago, is trivial now.
All it takes to go from not having your camera turn on as a concern, to it being wise to be covering your camera nowadays and in the near future, is simply having posted the wrong memes, and having the wrong sort of app on your phone or otherwise any sort of miscalculation in your software security profile.
lmao it really doesnt matter, could you be any more up your own ass
but anyway this isnt about having google or apple scanning your phone files
anyone paranoid (rightly or not) enough to think they need to physically cover their camera shouldnt have a phone with a fucking camera
there is a reason presidents in the past got a special locked down phone, and the fact certain idiot heads of state not using those special phones while discussing even state secrets is a big deal
if you are covering the camera but not worried about the mic…
and lol if you think this cant be done remotely with 0 user input
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/21/trump-phone-security-risk-hackers-601903
anyone this important needs to be using a safe device, said device would not need a sticker on its camera, and probably would not have a camera to begin with
You're arguing with yourself, while agreeing with me, while calling me up my ass?
Who's your drug dealer, I want to meet 'em.
my point hasnt changed
if you couldnt get how it was relevant the first time that is on you
and i called you up your own ass because of the very thing you are doing here again
anyway, waste of time have a block
killing children is a messy business
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.
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.