An Intro to Backbone.js: Part 3 - Binding a Collection to a View - <AUTHOR> http://liquidmedia.ca/blog/2011/02/backbone-js-part-3/

<comment><USER2> Contrived examples like this have a problem, where the code example is too complex compared to the very simple task, in this case keeping a HTML list populated with items from a JS object.

I have used binding mechanisms in the Flex framework, which act in a similar way. The model object dispatches events which the view listens to and updates its own representation. In Flex the model object is often an "ArrayCollection," in this example, "Donuts." In Flex the view would often be some kind of "List" object, in this example, "DonutCollectionView."

The Donut aspect of this example is the contrived bit. It's just a generic list. Donut could just be any Object that maps to some kind of HTML representation. DonutCollectionView could just be a CollectionView, that passes along that representation to a HTML list.

The plumbing in this example is something I don't really want to write if I am using a framework. If I had to write it, I wouldn't write it like this. Am I misunderstanding something?

<comment><USER3> Nope -- you're not misunderstanding anything ... you probably wouldn't be writing plumbing like this if you were working on a real app, instead of a contrived example.

You're absolutely right that it's vastly overcomplicated for the task that needs to be accomplished here.

<comment><USER4> Do you have any better examples? I'd like to learn more about where this would fit in a real app.

<comment><USER3> Sure ... some of these have source code available, and some do not.

<http://documentcloud.github.com/backbone/#examples>

In particular the TileMill example (launched yesterday) is a really sophisticated map editing application, with annotated source code available, here:

<http://tilemill.com/docs/models.html>

(Use "Jump To", at the top right, to get around)

If you'd like to get your feet wet, and play around with models a little, try visiting <http://www.documentcloud.org/public>

Pop open a JS console, and try...

        Documents.length

        Documents.first().set({title: "Changing the Title Syncs the View"})

        Documents.first().set({description: "Lorem Ipsum Dolor Sit Amet"})

... then click on "Annotated Documents", at the top left, go back to the console, and try:

        Documents.first().notes.fetch()

        Documents.first().notes.first().set({content: "Writing a Note."})

You get the idea.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Scaleway C14 Cold Storage - <AUTHOR> https://www.scaleway.com/en/c14-cold-storage/ <comment><USER2> this is a great alternative for backblaze. cheaper and have proper IPv6 support.</comment>


Don't close your MacBook with a cover over the camera - <AUTHOR> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211148 <comment> bloody-crow This statement has a number of issues.

First, you have to trust Apple that the indicator _really_ can't be disabled. You also have to trust that there isn't a vulnerability Apple is not aware about that could allow rolling the camera without the light coming on. This has happened in the past [0] and there are known Apple products that are vulnerable, yet the statement never mentions this making you believe it's impossible.

Second, once the camera light is on, the data has already been captured. The light just told you about it, not prevented it. The plastic cover or a piece of tape does prevent it even if your laptop security is compromised.

Third, in a world where remote conferences are more and more common, more and more software doesn't do a very good job at letting you know when it's about to enable your camera. You might click on a link to an all hands conference to listen in while you're changing only to have the software helpfully enable the camera and broadcast you for the rest of the company. I believe in big conferences organizer may sometimes control other ppl's camera as well. You can totally imagine a scenario when the organizer misclicks and enables the camera for the wrong person instead of a scheduled presenter.

Camera covers solve all of those problems.

[0]: [https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/36569](https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/36569)

<comment><USER2> > First, you have to trust Apple that the indicator _really_ can't be > disabled. You also have to trust that there isn't a vulnerability Apple is > not aware about that could allow rolling the camera without the light coming > on.

I have made this point several times throughout this thread, so I apologize for repeating myself:

Every laptop Apple has manufactured in the last ten years has an LED connected to the same circuit which powers up the camera. You cannot send power to the camera without also sending power to the LED, which will in turn cause the LED to light up. Unless the LED is broken, in which case you will know because it will _never_ light up.

If you manage to find a vulnerability in this system, I don't think I even mind, because you've also broken physics and very possibly found a way to generate unlimited electricity forever.

<comment><USER3> Can one power up the camera for only a few milliseconds? Enough to take a still photo, without the LED getting bright enough for a human to notice?

<comment><USER4> This used to be a thing, where you'd flash the LED briefly and hope the user didn't notice. But new Macs prevent this by having a minimum duration the light will remain on.

<comment><USER5> FWIW I tried using the command line utility isightcapture on my 2019 macbook, and the LED turned on for 4-5 seconds and I got a dialog asking if I wanted to allow access to the camera. So this seems to be true. I still have a camera cover though

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was very skeptical of the camera covers, but then through conversations with some of my co-workers, I realized that they weren't being used because people were worried about spies secretly turning on the camera. It was 90% of the time just peace of mind that their camera was actually off, instead of having to find the sometimes hard to see options in video chat programs etc.

<comment><USER7> That is what I like with the Lenovo webcams in T480s and probably later versions.

They have a small slider with the camera protection "glass" build in which can cover the camera and will "show" a red dot if it's covered.

<comment><USER8> This should really be the standard for laptop webcams. The T480 webcam cover is flush with the bezel and you barely even notice it because it's so subtle. One of my favorite features.

<comment><USER9> Wow it's actually really neat. Here's a picture if anyone is wondering:

[https://i.imgur.com/HrF8jjk.png](https://i.imgur.com/HrF8jjk.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> None of the proposed solutions do anything to actually stop the camera from taking a picture of you. Sure, you'll see the indicator light up for 3 seconds. But the attacker still got what they needed.

Camera covers have nothing to do with identifying compromise. They are strictly for preventing compromise. This is exactly opposite what a camera indicator light does, and thus the indicator should not be considered a "workaround" for not being able to install a camera cover.

<comment><USER11> This is a great point.

This _could_ be solved in software at the OS-level with a permission dialog that popped up _every time_ the camera was asked to be activated (as opposed to an ongoing website permission). Which would be overly annoying for most, but appreciated by a privacy-conscious minority.

But unless Apple ever did that (doubtful), once you see the green light it's already too late.

It does make me wonder if something like that could ever be done with a kernel extension or similar?

<comment><USER10> Personally I think a hardware switch that disabled the mic and camera is the best route. Engineers would have to be honest in actually connecting the switch directly to the camera rather than resorting to some firmware tom- foolery. Then you could wire the indicator to the switch as a visual reminder that your camera is attached to your PC.

<comment><USER12> The Librem laptops and phones from Purism all have such hardware switches.

<comment><USER13> But only one switch for both camera and mic; I am sitting right in front of one. Better than nothing but not always what you want. Same for for bluetooth and wireless which I find even more unpractical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This seems like a pretty mild warning for folks who might stick a bulky cover on their camera and press down / pack their laptop tightly and now have wedged part of the screen open with the cover.

I'm a fan of using painters tape.... pretty low profile, easily removed, stays on really well. Also the weird blue glow you get when the camera is on tells you pretty quick "Hey there's a cover on there" where sometimes with the all blackout covers ... I can't tell.

I renew my calls for all devices to have an led indicator (good on Apple here) and a physical switch that cuts power to mics and cameras for all devices with them. With the endless layers of software we have today, I have trouble trusting anything but cutting power.

<comment><USER15> It does _not_ have to be a bulky cover. I used an extremely low profile webcam cover on my 2015 MBP for 3 years. I put a similar one on my 16" MBP, and it destroyed the screen after a couple weeks.

Specifically, this is the webcam cover I was using:

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C24NBGL/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_T...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C24NBGL/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_TkeSEbCAYCA73)

<comment><USER16> I've been using this exact same cover on 3 different MBPs (yes I use 3 MBPs simultaneously, a 2016 13", a 2019 13", and 2019 15") for almost a year and haven't noticed anything even remotely close to it damaging the screen on any of them.

I actually just tested it, and the cover doesn't even make contact with the lower half of the MacBook when closed. The cover fits into the trackpad area, which is recessed. I don't see how it could possibly damage the screen without me putting enough pressure on it where the screen would have been damaged regardless.

Does the 16" have a shallower trackpad or a thinner rubber gasket around the screen than the 13" and 15" models? Even for Apple, it sounds insane that they would create something so fragile it could be broken by a 0.02" piece of plastic.

<comment><USER15> I used one on my 2015 MBP for years. It appears that the newer MBP models (and perhaps the Air as well) are built differently.

Also, to be fair, the webcam cover I used was metal (I didn't realize that when I bought it).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This happened to me. Twice. I bought a 16" mbp when it was released because the keyboard of the previous mbp gave me carpal tunnel. I immediately added a camera cover like I always had done on macs. My screen stopped working a few days later, but mbp still worked on my external monitor. I took it in and they replaced the display for free via applecare.

Once I got my mbp back, I added the camera cover again (stupidly). The next day I opened my mbp, and had a line down the center of my screen. That is when I realized what had happened. I then told Apple exactly what I think happened. And to their credit, the replaced it (again) for free.

Over the next weeks, I received 3 different calls from Apple staff, with seemingly increased responsibilities. They all asked detailed questions investigating what I thought happened and in what sequence.

I am not surprised to see this support article.

<comment><USER18> What kind of cover was this?

My company provides a ~1.2mm thick plastic cover with a little slider inside. I didn't even trust it enough to be used on a thinkpad, much less a macbook

What I do now is either ripping off a small piece of the sticky top of sticky notes (keep the remainder for later reuse) or a piece of washi tape.

<comment><USER19> Post-it Page Markers or Flags work great as well and are already the correct size for most laptops.

<comment><USER20> You mean the small plastic strips? I mix 3 colors on top of each other and snip off the non-adhesive end. Works great, even looks ok, with minimal raised surface.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Or Apple could just include a cover into the lid, like many other manufacturers already do. For example: [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/c...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/circuitbreaker/2018/2/7/16979810/hp- elitebook-zbook-2018-announced-webcam-cover-g5)

<comment><USER22> Apple: Not even in your dreams pal.

<comment><USER21> So true!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you're going to cover it, use a sticker, like the EFF stickers here[0]. They're reusable, so you can move it to the side for meetings. I used a hard plastic MongoDB-branded sliding camera cover on a couple laptops[1], and its presence appears to have contributed to backlight bleed like this[2].

[0]: [https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-set- ii](https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-set-ii)

[1]: [https://www.amazon.com/C-Slide-Sliding-Computers- Chromebooks...](https://www.amazon.com/C-Slide-Sliding-Computers-Chromebooks- Consoles/dp/B00AZ639VG)

[2]: [https://i.imgur.com/P264KiI.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/P264KiI.jpg)

<comment><USER24> Came here to say this. Have been using the EFF stickers for years and everyone always asks about them vs the kludgey plastic ones everyone wedges in there that Apple is making note of. I've used them in the past on my phones as well, but given the advent of multiple front facing cameras this has become more of a pain. I purchased some of this sticker material a while ago with the intent to try and laser cut some specific designs. This was a good reminder!

<comment><USER25> What type of material is it exactly? I want to source some for myself but don't know what type of sticker will be "ultra-removeable" and reusable.

<comment><USER24> That's the part that I was struggling to figure out. I ended up purchasing some reusable vinyl window stick material from a hobby shop, but have yet to test it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Apple is completely missing the point. Primary reason to cover cameras is to avoid anything being recorded by accident, not just to stop hackers RATing you. Now with everyone working remote this has become even more important as it's super easy to get into the video conference with wrong settings and end up in an embarrassing situation. Activity LED doesn't help with this, when you see it damage is already done and Youtube is full of zoom bloopers to prove this. Of course, preventing hackers accessing your camera is just an extra feature. So I'll keep my cover on regardless what Apple says. I use just a piece of regular paper so it's not entirely blocking the light, light sensors work just fine, and also it's very thin so laptop shuts down normally without any problems.

</comment><comment><USER27> > The camera is engineered so that it can't activate without the camera > indicator light also turning on.

Has anyone torn down the hardware and verified this lately?

It should not be a complicated feature at all. Just ensure you have the same voltage applied to your LED circuit as your camera circuit, and enforce that by having them on the same wire...

<comment><USER28> Wait: that's not the same as having a camera cover.

A camera cover guarantees that the camera can only work when the camera is uncovered.

A camera _light_ alerts you once the camera _is already on_.

<comment><USER29> Important distinction. If your microphone is compromised, your web cam might be triggered to turn on just long enough to take a photo, or the camera could turn on only when the mic is quiet and there are indications the person is not engaged with the computer.

<comment><USER30> Note that this is not only about security. Sometimes a user simply makes a mistake, or have an app configured the wrong way, and accidentally turn on their cameras without intending to. Nothing has been compromised, everything is secure, but they still suffered an unexpected exposure. A camera cover will prevent many of these situations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Here's the document explaining how it's _physically_ impossible to use the microphone when the MacBook lid is closed: [https://support.apple.com/en- gb/guide/security/secbbd20b00b/...](https://support.apple.com/en- gb/guide/security/secbbd20b00b/1/web/1)

Where is the equivalent document explaining how it's _physically_ impossible for the camera to be active without the green LED lighting up?

<comment><USER32> They also claim that if you add a (MFI-compliant) case to the iPad, and close it, that this similarly disconnects the microphone. The simplest mechanism to do this sounds complicated enough that it reduces my confidence in the mechanism. The point of half the comments in this thread is that a hardware interlock mechanism needs to be dead simple. This sounds like a step in the wrong direction.

<comment><USER33> How could a complicated mechanism compared to no mechanism be a step in the wrong direction?

<comment><USER32> The whole point of this thread is that Apple is telling us to not rely on dead simple devices (camera covers, tape, etc.), and instead to trust their internal mechanism that they claim can't be beat. If people take them at face value, but the mechanism is in fact complex enough to admit an exploitable vulnerability, that's a net loss of security, and is a step in the wrong direction.

<comment><USER33> But you are talking about microphones which you cannot simply cover.

I admit, muffling them is better than nothing – but in the case of microphones Apple doesn't even advise you not to cover them.

Either way, this is just an effect of common covers seemingly breaking screens. Which sucks. However, depending on your risk profile the re-assurance of a hardware solution that lights up the LED might be plenty for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Half of my office has camera covers, honestly at this point I'd have a lot of respect for any maker who had a physical mechanism to their camera... Sort of like the original iSight [https://www.coolsmartphone.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/05/is...](https://www.coolsmartphone.com/wp- content/uploads/2019/05/isigiht1-1280x720.jpg)

<comment><USER35> I've never understood physical covers, then again I am never in a compromising position in front of my laptop.

Any malware that can take pictures can record keystrokes. I want no cover so I can see the activity light because knowing the webcam is on is more important than it being on.

The (pennsylvania?) school district webcam spying scandal got kicked off because a boy noticed his webcam light coming on. If it had been covered would he have noticed?

No, the school district wouldn't have had pictures of him, but they still would have screengrabs, audio, and keystrokes and he likely never would have noticed.

Take all of the pictures of my double chin that you want.

I want to know that my webcam is coming on without my authorization so I can root out the spyware that is keylogging.

Passwords > Pics

If you're the type whose life will be ruined by pictures taken by your webcam, by all means cover it up. I'm too old and hairy to be blackmailed with nudie pics.

Having my passwords leak would seriously cramp my style, though.

And no, nobody is going to waste a zero-day that can reprogram a webcam controller to disable the light (if possible and often it is not) on a nudie- pics malware. They are going to use it to make actual money.

<comment><USER36> I don't understand why people have window curtains and close them at night. If you have them closed then you can't see the person spying on you outside. Door locks are more important.

This is what you sound like. The things can be used in conjunction with one another. It is not an _or_ scenario, you can have both. You can also have covers which don't cover the indicator. You use different deterrent mechanisms for different threats. It is as simple as that.

<comment><USER37> In the Netherlands we don't really close curtains at night. I also have no camera cover.

<comment><USER38> Don't you have bright lights outside? Do you like being woken at the crack of dawn?

<comment><USER39> I live in Los Angeles. If there's bright lights outside, it means the guy down the street is being an asshole again (he keeps rearranging his outdoor sensor light to point out at different parts of the street) or someone kicked a neighbor's garden lights (why do people even have these?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> _If you close your Mac notebook with a camera cover installed, you might damage your display because the clearance between the display and keyboard is designed to very tight tolerances._

Doesn't this sound like an engineering oversight and not a user error? Why are camera covers not just part of the design? My phone camera physically retracts when not in use.

<comment><USER41> > Why are camera covers not just part of the design?

I guess Apple are going to say that they'd rather focus on the security of the OS and computer to prevent unauthorised software from being able to access the camera than on a mostly cosmetic doodad.

<comment><USER30> Above in the thread it has been noted that camera covers are not only about security. But also about preventing accidental exposure, e.g. when you accidentally click the wrong button in a meeting app, or if your app is misconfigured to start with the camera on, forget to close an app, etc. Camera covers helps prevent you from these potential embarrassments.

<comment><USER42> I'd be more embarrassed being seen wearing a camera cover

<comment><USER40> Are you similarly embarrassed when you close your blinds at night?

<comment><USER42> I use curtains, but only to isolate the light in the morning.

This is a tech forum. I'm much more embarrassed not being able to use Zoom for the first time, rather than a distributed team see me laying on a couch for a brief moment.

<comment><USER43> Sound very insecure.

<comment><USER42> Yes I'm more insecure about my qualifications than my appearance.

You people sound insecure about your appearance.

<comment><USER30> What? Why are you saying this? What does this have to do with anything? Are you just tying to be right or something? Are you trying to win an argument? Like why do you even care about my own sense of embarrassment? Why should I care if you personally don't feel embarrassed in situations where I might? What are you trying to proof? Who are you trying to be?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> People are suggesting just using tape, but the issue is when you want to un- cover it frequently (which is probably more common now than a few months ago). For a couple dollars you can get a thin, nice-looking little plastic cover that you can actually slide out of the way when you need to use it. Most of these are thin enough not to be a problem, but they vary, and even the really thin ones usually don't quite let your Macbook close all the way, potentially putting pressure on a narrow point.

<comment><USER45> TBH the thing I've noticed is just how fast people stopped turning cameras on during Webex.

Before the nearly everyone at my company what was WFH or was joining from their laptop rather than a video conferencing room had their camera on.

Within like a week of the lockdown people stopped and I can imagine why you stopped dressing, stopped shaving heck I can hear bedsheets on some of the calls I attend.

Pretty much now the cameras are useless.

<comment><USER44> That's some pretty broad-strokes-painting. I'm still on a video call every week, and I'm not in as many meetings as most of my coworkers. I'm also in two separate weekly online roleplaying game groups and we use cameras for those because it's much less fun without the added expressiveness.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Tangentially related: I have an HP notebook that has a physical webcam switch near the USB ports and microSD slot. This switch is not wired to the webcam in any way. It's a USB HID device. You need to install _software drivers_ to make that switch function as a control of the webcam. That is insane.

</comment><comment><USER47> Looking at the comments here, I guess I'm the only one who finds sadness that Apple even has to publish this document.

Some of those novelty and promotional camera covers are really quite thick. And it just seems like common sense to me that you wouldn't close a laptop with one of those things on. Just like I wouldn't close my laptop with a pen or a ham sandwich tucked into it.

But I guess Apple has had enough complaints that they had to issue something. I can only hope that the department that writes these things was shaking its head the whole time.

<comment><USER15> This is the one that destroyed the screen on my 16" MBP. 0.023 inches thick.

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C24NBGL/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_T...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C24NBGL/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_apa_i_TkeSEbCAYCA73)

<comment> jorge-d It's quite similar to the one I've been using on my 2018 15" MBP for the past two years. Can you give more information on the cause of the problem? Did you close the macbook very firmly and it broke?

<comment><USER15> I also used one on a 15" MBP (albeit 2015 model) for a long time with no trouble. I don't recall closing the lid particularly hard when it broke, though I may have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> A person I with used to work for the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishment. Apparently their former employer's preferred method of disabling the camera on a MacBook was to break the lens using a nail and hammer...

<comment><USER4> Isn't the lens behind the screen glass? How did they break the lens without shattering the screen too?

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I'll put tape over the camera. Apple can't reasonably provide guarantees about the camera. I have reasonable doubt they can't provide privacy around that camera with the current designs.

This is true even if the indicator light only powers on when the camera is on. That is not enough guarantee.

This is also true even if the indicator stays on for several seconds after the camera was in use. I might not notice that indicator so there is no guarantee from that either.

Even with hardware keys, encryption and everything else, none of it beats a cover over the camera. A sliding or moving physical cover always wins. That is the guarantee. But Apple will not allow or tolerate that. Because they emphasize design over function.

So, close your device with a cover over the camera with a thin piece of tape. Its up to Apple to make that possible without damage.

Any other answer is interesting but not a guarantee. There is always some caveat to the suggestions. But an actual sliding or otherwise physical cover always wins.

Perhaps we might even address the microphone issue...

</comment><comment><USER50> > "Designed to protect your privacy, Mac notebooks have a camera indicator > light to let you know when the camera is on. ... Published Date: July 02, > 2020"

Perhaps Apple missed these?

2013: iSeeYou: Disabling the MacBook Webcam Indicator LED [https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/36569](https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/36569)

2016: Your Mac's Camera Can Be Hacked [https://www.intego.com/mac-security- blog/your-macs-camera-ca...](https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/your- macs-camera-can-be-hacked/)

2016: Former NSA employee: This hack gains access to your Mac's webcam [https://www.cnet.com/news/mac-webcam-hack-ex-nsa- employee/](https://www.cnet.com/news/mac-webcam-hack-ex-nsa-employee/)

<comment><USER51> >2013: iSeeYou: Disabling the MacBook Webcam Indicator LED [https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/36569](https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/36569)

... applies only to older Mac notebooks from like 2008 period which are long since obsolete according to Apple's announced support policy.

>2016: Your Mac's Camera Can Be Hacked [https://www.intego.com/mac-security- blog/your-macs-camera-ca...](https://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/your- macs-camera-ca..).

... refers specifically the exploit above.

>2016: Former NSA employee: This hack gains access to your Mac's webcam [https://www.cnet.com/news/mac-webcam-hack-ex-nsa- employee/](https://www.cnet.com/news/mac-webcam-hack-ex-nsa-employee/)

... is an attack that depends on the camera already being in use by another application and therefore has nothing to do with the camera indicator.

<comment><USER52> There's a reason Zukerberg's laptop has its mic and camera tapped up. It doesn't matter what device you use unless there's a physical switch to disconnect it'll never be safe. Software can ALWAYS have zero days, just because it hasn't been exploited yet doesn't mean it can't be.

<comment> the-pigeon But can't you specifically wire the indicator light to always be lit if the camera has power?

I don't see Apple claiming they've done that but a correct design would make the indicator light work that way and be related to software at all. Meaning you could only disable the indicator light by physically modifying the device.

<comment><USER53> This is the only correct design, yet almost nobody does this. One of the challenges is verifying that this was done correctly.

You may be able to verify a design like this once with a teardown, but it's impractical to verify _your particular_ device, and next to impossible to re- verify this every time you leave your laptop unattended.

<comment><USER54> My work laptop (a Thinkpad) has a built-in plastic slider that physically covers the camera. If something activates the camera while that cover is closed, it won't see anything.

<comment><USER55> Not only that, but this feature is also present in X1, which is plenty thin.

<comment><USER56> I came here to post exactly this about my X1E. First laptop I've seen that has a builtin slider (though I'm sure there are others).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Though fixed many years ago, there may be a lack of trust due to previous ability for malware to take snap shots without turning on the camera LED.

[https://www.theregister.com/2013/12/19/apple_isight_webcam_l...](https://www.theregister.com/2013/12/19/apple_isight_webcam_led_hack/)

<comment><USER58> People also do it so they don't accidentally open something that's got the camera enabled. If you're a school teacher answering questions for students in the evening you don't want to click the wrong thing and turn on video, or close the lid with something running then open it later, having forgotten, and now you're broadcasting. Stuff like that. Whether teh haxx0rs can get at the camera is irrelevant for _that_ reason of using covers.

Personally I wish all my devices had hardware toggles for camera and mic, both. Phone included, since it's only a "phone" a small fraction of the time these days, the rest of the time it's a small Web-stuff device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Why is physical shutter not a standard? wait..

I don't trust hardware kill switch either; anything is not visible right in front of my eyes. Mass product don't expect normal people to technically know about circuit design.

How hard it is for a big tech company whose hardware suppose to be best in the market, to design a built-in thin cover .. like camera shutter that's invented very first days camera invented.

ps; by shutter, I don't mean an actual light collector functionality although .. it's hard to argue that.

For macbook mic, I use hot glue to seal it. It's pretty good at blocking sound wave (I tested it).

</comment><comment><USER60> Apple should have an indicator light for the microphone as well, and to avoid confusion,far from the camera.

I don't think it's possible to block the mic.

<comment><USER29> It's possible to have hardware kill switches that can't be compromised via software. Apple opts not to include them.

Purism laptops include them. [https://puri.sm/products/librem-14/](https://puri.sm/products/librem-14/)

<comment><USER61> Apple includes this on the latest iPads and Macs with the T2 chip.

[https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/03/apple-hardware- microphone-...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/03/apple-hardware-microphone- disconnect-ipads/)

<comment><USER60> Only when the cover is shut. That prevents an important set of attacks. But a mechanical switch in the power connection to the two devices keeps you from accidentally broadcasting when on, say, a Zoom call.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Just as a social observation I noticed a pattern which always struck me pretty hard:

Nearly all (say 9 out of 10, and not, it's not an exaggeration) of my friends – me included FWIW – have some kind of cover over their webcams. This is true even for people who you would describe as the opposite of tech-savvy. Sometimes these folks even have no ad blocker installed and use Chrome happily.

But still: Everybody has something over their webcams. It is truly ubiquitous! Might it be we dislike the fact something like an eye stares us right into the face all the time?

<comment><USER37> And no microphone cover, and no cover for either on their phones

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> When I moved to Germany I was surprised how everyone taped the camera on their laptops with these small, thin, easy to remove stickers that left no residue made for bookmarking your notebooks.

This should still work on Macs as a sticker is thin enough not to damage the display.

<comment><USER64> That's what I use as well, and I'm still using the same one that I started with. It's lasted over a year.

I appreciate this line:

> The camera is engineered so that it can't activate without the camera > indicator light also turning on. This is how you can tell if your camera is > on.

But I still want a physical assurance that the camera can't see anything. I don't want to have to count on myself noticing the light.

Some Lenovo ThinkPads have built-in shutters, and I wish Apple would do the same for MacBooks. In my ideal laptop, it would also physically disable the microphone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Yet another reason to buy something _better_ than a MacBook. :) Don't get me wrong, I used to love Macs. But they really started screwing their own prosumers, ohhh, back in 2011 when they made Final Cut Pro X into a "for dummies" application, rather than the professional tool it used to be (this is a discussion all on its own btw, and while it's not clear cut, the change wasn't welcome at the time). From then on things have mostly gone down hill. That year marks a clear change in their philosophy, from prosumer-made products and to a far more consumer and fad-based focus as a "luxury" brand. Except the whole premise for buying Apple products used to be that they were better for professional production environments. I really hope they'll get back to this tried and proven mode, instead of what they're doing now.

<comment><USER66> What notebook is better than the new 16" MBP?

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> This is not helpful advice for those who wish to prevent their camera from turning on in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER68> So, Apple has done a nice job of making the sure the LED comes on when the webcam is in use. Unfortunately, there are still very good use cases for webcam covers.

\- The computer has malware which controls the webcam. Although it's nice that the light correctly alerts you the webcam is in use, the malware can still get some pictures off before you can act.

\- You're not very good with computers, and so you don't know how to change Zoom settings, and you want a surefire way to ensure that you camera will not be active when you join a call.

\- You're just fine with computers, but the app has changed its defaults for some reason, and/or;

\- Your company mandates a new app which you're either not familiar with, or doesn't have appropriate settings.

<comment><USER69> \- You can't see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I've had tape over my camera on my mac pro for over 10 years and have had no problems. And no Apple I don't trust the light indicator.

<comment><USER71> A small square of electrical tape works nicely, and can be moved aside if need be. But will it cause damage?

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> > Downside of covering your MacBook camera: "If you close your Mac notebook > with a camera cover installed, you might damage your display because the > clearance between the display and keyboard is designed to very tight > tolerances. Covering the built-in camera might also interfere with the > ambient light sensor and prevent features like automatic brightness and True > Tone from working."

Upside: a square of post-it or similar stuck over the camera gives you peace of mind assurance that this particular lens of the digital panopticon isn't watching you.

</comment><comment><USER73> My mbp cam light started to be always on about a year ago, so I have a sticker over it. They cannot fix trivial things so it cannot be trusted.

I checked for malware; nothing; if it is malware, the scanner did not find it.

</comment><comment><USER74> I cover my camera (not MacBook, but I did when I had one). Partially because of what you read about hacks.

BUT, the main reason I cover my camera is as a stop gap to user error. I have started chats with people (co-workers, etc) where I accidentally enabled the camera. Wasn't entirely "presentable" either, wearing just an undershirt or haven't shaved for several days, etc. Luckily all they saw was a black square. Will never NOT cover my cameras when not in use because of these experiences.

</comment><comment><USER75> I use a piece of black sticky note cut out to cover the camera. It doesn't interfere with the closing mechanism, it comes off clean, and it doesn't require trusting Apple.

</comment><comment><USER76> The real meat of TFA:

> Make sure the camera cover is not thicker than an average piece of printer > paper (0.1mm)

<comment><USER77> I think being aware of covering the ambient light/True Tone sensor is also significant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> > Covering the built-in camera might also interfere with the ambient light > sensor and prevent features like automatic brightness and True Tone from > working.

I don't see the LED come on any time I'm not actually using the camera, so I'm guessing the True Tone sensor is near the camera and it doesn't actually use the camera. So as long as the sticker only covers the camera it should be ok?

Also, my Mac has a lip around the edge of the screen which is probably thicker than most stickers.

</comment><comment><USER79> I love how everyone worries about their computer camera when there is no light for the camera and facial recognition hardware on the front of your phone...

</comment><comment><USER80> We're surrounded by tiny, meaningless LEDs. I've even tried to avoid them, but right now I can see three of them from where I'm sitting, and if I turn my head away from the corner where my computer desk is positioned, I can see three more (one of them, on an electric toothbrush, is blinking to tell me it's fully charged...).

Sometimes a light being on mean "everything's okay, don't even worry about me" but sometimes LEDs being on means "pay attention, this is important!", and sometimes LEDs being on means "LEDs are so cheap, we threw one on this device for no reason".

Second, there is no shared 'vocabulary' of lighting that tells you consistently what a light being on means (consider how in this case, Apple wants us to consider a green light to be a warning indicator).

Given this, I'm not at all convinced that a light being on would be enough to warn most people that they're being spied on, or that most people would even notice another small LED being on in the first place. Consider changing this UX!

</comment><comment><USER81> The first thing that was said in my InfoSec 101 class was that the best security is at the hardware level. If you really want to secure something, keep in inside a room with a lock, or chain it. Software will never be guaranteed security, and not having a camera cover is asking for something to go wrong, whether it's during a meeting or someone hacking into it.

</comment><comment><USER82> > The camera is engineered so that it can't activate without the camera > indicator light also turning on. This is how you can tell if your camera is > on.

Is this verifiably true? I trust Apple on security matters more than the _average_ laptop maker, but the fact that so many of these indicator lights are software-controlled erodes my trust in basically all of them.

<comment><USER77> This [1] is the best source I've seen. 2008 era Mac laptops definitely had that exploit, but since then they've made hardware changes.

> All cameras after that one were different: The hardware team tied the LED to > a hardware signal from the sensor: If the (I believe) vertical sync was > active, the LED would light up. There is NO firmware control to > disable/enable the LED. The actual firmware is indeed flashable, but the > part is not a generic part and there are mechanisms in place to verify the > image being flashed. […]

[1] [https://daringfireball.net/2019/02/on_covering_webcams](https://daringfireball.net/2019/02/on_covering_webcams)

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> I don't understand this debate around blocking camera. If your laptop has already been hacked such that the attacker has access to disable the green light(if we could be disable by prevailed account in the worst case), wouldn't you have more serious things to worry about? I mean worst case they could film me nude or something.

<comment><USER84> That's correct, but it's not why I have a cover on my camera. I really like the peace of mind of knowing that my camera really is off during a meeting. I guess it's the same for many people, especially working from home without a dedicated office.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> A post-it note is about 0.07 mm thick, so according to the article it's within the allowed limit of 0.1 mm.

</comment><comment><USER86> Lol I have electrical tape with a piece of paper on the part that goes over the camera lens. Use both 2015 and 16"

Also not sure about this "tight tolerance" as there's a rubber seam all the way around the screen that would have a gap between the camera and laptop body right?

</comment><comment><USER87> "might also interfere with the ambient light sensor and prevent features like automatic brightness"

Oh, if I could only get automatic brightness to actually turn off!!!! I keep the sensor covered with electrical tape because that's the closest I've been able to get.

<comment><USER77> [https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/change-your- display...](https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/change-your-displays- brightness-mchlp2704/mac)

Does that preference not work for you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> My Lenovo X1 has a physical slider that covers the camera. I trust this a lot more than an LED.

</comment><comment><USER89> I'm glad my computer comes with a built-in cover. No need to jerry-rig anything on. It reminds me of this old Apple ad:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZByDkSuY5c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZByDkSuY5c)

</comment><comment><USER90> The tones used in this article sound very patronising. Maybe it's the matter of privacy being addressed that gives these "advices" a creepy tone.

I'm glad other laptops have more tolerance for accessories that are a couple of mm thick.

<comment><USER91> Tip: while reading any tone you feel is entirely generated by you.

I just read it and I didn't get any patronizing or creepy tones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> Apple should probably make a physical camera cover. I have it on my Thinkpad X1 carbon and I love it. What's missing is physical microphone and wifi switches, I don't know if there's a modern machine that has all three.

<comment><USER93> [https://puri.sm/products/librem-14/](https://puri.sm/products/librem-14/) ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> I just tape mine off.

Apple webcams are pretty horrible anyway (current generation is even worse than a few ones ago). Noisy and blurry in anything less than ideal lighting conditions. So if I'm on a serious videocall I use an external one anyway.

</comment><comment><USER95> It looks like Apples quest for even slicker devices has taken its next toll, both the MacBook retina and the original touchbar work fine with a cover.

The product line up is in a weird limbo between professional and luxury and it's difficult to move away given the alternatives (I have Linux and Windows on my workstation, one needs a lot of attention to move beyond 95% working and the documentation just isn't always good, the other is very annoying with ads and all sorts of stuff that is integrated and the lack of consistency) even though I miss my old thinkpad and appreciate how they think of business features like thinkshutter.

</comment><comment><USER96> Dear Apple Support,

I am fully confident I can manage a physical shutter in front of my camera. I am absolutely way less confident that I can manage avoiding a myriad of dark patterned traps and mazes to have each app configured exactly right so as to not have given it permission to turn on my camera at inconvenient times.

Yes, I do sometimes participate in conference video calls with only my dress shirt on over my short sweatpants, and that shutter gives me the confidence that my co-callers need not be exposed to my state of partial underdressing at inappropriate times. Call me Luddite, but your little green light isn't doing that for me.

</comment><comment><USER97> But the problem is not indication that attack happened (light turned on). It is too late if the camera was used even if I was notified!

The camera cover is not an indicator of use, it prevents use. Indicator of use is not sufficient.

</comment><comment><USER98> More than once I was gifted camera-cover plastic things that I could stick to my laptop cameras. They all had convenient ways to open/close them, and they all had the logo of the company that was gifting them to me (one was a proprietary AI software library). I am 100% confident that those plastic things would indeed damage my display, since they were slightly thick and the laptop lid wouldn't properly close with them. So I kept the insulating tape that is currently there, and nothing was damaged. It does make some sense that this article exists.

</comment><comment><USER99> Reading this, I had the idea to create a sliding cover, in the same style as the bulky plastic ones, but made out of a sticky note. Turns out this was not an original idea, and the person who beat me to it has a much slicker design than what I had in mind, using a single sticky note, cut in two pieces, with a symmetric design.

[http://www.linux- works.de/Wiki/OrigamiWebCamCover?action=Att...](http://www.linux- works.de/Wiki/OrigamiWebCamCover?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=CamCover.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER100> I learned this the hard way with one of these slide covers from CloudFlare I got at BlackHat Conference. Picked up the Mac with one hand and I heard the crack. Needlees to say I now have a vinyl type sticky cover I just move on and off when I need to use the camera. Apple replaced the screen for me for a small fee of course. [https://www.ipromo.com/promo-products/20101/Custom- Webcam-Co...](https://www.ipromo.com/promo-products/20101/Custom-Webcam- Covers.html)

</comment><comment><USER101> Just cover the camera with a piece of sticky note paper, problem solved

</comment><comment><USER102> I always wonder why the people who cover webcams don't think about the mic. Isn't that almost worse? It could grab speech even if you aren't right in front of the camera.

<comment><USER103> The much more real-world use case for me is guaranteeing I won't join a video conference call with my camera on. In light of all the WFH zoom accidental nudity videos going around, its no surprise camera covers have become more prevalent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> Even if we trust that without the LED being on, the camera is never on, it does actually provide little consolation. Unless Apple has covered every single scenario, where any program trying to access the camera, can't do so without the user intervention.

People accidentally leave their laptop lids open, and what if the app they trusted earlier isn't so anymore and turns on the camera, streaming the content before it.

Unless Apple has a solution to prevent all these, they shouldn't be giving such advise.

</comment><comment><USER105> Seems like most/all ppl in this thread are also missing the bit where MacBooks are just too thin; so much so, that it's hard to even protect the fragile coating on the screen from damage without something as thin as printer paper in between it and the keyboard. It's hard for me to remember to put that piece of paper in there every time, but if I forget, I risk oils from the keyboard getting on the screen and permanently erodong the anti-reflective coating.

</comment><comment><USER106> Cameras and mics need hardware off-switches on all mobile devices. Not a digital switch that sends a signal to a CPU - I mean a slider switch that physically disconnects wires.

</comment><comment><USER107> I have something very similar to these [1] (the original item is no longer listed) on my laptop's webcam and my smartphone's front-facing camera. They've served me very well, and the former has saved me from a potentially- embarrassing conference-call-style disaster.

I really don't get Apple's statement here.

[1] [https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/114090118649](https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/114090118649)

</comment><comment><USER108> I don't use the sliding cover. I put black electrical tape over the camera. I keep a roll in my computer bag in case of an unusual scenario that I would need to use the camera. As soon as that is over I replace the tape. If it leaves a sticky residue? Oh well. Sorry. I have a phone if you absolutely need to see me.

Also- why isn't the iPhone camera engineered the same way as the Mac? How many apps/websites would love to have footage of compromising moments?

</comment><comment><USER109> All the indicator light tells you is that "you are being watched". Not sure that gives people peace of mind that they won't be watched.

</comment><comment><USER110> This could probably be solved by an accessory with a loose flap. Gravity would naturally ensure that the flap covers the camera when the display is vertical, but hangs over the edge to avoid getting sandwiched when the lid is closed. Not sure if the dimensions quite work out for this as Macbooks are very thin, but with some thoughtful design, I think this concept could work.

</comment><comment><USER111> Japanese washi tape is the perfect solution to the 'covering the webcam' problem. It leaves no residue and resticks over and over.

</comment><comment><USER112> An indicator light is good and well but, you kinda have to be present to monitor it in order to stop it. Someone can record all the video they want if you're not around to notice.

And that still leaves the possibility for it to snap a photo of you present at the computer before you can react to stop it.

So far it has stopped me once or twice from picking my nose on camera. So not totally useless. /s

</comment><comment><USER113> I am shocked at the people defending apple. A thin piece of tape shouldn't be enough to damage the laptop. That's terrible design. I hate to make the cliche comparison, but this is why newer think pads have the camera cover built in.

"Dont cover the camera, YOU could hurt your 2500 dollar device."

In my opinion, this response from apple says:

They didnt know people covered their webcams.

Or

They dont want people covering their webcams.

</comment><comment><USER15> Yep.

[https://twitter.com/dabernathy89/status/1257341572267548673](https://twitter.com/dabernathy89/status/1257341572267548673)

[https://twitter.com/dabernathy89/status/1257350535440748547](https://twitter.com/dabernathy89/status/1257350535440748547)

</comment><comment><USER114> Can someone help me understand the extent of possible damage by having a webcam cover? This might at least inform me if its worth the risk.

When Apple says _" you might damage your display because the clearance between the display and keyboard is designed to very tight tolerances"_, do they mean?

\- the display itself could have scratches?

\- the display connector at the hinge has a chance of weakening?

\- others?

<comment><USER15> Here you go.

[https://twitter.com/dabernathy89/status/1257350535440748547](https://twitter.com/dabernathy89/status/1257350535440748547)

Edit: Also, from my limited research, the repair cost w/out AppleCare+ (or regular AppleCare if they don't count it as accidental damage) is around $1,000.

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> Not just Apple. I have Lenovo yoga. Put a sliding cover. Now I have cracked display cover though led panel is ok. Don't do it folks

</comment><comment><USER116> This is an interesting side effect of designing a thin, fancy glass display! I see a lot of people who cover their camera and I appreciate their concerns but I do trust the green light.

Although... You may not see the light on if you leave your laptop open when you're away from your desk. I do wish it was easier to get a laptop with no camera or microphone at all!

<comment><USER117> Can you be confident that the light stays on long enough when taking a quick snapshot?

</comment></comment><comment><USER118> I broke my 16"'s screen because of this, and they asked me to pay $1000 to fix it.

This was in January right after the 16" came out.

</comment><comment><USER119> I've been using this[1] for the last 4 years. It's soft fabric and it can be easily removed. The adhesive can be reactivated with a tiny drop of water and it can be reattached easily.

[1][https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JY8C606](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JY8C606)

</comment><comment><USER120> With everything being digital these days, physical failsafes are slowly becoming a luxury. I love having the vibration/sound-on hard toggle on my iphone. I don't see why this can't exist for something people feel so insecure about like webcam functionality - a physical toggle that physically disconnects webcam wiring.

</comment><comment><USER121> Simply cut a small rectangle out of the sticky part of a Post-It note for a safe camera cover that easy to remove and reuse.

</comment><comment><USER122> If someone can hack your camera, they've probably already got the ability to capture your screen, keystrokes, and data.

</comment><comment><USER123> This is moot. I cover it because some apps turn it on, on an action I didn't quite expect will start the camera.

If there were an explicit confirmation asking me each time if I really wanted to allow camera access (like a delete file confirmation), I might consider not using a cover. And you can have a 'don't ask me again' for this app option.

</comment><comment><USER124> > The FaceTime HD camera built into your Mac computer is designed with your > privacy in mind and uses a camera indicator light that glows green when the > camera is active. So you will always know when the camera is on.

Erm, the whole point is that you can't trust this kind of indicator on an OS that's completely closed source.

<comment><USER77> My understanding is that the LED is hard-wired the power source of the camera sensor. There's no separate software command to turn the LED on. All Macs run Windows and most run Linux pretty well. So you /could/ audit at least one open source software implementation.

However, like many others have mentioned in this thread, personally I see the value in having a physical cover in addition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER125> Hahaha.

My $5k MBP is rocking a 1 cent square cm of black electrical tape which isn't going anywhere. If it leaves adhesive residue, I'll wipe it off with alcohol and replace the tape. My camera is only for stupid zoom meetings, and if I ruin it I get to tell my colleagues my camera is broken. That's a feature, not a bug.

</comment><comment><USER126> > If you close your Mac notebook with a camera cover installed, you might > damage your display because the clearance between the display and keyboard > is designed to very tight tolerances.

Yep, this is exactly how the screen on my 16" cracked. I'd rather have a 0.5mm thicker laptop where I can actually cover up the camera.

</comment><comment><USER127> The EFF sells some removable stickers that cover your laptop camera while still being able to close the lid fully.

[https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-set- ii](https://supporters.eff.org/shop/laptop-camera-cover-set-ii)

Been using them for years, and they work great!

</comment><comment><USER128> Unless the hardware for the camera is open-source, there is no way to be confident that mechanism actually works.

</comment><comment><USER129> The track record of Apple keeping their camera light shine when camera is in use does not strike confidence and that's why people want to use something more advanced like tape.

Unfortunately, everybody is focused on camera and forget that way more valuable information can be leaked through microphone and other sensors.

</comment><comment> nick-sf This could be mitigated simply by adding other pads/spacers with the same thickness around the screen bezel. This would reduce cracking chances, though maybe pressure right in the center top-bottom and left-right could crack the screen due to the gap between the screen and keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER130> If a hacker can modify the firmware on your Macbook to somehow turn on a hardwired camera without turning on the LED you're so beyond screwed it's not worth mentioning. This means they already have full sudo access to your entire entire machine, all encryption keys, everything.

</comment><comment><USER131> So, their suggestion is to "Make sure the camera cover is not thicker than an average piece of printer paper." and also "Avoid using a camera cover that leaves adhesive residue."? Good luck finding a cover that is thinner than a piece of paper and is also not tape.

</comment><comment><USER132> If they sold a model without a camera for the same price, I would have bought that. The camera on MacBooks is terrible anyway, and you can buy a USB camera that's significantly better for less than $100.

Since that isn't an option, I keep a square torn from a post-it note over the camera.

</comment><comment><USER133> It's very sad that some users may associate Apple==Security. NO piece of software is secured on this planet. If it's programmable(even through Assembly), then a programmer can break through it. I will cover my webcam physically, even if I am running linux, thank you very much.

</comment><comment><USER134> There are good reasons to want a camera cover that physically blocks the camera from being used that are not addressed by an indicator light (especially prevention versus disclosing).

But my guess is Apple recommends that users not block the camera because Face ID will someday make it to macOS.

<comment><USER135> Shame. I guess Apple either better includes a physical cover soon, or bury their always-on FaceID plans.

</comment></comment><comment><USER136> This seems like a massive UX issue in that a lot of people want it closed and that they're putting the light sensor close to it. In the future, they should put a lid over it. People seem to be more worried about accidentally opening FB live or Zoom rather than hacking.

</comment><comment><USER137> Only hard switches can guarantee blocks to equipment. Any soft switch can be overridden.

I use electrical isolation tape on all cams pointed at me, always on androids & even on linux notebooks.

I always physically disconnect mics I dont use, if in notebooks I put a blob on removable glue on them

</comment><comment><USER138> Is this in response to FlexGate? [https://www.macrumors.com/2020/05/08/flexgate-class- action-l...](https://www.macrumors.com/2020/05/08/flexgate-class-action- lawsuit/)

</comment><comment><USER139> Genuine question. Why are people worrying so much about the camera but none talks about the microphone? Whenever I think about it, the microphone is able to gather far more harmful information than the camera about what I m doing close to my laptop.

</comment><comment><USER140> I use web-based teleconferencing almost exclusively. Safari asks every time for permission to use the camera.

It would, of course, be better if camera access could be configured to require a Touch ID every time, controlled in T2 obviously. I would trust that.

</comment><comment><USER141> [https://www.inc.com/john-brandon/why-the-movie-snowden- will-...](https://www.inc.com/john-brandon/why-the-movie-snowden-will-make- you-put-a-piece-of-tape-on-your-webcam.html)

</comment><comment><USER142> If they would sell a laptop without a camera. I have never needed a camera on a laptop.

Anyway EFF camera stickers work GREAT

[https://supporters.eff.org/shop/stickers](https://supporters.eff.org/shop/stickers)

</comment><comment><USER143> I wouldn't trust the indicator light, its not a mechanical switch, its something programmed that means - you know what I mean. I would prefer covering with a tape, I'm doing it for a long and it didn't damaged anything.

</comment><comment><USER105> They should amend this article to mention that because they haven't updated the camera in 7 years, customers should rest assured in knowing that even if compromised, nobody will be able to make anything out on the other end ;)

</comment><comment><USER144> According to that it's fine if it's thin enough. I always just use a little piece of electrical tape. Not really worried about spying just like the piece of mind that I won't accidentally be seen nude on a zoom call.

</comment><comment><USER145> I've had my barn door over my camera for years. It prevents a perfect seal but my screen works great. I'm sure this is valid in one way or another, but I don't buy this for a second. _Adjusts tinfoil hat_

</comment><comment><USER146> > The camera is engineered so that it can't activate without the camera > indicator light also turning on.

Unless your laptop has been rerouted to Ft Meade for custom modifications prior to its delivery by our shipping partners.

</comment><comment><USER147> I have two monitors connected to my laptop. There is a good chance that I will not even notice the LED for first few minutes.

I'm using a thin cover. But I used to cover it with a folded piece of paper before finding this cover.

</comment><comment><USER148> I think the underlying stupidity is that no matter how good or bad the indicator is, that's is fundamentally different than blocking the camera altogether.

This is like telling you to not use a lock if you have an alarm.

</comment><comment><USER149> Huawei laptops have the camera fitted in a dummy key on the keyboard.

You have to push the key for the camera to pop up.

This solves the issue of privacy nicely and frees space around the screen.

The slight downside is that the camera is obviously lower.

</comment><comment><USER101> > The camera is engineered so that it can't activate without the camera > indicator light also turning on. This is how you can tell if your camera is > on.

I'd assume this is done in firmware for the camera module?

<comment><USER150> I still prefer a hardware solution or even a toggle, 1\2 the reason I like the cover is less for privacy and more to prevent joining meetings with the camera on when I'm not ready

removes the need to always be thinking about some random indicator being on or off

</comment></comment><comment><USER151> I have personally used a camera cover on 4 macbook pros and 1 macbook air, I have friends and colleagues who have done so as well, I've never heard of anyone having an issue. Just my 2cents.

</comment><comment><USER152> No amount of tech or trust beats a black sticky tape. Thin enough to not damage anything; Removed and re-applied in a second without leaving residu; Zero discussion whether it will work or not

</comment><comment><USER153> I don't want a warning light. I don't want audited code. I don't want encryption. I don't want security updates.

I want the fucking camera to _not_ take pictures without my turning it on.

<comment><USER154> Great news, Mac camera lights are hardwired to the camera, and have been for ten years, no code necessary!

<comment><USER155> The light only tells them after their camera turns on, so it doesn't address their concern.

<comment><USER154> Neither does a camera cover given no one will remember to always close it after calls.

The hardwired status light is far better, you know as soon as you've been hacked, and well before they are likely to see anything compromising.

<comment><USER155> Privacy isn't binary. It's a spectrum. A light and sometimes remembering to close the camera cover is better than a light and no cover.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER156> Lenovos have a physical cover that can be shut when camera is not in use. It's paranoia free and tape is no longer needed for that. Maybe apple could do something similar for their users comfort

</comment><comment><USER157> I put a piece of Scotch tape and blacken the area just around the "pupil" with a permanent marker.

This way, I can still see the indicator light.

You could use something like acrylic paint if you are extra cautious/paranoid.

</comment><comment><USER158> Apple were boastful of the 'precise engineering', in a different way, of the iPads warping frame, I see to remember... You are as full of crap, Apple, as you are to be admired.

</comment><comment><USER159> For what it's worth, EFF has privacy stickers which are easy to re-apply multiple times and should be thin enough to close the laptop fine. I've been using them for a while.

</comment><comment><USER160> Having a mechanically guaranteed way to cover your webcam is a must. Apple should just add a built-in mechanical switch. If that makes their laptop a millimeter thicker then boo hoo.

</comment><comment><USER161> It would be nice if I could acknowledge missed phone calls on my Mac without turning my camera on.

I believe it's only possible with the FaceTime app, which turns the camera on when opening the app.

<comment><USER162> Yep, and keeps it on, my housemate has Facetime open all the time and no camera cover, every time I walk by his laptop the camera light is on, defeating the point of it if it's always on?

</comment></comment><comment><USER163> Camera covers most cost less than a dollar. Why doesn't Apple just build a physical one into their laptops? I wonder what they could come up with for microphones as well.

<comment><USER164> Because it would undermine trust in their system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER165> _As an alternative to a camera cover, use the camera indicator light to determine if your camera is active_

I've been thinking about privacy all wrong. I thought it was about preventing access to my data... but Apple has cleared up my misunderstanding and now I know that it's just about being notified when my data is stolen.

Everyone feel free to post your credit card numbers... your privacy is secure, since your bank will let you know in the form of a bill when it's accessed without your permission.

Thanks Apple!

<comment><USER166> If Apple makes such high-end stuff, and is marketing on privacy, why can't they spring for hardware switches? Pine64 does, and they're by no means high- end. Not by price, anyway.

<comment><USER167> Better yet, Lenovo has a little plastic cover built into the camera under the lens.

I don't need to trust the implementation of some switch, I can physically cover up the camera with a nicely integrated cover. No trust required for about 0.01¢ of plastic.

<comment><USER168> I mean... you still have to trust the implementation.

<comment><USER167> I can physically see that there is opaque plastic covering the camera lens. I don't need to trust in the hidden implementation of a LED or switch or anything. I can physically verify that the camera is disabled - meaning no trust.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER169> > Mac notebooks have a camera indicator light to let you know when the camera > is on.

That's great, but we'll need the electronic schematics and the OS source code to trust that.

</comment><comment><USER170> Broke my Macbook Pro's display after I unplugged my earphones, accidentally left the tip of the earphone at the edge and closed the lid lightly. So beware of that too.

</comment><comment><USER171> Most of the time, I have an external monitor connected to the laptop (with the laptop still open) and I usually wont notice if the camera is on just by looking at the LED.

</comment><comment><USER172> I bet they're going to engineer it harder to cover your camera. I hope we can make a DIY laptop community.

Apple should not intentionally create a false sense security for its users.

</comment><comment><USER173> The light might not make a difference.

Wasn't there an NSA tool leaked that would turn on the camera, grab a picture, and have it off again before it would be lit up?

It would be technically possible.

<comment><USER77> Years ago there was an article about 2008 era Mac laptops that could enable their cameras without turning on the LED. I believe the camera firmware was read from RAM on boot. So they just intercepted that. Since then they redesigned the hardware to tie the LED to the sensor camera source. AFAIK Apple hasn't published any official documents on this. I, too, would be curious if it could be hijacked by only taking a still image or modulating the power, but I haven't of anyone actually do this.

Their laptop cameras haven't changed in like a decade. The only change was making it physically thinner to match thinner screens. The image quality actually got a little worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER174> Does mackbook has dedicated light sensor somewhere near camera, or the same camera is used to detect ambient light and adjust color temperature and screen brightness.

</comment><comment><USER175> If the the camera indicator light is enough, why did ThinkPad bother to adopt the camera shutter.

Built-in camera shutter is a great design that really cares about users' privacy.

</comment><comment><USER176> I use a small square of 3M yellow sticky sharpie over with black.

That's what I do for my work MacBook.

At this point, with all the reported QA problems and my own QA problems with my work MBP, I am completely disinterested in acquiring any Apple notebooks — especially at their prices.

I babied my 2 year old work MBP and it's had the keyboard go bad, the video ribbon go bad, and the batteries expanded enough they popped the case.

I babied this thing. I was careful with it, did all the best practice. The first failures were just out of warranty and Apple wouldn't cover it.

In the old days, I always could trust that Apple would make it right. But those days are long gone. And so is my loyalty.

</comment><comment><USER177> Too little too late. Wish I knew that before, I broke my MacBook Air camera with that tiny sliding cover. Tried SMC reset and what not. It works "sometimes" though.

</comment><comment><USER178> Also make sure you don't turn off your microphone, that could damage it too. The microphone needs regular electricity flow or else it may become decalibrated.

</comment><comment><USER179> I use a small piece of black electrical tape to cover the camera, and another small piece to cover the mic. It peels off easily and retains stickiness pretty well.

</comment><comment><USER180> I've got Dell XPS 13. The only camera indicator I trust is sticky tape on top the camera every time I don't need. Little blinking lights I trust not.

</comment><comment><USER181> Forget LEDs, hardware switches, and all the rest, what I want to know is why Apple is making hardware so fragile that a simple piece of tape might damage it.

</comment><comment><USER182> I'm wondering whether all these paranoid engineers have poked a screwdriver through their speakers? (Every kid in sure has used a speaker as a mic)

</comment><comment><USER183> I use a small strip of black electrical tape and it works out great. It has virtually no profile and disappears into the black margin of my laptop screen.

</comment><comment><USER184> How does the smart backlight can adjust luminosity without triggering the webcam's indicator then ? (genuenly curious, I don't know how it works)

<comment><USER185> There's a separate ambient light sensor. On some models you can make out the three separate holes above the monitor, one for the webcam, one for the led, and one for the light sensor.

I can't for the life of me see it with more recent models, but if block the camera it's clearly still there since it can respond to light changes, but if you block enough of the area around the camera, it'll default to assuming you're in darkness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER186> Why don't they provide a physical cover for the camera. My HP laptop has a nice slide cover, in addition to the LED. It great for peace of mind.

</comment><comment><USER187> On the Google Pixelbook though, a camera cover is great for closing the worrying huge gap in between the lid and the touchpad in the closed state! :D

</comment><comment><USER188> It's so interesting that we've arrived in a state where people, for good reason, cannot trust "their" devices in the slightest. On the computer where you do all your online banking or taxes or whatever, you don't feel safe without sticking something over the camera.

Makes me very proud to support Purism laptops with their camera/microphone hardware killswitches and FOSS software (I know FOSS is not the same as secure, but at least incentives are aligned). On desktop I use FOSS software and physically plug in a webcam for meetings.

<comment><USER189> > It's so interesting that we've arrived in a state where people, for good > reason, cannot trust "their" devices in the slightest. On the computer where > you do all your online banking or taxes or whatever, you don't feel safe > without sticking something over the camera.

That really doesn't mean anything, because the people who post on here just like to not trust things. It makes them look cool when they're posting. You can always use evil maids or Russell's teapot or any argument you like as an excuse to be cynical, it's not like it can be disproven.

<comment><USER188> I don't follow you. Lots of people put stickers over their cameras, not just hacker news posters, and furthermore, I think we all agree they have good reason to do so, it's not just posturing to look cool. (Also to me, "I bought a $2700 computer and I can't even trust it not to photograph me" is the opposite of cool, but I digress.) Also, I trust my chair, my bicycle, my car to a great extent (made in 2001 though), and quite a few other kinds of technology. So I don't understand what you're saying here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER190> I find that using black electrical tape works just fine and fits within the space between the display and the keyboard without any problems at all.

</comment><comment><USER191> One More Thing: the iNote. This magical pad of sticky notes will elegantly cover the camera and preserve the structural integrity of your display.

</comment><comment><USER192> What's the problem with the following? Why are y'all complaining?

> Make sure the camera cover is not thicker than an average piece of printer > paper

</comment><comment><USER193> The alternative, the led, is not that good. Even if it's 100% hardware controlled, just a brief flash is enough to take a picture of you.

<comment><USER194> You should try this on a recent (last 4-5 years or so) Macbook! There is a hardware timer that forces the LED on for at least 3 seconds even if the camera only grabs a single frame.

<comment><USER193> I meant that by the time you notice the led, if you do, the picture was already taken and probably sent over the wire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER195> You don't put a cover on your cellphone camera, why do on the laptop. I take the cellphone to the shower or the loo, laptop never.

</comment><comment><USER196> If you have access to Gaffer tape it's up to the task of covering when you need, and electrical tape cut down will do in a pinch.

</comment><comment><USER197> If the display is so fragile that a little piece of tape or plastic can harm it, then maybe they should rethink their product design.

</comment><comment><USER198> This is just an engineering issue. Build a camera cover which acts as a latch when you close your laptop. Problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER199> So much easier to do a `modprobe -r uvcvideo` on a Linux machine to completely disable the camera when not required

</comment><comment><USER200> [https://youtu.be/Zof-TH8hZ20](https://youtu.be/Zof-TH8hZ20)

</comment><comment><USER201> The NSA is reputed to have malware that can activate certain laptop cameras, while keeping the indicator light off.

</comment><comment><USER202> Use a sticky piece of Post-It note instead.

</comment><comment><USER203> I have MacBooks with big dents in them. I'm pretty sure a piece of tape isn't going to break my MacBook.

</comment><comment><USER204> I can relate, I broke my MBP16 screen because of a camera cover. Apple repaired my mac for free without a hitch.

</comment><comment><USER205> Unless there is a physical disconnect from mic or camera, assume its insecure. This goes with all electronics.

</comment><comment><USER206> > Designed to protect your privacy, Mac notebooks have a camera indicator > light to let you know when the camera is on.

LOL

</comment><comment><USER207> Don't make all MacBook's with a camera that a lot of your customers want to cover up all the time.

</comment><comment><USER208> Apple doesn't get it. The reason for a camera cover is to prevent snooping EVEN WHEN the camera is on.

</comment><comment><USER209> Funny how people are so worried about the webcam...and yet they don't realize that there is a microphone easily available.

Apple restricts access to the mic via the T2 chip

[https://www.apple.com/euro/macbook- pro-13/docs/a/Apple_T2_Se...](https://www.apple.com/euro/macbook- pro-13/docs/a/Apple_T2_Security_Chip_Overview.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER210> Well, being in the security field I would want to know if that light is software or hardware controlled.

<comment><USER211> The light is hardware controlled. The camera can only get power when the light is on.

<comment><USER212> Now. It definitely wasn't always

<comment><USER154> Right, only the last ten years models.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER213> Is there actually a non adhesive camera cover that is .1 mm in thickness? Smallest I can see is .55 mm.

</comment><comment><USER214> The perfect opportunity for a hardware entrepreneur to start selling 0.1mm ultrathin camera covers.

</comment><comment><USER215> If a piece of tape acts like a bevel and cracks the display, use a sharpie instead. Problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER216> I've been using a cover on my 2013 Macbook Pro for almost three years now. No issues so far.

</comment><comment><USER217> If they cared about protecting privacy, they could add a physical shutter. Nothing hard about it.

</comment><comment><USER218> This is exactly what destroyed my 2020 Pro.

Gowing forward its a ThinkPad with Linux.

For serious work I need a serious machine.

</comment><comment><USER219> So Apple finally wakes up and tells us that camera covers ruin displays, why now really?

</comment><comment><USER220> A simple bandaid placed over the camera works well and is thin enough to not interfere

</comment><comment><USER221> Electrical tape with a flap so you can move it back and forth works extremely well.

</comment><comment><USER222> Why doesn't Apple sell mechanical camera covers for a tremendous amount of money!

</comment><comment><USER223> Good ol Apple always telling you how to use your hardware that you paid for.

</comment><comment><USER224> I'd love to just have a physical kill switch for the camera/mic.

</comment><comment><USER225> Seriously Apple, just stop blaming your users. Camera covers are a totally reasonable response to the threats we all face. If your precious computers can't have them installed, build one in.

I am a longtime Apple hardware user, but it's just getting so hard to keep using them...

<comment><USER226> >Seriously Apple, just stop blaming your users.

C'mon you know you should not be holding cellphones in that way...

</comment></comment><comment><USER227> I put a piece of scotch tape and a thin piece of paper of it regardless.

</comment><comment><USER228> I just remove the camera entirely. Why do laptops come with them again?

</comment><comment><USER229> To know or to trust? I would always choose to know if I can afford.

</comment><comment><USER230> It's ok they're only 720p so you'll be blurry if someone hacks you.

</comment><comment><USER231> I'd rather take the risk of damaging my display. Thank You.

<comment><USER232> Why not electric tape?

<comment><USER233> Not the OP but electrical tape is a lot thicker than 0.1mm. Any branded electrical tape ranges from 0.15mm to 0.25mm or more for speciality tapes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER234> Some IBM ThinkPads have physical cover for camera. I wonder why.

</comment><comment><USER235> protip. small piece of scotch tape and a small piece of paper. when you need camera, just fold the paper open. when it gets worn out, new paper and scotch tape.

</comment><comment><USER236> Simple solution for those who are security minded: physically break the built in mic and camera through some precision hammer and needle work, and connect peripherals when you need em. I'm half serious.

</comment><comment><USER237> Just sticking a tape over the camera works really well

</comment><comment><USER238> Been saying that to my girlfriend for a while.

</comment><comment><USER239> I use electrical tape on mine (not a macbook).

</comment><comment><USER240> Vinyl static-cling stickers work pretty well.

</comment><comment><USER241> Has anyone here not heard of duct tape?

</comment><comment><USER242> Why don't iPhones have a camera light?

</comment><comment><USER243> There's still the audio problem.

</comment><comment><USER244> oh i get it, watching for a light to see if the camera is on is equivalent to covering the camera

</comment><comment><USER245> A piece of tape will work just fine

</comment><comment><USER246> Why would you ever use an apple computer with all their hardware problems, high prices and anticompetitive practices?

I never understood that.

</comment><comment><USER247> You're Holding It Wrong 2.0

</comment><comment><USER248> What if a bad actor activates the cam for less than 10ms at a time or less time that the LED takes to kick on

</comment><comment><USER249> Amazing how this post and privacy in general attracts schizos like light in the night attracting moths.

</comment><comment><USER250> Surprised Apple didn't announce it's selling a $500 camera cover for your MacBook.

</comment><comment><USER251> low tech solution: use a post-it note as a camera cover.

</comment><comment><USER252> That's why I have placed a very thin sticker on the camera.

Apple can kiss my ass.

</comment><comment><USER253> Nice try, Apple

</comment><comment><USER254> Just use tape?

</comment><comment><USER255> lol... nice try apple... nice try...

</comment><comment><USER256> Nice try FBI

</comment><comment><USER257> The easiest solution: opaque scotch tape

</comment><comment><USER258> BS

</comment><comment><USER259> Apple Support: Wait until the light turn green, and then put a tape cover on your camera.

<comment><USER260> Or you know, if you never see a green light, you never had any problem.

How about that? Tin foil much?

<comment><USER261> Unless the LED somehow gets disabled, stops working, or something like it.

It's not like the tape is ineffective, so why does Apple care if people use it?

<comment><USER262> Apple hardwired the LED to the camera. It can't be disabled.

<comment><USER263> Hardwired or not, it doesn't mean the LED can't be disabled by malware:

[https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/36569](https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/36569)

<comment><USER264> The "versions of MacBook laptops and iMac desktops" they are referring to are the ones from more that 8 years ago that didn't have the hard wired LED. Nowadays there is literally a wire from the sensor to the LED. If the sensor is on, the LED is on. It's got nothing to do with firmware.

<comment><USER265> What happens to the connection if the LED burns out? Is the LED lifetime sensitive to state change such that you could flicker it via rapid camera toggling to burn duty cycle overnight?

If someone had access briefly to your laptop at a coffee shop, could they cover the LED with black opaque cellophane?

This sort of attack is pretty specific, so you figure it's only done by people who want something from you in particular. These sorts of physical prep steps are what I'd be looking at if someone were relying on the light. Hypothetically, I'd attack the light first then take advantage of the false assurance.

Missing or open cover is a little harder to miss.

<comment><USER266> LEDs don't burn out in regular usage conditions

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER267> Electrical tape...

</comment><comment><USER268> Meanwhile, my new Thinkpad has a camera cover built in...

</comment><comment><USER269> It's a bit surprising to me that this is trending so much. Apple has been making functionality compromises for years at the expense of hackers and power users of all kinds. Is it really so shocking that MacBooks aren't compatible with camera covers?

<comment><USER135> No, it's shocking that Apple doesn't seem to understand that their assurances do not even remotely touch what users of physical cover have in mind. A LED showing that the webcam is active means that it's too late. It doesn't matter what app is using the webcam, with permissions or not. The users apparently want to prevent the webcam to make _any_ clear pictures. Apple just doesn't seem to get it. Instead Apple say, it's impossible for apps to turn the webcam on without permission. Ever heard of "trustworthy" apps being compromised? I have.

Apple compromises at the wrong issues. The issue is trending because of that.

<comment><USER269> Right and I don't disagree with any of what you said. I'm just asking, why is this surprising to anyone? Why are people suddenly acting like they care when this has been open and obvious for a long time?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> kalium-xyz Beyond a certain point Apple computers became a status symbol and now they seem to be able to get the users to cater to them instead of the other way around.

<comment><USER270> It's just a warning. You can ignore it, you may damage your display. Nothing more, nothing less.

<comment><USER271> Which is sort of the definition of having your customers cater to you instead of you catering to your customers.

<comment><USER270> So you're catering to Siemens when you refrain from putting your dog in the microwave?

<comment><USER271> What a ridiculously hyperbolic reply.

But no, this analogy does not follow, because your microwave will still work after you put your dog in there -- and I have not seen guidance from Siemens telling me that microwaving my dog voids my microwaves warranty.

<comment><USER270> Replace dog by CDs, you will break your microwave. The macbook just wasn't designed to puy something over the cam. I don't get all the excitement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER272> After reading this help article by Apple I will sell all my Apple devices and never buy anything again from them.

This post by Apple is confirmation to me that they were spying though the camera. In recent years I have seen more and more people do this with nearly every single Mac owner I know doing this (and that's a lot of people). I don't think it's Apple conducting the espionage but rather LEAs of totalitarian undemocratic country (US, China) performing economical espionage.

It makes sense that Germany is the country that is by far most affected by industrial and economical espionage. And it makes sense that nearly all of the spying is conducted by the US and Chins whether it be industrial economical scientifical or political.

<comment><USER154> Since Mac camera indicator lights are hard wired to camera power supply, your theory is impossible.</comment></comment>


Payment processor Visa blacklists free speech software company Gab - <AUTHOR> https://reclaimthenet.org/payment-processor-visa-deplatforms-free-speech-software-company-gab/ <comment><USER2> There are still other processors like Mastercard and Paypal, I believe. And then there is also bitcoin, the last remaining refuge of free speech activists.

</comment><comment><USER3> that's too bad, they should build their own payment processor then, or use bitcoin.</comment>


Github's brilliant organic traffic acquisition strategy - <AUTHOR> http://marcgayle.com/githubs-brilliant-organic-traffic-acquisition <comment><USER2> I'm not sure if I agree with the assertion here. Pure speculation, but I HIGHLY doubt this was their strategy when offering free accounts. I think the primary strategy was to get people to use the product, fall in love with it, then subscribe when in need of a private repo. Naturally, people will want to use the tool(s) they're already comfortable using.

Having a kick-butt site, easy to use, and executing like mad-men ---that's what got them so popular and as a result of being so popular and so highly valued, they get SEO in return.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it until someone from Github says different! :-)

StackOverflow / EE / etc... - maybe a different story. Why? I don't know - just my feeling! And my feelings are valuable! lol

<comment><AUTHOR> I hear you codeslush, and again...that's how it seems on the surface. Maybe that's how they started off, but I suspect that they are now living off of the fruits of an organic traffic generating machine - that was perhaps inadvertently created.

Either way, it's an interesting lesson for other web services/webapps to learn.

<comment><USER2> Understood - but the lesson to learn, in my opinion, is different. You don't get that organic traffic if you don't have traction and value. So the real lesson to learn is how did they get that traction? It most certainly wasn't from content that wasn't yet created. I can imagine it was difficult for them to get users to commit their code at first - especially when a thousand other code-hosting sites already had significant traction.

Your theory holds true for ANY content driven website - from blogs where community provides free content via comments and other sorts of feedback to almost any other valuable website where you've created value and people link to you.

It's a wonderful result of what happens when you create value. That's my lesson. I've never created anything of "consumer" value so I could be completely wrong!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Might seem obvious to some people, but wasn't obvious to me :)

</comment><comment><USER3> While I'm certain most people around here understand that free accounts are an awesome marketing strategy, I don't think this strategy is all that obvious.

Now that I think about it some more, the really interesting thing is that many of the most popular sites use a similar strategy (StackOverflow comes to mind).

Can this be called SEO? Can't it because it isn't evil?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's exactly why I wrote this post. Because on the surface, it seems that a free account is simply a loss leader.

But it never occurred to me, to treat it like an 'SEO'/marketing line item on the budget.

This is fundamentally a different approach and potentially VERY lucrative.

You are absolutely right about SO. When they posted that 80% of their traffic comes from Google, that's when it occurred to me and I then decided to look at Github and see if it is true.

Low and behold, when you search for obscure programming terms, Github comes up on the first SERP for many of those terms in the long tail.

So it is user-generated organic SEO content (like Digg.com) but much more targeted to their market.

Brilliant!</comment></comment>


Show HN: I built an app to keep track of my followers in all my accounts - <AUTHOR> http://trackmyaudience.xyz <comment><USER2> This is awesome OP. The most missed metric in social platforms that I wish we could get is new followers vs lost followers vs total followers. Not sure if any social APIs support that anymore.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi everyone. For the last 3 weeks, I've been working on the following project. The thing is that I own several accounts for my projects, some Instagram accounts, twitters, mail chimp lists, GitHub repositories, etc (you know what I mean). So it was really hard to keep track of how my audience was growing (or not) in any of them. I never remind how many followers, or subscriber I have in each one, and if my audience on them is really growing. Any of the most known platforms has a historical view neither :( .

So I decided to build my own solution. I create a very simple app, that sends directly to your inbox a report showing the followers (subscribers, etc) you have in your accounts. Also, it saves the historical data, so it shows how much your audience has grown.

I choose for an email report, because I don't want another app to remember, I don't want to have to log in and check metrics in a dashboard. I prefer to receive a scheduled report that I could check when I read my emails. Easy and simple. I tell you, is really exciting to check your emails and see you have received a new report, willing to see what your audience is growing. As I really enjoyed the result, I decided to release it to the world. Is FREE, but I added a premium plan, to see if I can make some money with it haha.

For the tech lovers: I built it with ExpressJS (Node), Vuejs + Bulma, Mysql DB and Nodemailer. I would love to answer any technical questions if you have any.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice website but the wrong audience. Try posting it somewhere where people from the marketing department can see it.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks! I will. But I think there are people here that could find it useful or interesting as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How to use this website?

<comment><AUTHOR> what do you mean? Is really simple, just go to [https://trackmyaudience.xyz](https://trackmyaudience.xyz), in the home page there is a How it Works? section with just 3 steps that shows with gifs how it works. Let me know if I can help you with something else</comment></comment>


Inside the CIA Red Cell - <AUTHOR> http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/30/inside-the-cia-red-cell-micah-zenko-red-team-intelligence/ <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10481482](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10481482)</comment>


This ATM will turn your banknotes into Bitcoin. - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/02/bitcoin-atm/

<comment> vertex-four So... where're Lamassu dealing with currency exchange regulations? Or are they _only_ building the hardware, and leaving currency exchange services to other companies? The article is not clear on this.</comment>


A Tale of Two – Well, Three or Four – Kubernetes - <AUTHOR> https://www.nextplatform.com/2018/06/28/a-tale-of-two-well-three-or-four-kubernetes/ <comment><USER2> I'd love to see jacques_chester provide some clarity here. He is a prolific commenter on all things Pivotal Cloud Foundry and Kubernetes.</comment>


Show HN: SplitDepthGifs.com - <AUTHOR> http://www.SplitDepthGifs.com

<comment><USER2> Would have loved to use it, too bad there's a gigantic ad at the bottom of the page on mobile.

<comment><USER3> Looks like they are all from r/splitdepthgifs. I ran across this concept on reddit earlier today, and I'm impressed. I feel like the 3D is more vivid than the 3D movies I've seen.

[1][http://www.reddit.com/r/splitdepthgifs](http://www.reddit.com/r/splitdepthgifs)</comment></comment>