6 ms·

Do people really not trust that it wouldn't actually be disabled if you disabled it? Can the paranoid not just put a piece of tape over the lens, or point it at

by codeka 13y ago

Do people really not trust that it wouldn't actually be disabled if you disabled it? Can the paranoid not just put a piece of tape over the lens, or point it at a wall?

Ygg2 13y ago
I don't know if tape covers all the spectrum of its camera (I assume it does, since its infrared only IIRC).
- GauntletWizard 13y ago
  No, the demos for the new Kinect specifically show a visible spectrum camera feed, and I think the original had a standard camera too.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I don't know the light transmission properties of tape, but I'm guessing they don't transmit anything below the visible spectrum, which means this camera would have to capture UV or higher to see through tape.
Silhouette 13y ago
Do people really not trust that it wouldn't actually be disabled if you disabled it? No, of course not, and that caution is entirely justified. Consider how effective Samsung's Smart TV security was, right up until they got rooted at the end of last year, at which point if the only privacy safeguards are under software control then they are essentially worthless.
andyhmltn 13y ago
>Do people really not trust that it wouldn't actually be disabled if you disabled it? Of course, but why would you go through that bother if you can just move to a PS4?
kaze 13y ago
>Can the paranoid not just put a piece of tape over the lens,or point it at a wall? - Yes one could tape it. Don't apply the tape directly since repeated application and removal of tape can impair camera functionality due to residual adhesive accumulation and the depositing of dust etc on the residual adhesive. Use Microfiber based cloth material between the tape and camera. - But having said that, I find it painful to even think of repeatedly taping and 'untaping' cameras. Having to remember to point them the other way too is not good - one can forget to do so at times. And then lose sleep over it after having say, watched a romantic movie with one's girlfriend. And so on. Physically connect when required is a more comfortable model, at least for me. I've seen some unbelievable shit being pulled by hackers, including changing camera firmware to achieve their objective. So making it easier for users to feel absolutely comfortable with their devices is important.
- ericd 13y ago
  Put a hat on it? Why are we debating this?
  - Narishma 13y ago
    Because there's no valid reason for it to be required to always be connected.
    - ericd 13y ago
      I meant about taping over the lens. There are fairly obvious solutions, like putting something opaque and non-sticky over it, like a hat.
      - kaze 13y ago
        Agreed.
ebbv 13y ago
Are you really saying it's OK that I have to put tape over a brand new piece of $499 equipment I bought? You think that's solid design? I think that's reason enough to avoid it.

by codeka 13y ago

Do people really not trust that it wouldn't actually be disabled if you disabled it? Can the paranoid not just put a piece of tape over the lens, or point it at a wall?

Ygg2 13y ago

I don't know if tape covers all the spectrum of its camera (I assume it does, since its infrared only IIRC).

GauntletWizard 13y ago
No, the demos for the new Kinect specifically show a visible spectrum camera feed, and I think the original had a standard camera too.
sliverstorm 13y ago
I don't know the light transmission properties of tape, but I'm guessing they don't transmit anything below the visible spectrum, which means this camera would have to capture UV or higher to see through tape.

Silhouette 13y ago

Do people really not trust that it wouldn't actually be disabled if you disabled it? No, of course not, and that caution is entirely justified. Consider how effective Samsung's Smart TV security was, right up until they got rooted at the end of last year, at which point if the only privacy safeguards are under software control then they are essentially worthless.

andyhmltn 13y ago

>Do people really not trust that it wouldn't actually be disabled if you disabled it? Of course, but why would you go through that bother if you can just move to a PS4?

kaze 13y ago

>Can the paranoid not just put a piece of tape over the lens,or point it at a wall? - Yes one could tape it. Don't apply the tape directly since repeated application and removal of tape can impair camera functionality due to residual adhesive accumulation and the depositing of dust etc on the residual adhesive. Use Microfiber based cloth material between the tape and camera. - But having said that, I find it painful to even think of repeatedly taping and 'untaping' cameras. Having to remember to point them the other way too is not good - one can forget to do so at times. And then lose sleep over it after having say, watched a romantic movie with one's girlfriend. And so on. Physically connect when required is a more comfortable model, at least for me. I've seen some unbelievable shit being pulled by hackers, including changing camera firmware to achieve their objective. So making it easier for users to feel absolutely comfortable with their devices is important.

ericd 13y ago
Put a hat on it? Why are we debating this?
- Narishma 13y ago
  Because there's no valid reason for it to be required to always be connected.
  - ericd 13y ago
    I meant about taping over the lens. There are fairly obvious solutions, like putting something opaque and non-sticky over it, like a hat.
    - kaze 13y ago
      Agreed.

ebbv 13y ago

Are you really saying it's OK that I have to put tape over a brand new piece of $499 equipment I bought? You think that's solid design? I think that's reason enough to avoid it.