[BB_PP]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/23...er-it-too.html

Posted via Priv

[anon(9742832)]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/23...er-it-too.html

Posted via Priv

OLD NEWS.......about 4 years

[Sairos]

Anyone with real info about security is aware of this, Not only Mark.. It can be turned on without you having any clue so that's why.. Now mark is mark and he has a viable reason to cover it.. But the average user out there shouldn't be too worried about it, unless you're a VIP..

In the end yes, very old news.

[TgeekB]

http://pagesix.com/2016/02/14/mark-z...s-at-his-home/

Mark Zuckerberg hired 16 bodyguards. I guess I better run out and do the same.

[Sairos]

Mark Zuckerberg hired 16 bodyguards to protect him at home | Page Six

Mark Zuckerberg hired 16 bodyguards. I guess I better run out and do the same.

He was also building a 6ft wall around his vacation place in Hawaii.. So you might want to get on that too..

[TgeekB]

He was also building a 6ft wall around his vacation place in Hawaii.. So you might want to get on that too..

OK, thanks. Know any good wall builders?

[TheAuthority]

LOL, I love it how security experts in articles like these stress that covering the cam is prudent for the likes of Zuckerberg because of their "billions." If one doesn't have billions (i.e. most people) his privacy just doesn't matter or at least isn't as important.

[TgeekB]

LOL, I love it how security experts in articles like these stress that covering the cam is prudent for the likes of Zuckerberg because of their "billions." If one doesn't have billions (i.e. most people) his privacy just doesn't matter or at least isn't as important.

I think it has to do with probability. There is a tremendously high chance someone may want to hack Zuckerberg due to his monetary status. At the same time there is little chance they would put the same effort into hacking me. It doesn't mean I don't deserve security, just that I don't require the same level.

[white shirt only]

Does the same hacking can be done on a smartphone camera?

[TheAuthority]

It doesn't mean I don't deserve security, just that I don't require the same level.

A piece of tape over the cam? Come on, that's about as low tech as one can get: costs nothing and takes all of one second. The tone of such statements leans toward discouragement--"Zuck needs this, but you don't need to bother"--when the purpose most likely is to dissuade average people from frustrating governments' surveillance abilities and tactics.

[TgeekB]

A piece of tape over the cam? Come on, that's about as low tech as one can get: costs nothing and takes all of one second. The tone of such statements leans toward discouragement--"Zuck needs this, but you don't need to bother"--when the purpose most likely is to dissuade average people from frustrating governments' surveillance abilities and tactics.

You go ahead and put a piece of tape over your camera if it makes you feel better.
I will use common sense.

[TgeekB]

Does the same hacking can be done on a smartphone camera?

I'm sure it's a possibility but what would need to be in place for it to occur?
If you're running a certain OS, and you haven't updated to the latest version, and you download apps from unofficial sources, and......and someone actually wants to do it to you, then perhaps you could be at risk. That's why I always say, it's not the device or OS, it's the person holding it.

[TheAuthority]

You go ahead and put a piece of tape over your camera if it makes you feel better.
I will use common sense.

Common sense:

1. Cost of tape: nothing
2. Time to place tape over cam: one second


I do tape my cam. The reward? I am assured that no one, a hacker, my government, a nosy neighbor, or a secret admirer (an ugly one) can turn on my cam and view me. The only reasons not to cover a cam with tape are ... stupidity and laziness.

[TgeekB]

I didn't call people like yourself stupid or lazy, I would hope you would return the same respect.

For you, putting the tape on gives you comfort. There is nothing wrong with that. I choose not to live my life in fear. There is nothing wrong with that either. Let's leave it at that.

[TheAuthority]

I didn't call people like yourself stupid or lazy, I would hope you would return the same respect.

For you, putting the tape on gives you comfort. There is nothing wrong with that. I choose not to live my life in fear. There is nothing wrong with that either. Let's leave it at that.

You imply that I called people "like you" stupid or lazy. Paranoid just a bit? You also implied that putting a piece of tape over a cam is paranoid, akin to living one's life in fear. You're wrong on both counts. I didn't call people like you stupid or lazy; rather I did say that the act of not covering one's cam is stupid and lazy when the risk, however small it may be, is offset by the ease of the workaround (the tape) and the size of the reward (the guarantee that no one can surveillance you by turning on your cam remotely). No fear, just common sense.

[Sairos]

Common sense:

1. Cost of tape: nothing
2. Time to place tape over cam: one second


I do tape my cam. The reward? I am assured that no one, a hacker, my government, a nosy neighbor, or a secret admirer (an ugly one) can turn on my cam and view me. The only reasons not to cover a cam with tape are ... stupidity and laziness.

So the reasons for everyone who doesn't have it covered are stupidity or laziness? Oh God..

No other reasons? Maybe I don't feel like it.. Maybe I don't want to..

[TgeekB]

So the reasons for everyone who doesn't have it covered are stupidity or laziness? Oh God..

No other reasons? Maybe I don't feel like it.. Maybe I don't want to..

I'm going to change my username to #LazyTgeekb

[Invictus0]

Does the same hacking can be done on a smartphone camera?

There have been cases in the past,

New iOS spyware steals pictures, data, and more even from non-jailbroken iPhones | PCWorld

Malware designed to take over cameras and record audio enters Google Play | Ars Technica

[bakron1]

I have always said that common sense when going to questionable websites, keeping your OS security patches updated goes a long way. Most consumers have nothing to fear.

[Prem WatsApp]

LOL, I love it how security experts in articles like these stress that covering the cam is prudent for the likes of Zuckerberg because of their "billions." If one doesn't have billions (i.e. most people) his privacy just doesn't matter or at least isn't as important.

Google could be spying on him. Or Cortana... to anticipate his NextMove� ... ;-P

�   There's a Crack in the Berry right now...   �

[BB_PP]

I'm going to change my username to #LazyTgeekb

Or stupid Tgeekb if you like

Posted via Priv

[BB_PP]

http://pagesix.com/2016/02/14/mark-z...s-at-his-home/

Mark Zuckerberg hired 16 bodyguards. I guess I better run out and do the same.

Hiring of 16 bodyguards understandable to you but at the same time putting a tape on cam bug you

Posted via Priv

[BB_PP]

LOL, I love it how security experts in articles like these stress that covering the cam is prudent for the likes of Zuckerberg because of their "billions." If one doesn't have billions (i.e. most people) his privacy just doesn't matter or at least isn't as important.

Privacy is luxury now a days!!

Posted via Priv

[BB_PP]

When every smartphone owner already given permission camera, mic, location etc to almost every app, anything can happens. That's why mark used tape and Google's Ceo BlackBerry 9900. Don't think these people are stupid

Posted via Priv

[TgeekB]

Donald Trump probably does too.