Front-Facing Camera Paranoia

danza · 19 Jun 2013 at 08:50

Ever since I got my Galaxy Note, I've felt uneasy about the feeling of potentially being watched by the front camera. So much so that I've stuck a square of black insulating tape over the lens, rendering it effectively inoperable. I have never used it, so I am not missing it anyway.

Does anyone else have similar discomfort at the feeling of being watched while you browse the web on the bog, or have I lost the plot?

Rich_L · 19 Jun 2013 at 09:09

If 'they' can covertly watch you with the camera, they can also access your phone records, emails, text messages, browsing history, pictures, social media accounts, your location..and you're worried about them snapping a picture of your face?

p_r_i_m_e · 19 Jun 2013 at 09:11

Rich L has a point there, better get the tinfoil hat on!!

danza · 19 Jun 2013 at 09:12

Yes.

There's something particularly sinister (to me at least) about the thought of being watched in real-time.

Tin foil hats are bad mkay:

http://m.theatlantic.com/health/arc...the-government-to-track-your-thoughts/262998/

tom_e · 19 Jun 2013 at 09:14

Never even thought about it and now I just have it doesn't bother me.
More fool them if they want to stare at my ugly mug.

BananaDunka · 19 Jun 2013 at 09:17

Maybe danza has a really secret face?

Cosimo · 19 Jun 2013 at 09:18

I wondered why the picture went black. Please remove that tape.

danza · 19 Jun 2013 at 09:33

mrk said:
Maybe danza has a really secret face?

Shhh, quiet! They're listening!

Cosimo said:
I wondered why the picture went black. Please remove that tape.

The tape stays you voyeur fiend!

Okay, so perhaps I'm a bit odd then.

benjo · 19 Jun 2013 at 09:47

Unless you're rooted, I don't think an app can access the camera without permission, which you would have either given when installing;

CAMERA
TAKE PICTURES AND VIDEOS
Allows the app to take pictures and videos with the camera. This permission allows the app to use the camera at any time without your confirmation.

...or if it prompts you

Stop worrying.

Ryan-3 · 19 Jun 2013 at 11:42

mrk said:
Maybe danza has a really secret face?

Maybe Danza is the new Stig?

theheyes · 19 Jun 2013 at 11:46

If the device has been provisioned by somebody else then you better believe I'm taping over the lens.

For your own gear, not so much.

Flyer01 · 19 Jun 2013 at 12:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

I have no doubt the NSA could use the front camera should they wish to.

A thorough report from the ever excellent TWIT network on PRISM (feel free to jump past the many long adverts which help pay for the production):

http://twit.tv/show/security-now/408

This affects all of us - it is a personal decision whether you care about it or not i..e. to tape or not to tape, that is the question

p1RATE · 19 Jun 2013 at 12:19

I think you should take the tape off. it is a irrational reaction to a fear and leaving it on will only help to encourage your paranoia.

benjo · 19 Jun 2013 at 12:26

Flyer01 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

I have no doubt the NSA could use the front camera should they wish to.

Yeah, because the NSA has remote access to millions of individual handsets running an open source OS.

Maybe I'm too trusting, but I honestly think the NSA haven't infiltrated Android

Yas786 · 19 Jun 2013 at 12:42

LO@OP for his paranoia

...craziest thing ive heard in here for a very long time.

TheVoice · 19 Jun 2013 at 12:45

Doesn't bother me in the least. Even if it was being used for spying - which it isn't - what information are they going to gleam from monitoring your face, trouser pocket or ceiling anyway?

JeditOjanen · 19 Jun 2013 at 12:59

No offence, danza, but the doctor asked you to take those pills for a reason.

Myshra · 19 Jun 2013 at 13:32

The possibility to do this? Sure, without a doubt it exists, there are much worse POCs out there tbh. Doing it against common joe? No need. Phone companies can be pretty devious in all honesty and are required to follow the law (and therefore intercept requests) just like all other businesses but this method is just not efficient enough.

The cases that come to public of this happening are usually cases of intercept rather than piccies. Taking a picture would tell you the device location & user but it's a illogical method when you compare it to GPS/cell trig and call tapping. As anyone who has tried it will attest to - you are behind a huge NAT on most network plans, an easy point where your packets can be sniffed.

The best example of FBI intercept is here. A nextel phone had a firmware change (it was in 2006, no need for apps here) which enabled the sleep mode of the phone to start a one way call on demand. Genius considering the challenges they faced 7 years ago. The other problem with on device intercept is that you can only hide it for so long - network intercept is virtually impossible to spot but on devices these days you run the risk of a clever person uncovering it.

Grrrrr · 19 Jun 2013 at 13:36

Here's a hypothetical, someone roots their phone and installs Cerberus. They have access to both cameras remotely. They then sell that phone on eBay in the hopes of getting some interesting pictures. Pretty far fetched, not impossible though

Cosimo · 19 Jun 2013 at 13:42

danza said:
The tape stays you voyeur fiend!

Okay, so perhaps I'm a bit odd then.

I'm glad that you said it first.