zlacker

>>xairy+(OP)
I thought the whole point of these camera LEDs was to have them wired to/through the power to the camera, so they are always on when the camera is getting power, no matter what.

Having the LED control exposed through the firmware completely defeats this.

>>sbarre+T1
An indicator light hardwired is nice but I apparently can't trust hardware manufacturers to design it properly. My work laptop (HP Dragonfly) has a physical blocker that closes over the camera when I haven't explicitly pressed the button that enables the camera. The blocker is black and white stripes so it's very obvious when it's covering the sensor. This should absolutely be the security standard we all strive for with camera privacy.

>>connic+b8
The Dell Latitude business laptops now have a wired led and wired switch. Besides the white led, there’s no indication which is on or off, and I don’t trust any of the software or firmware chain to be reliable. (score one for macs being transparent and prescient)

>>dole+8n
Yeah, the physical barrier is key. It's not that hard, and provides absolute certainty. As indicated by this thread, software experts (rightly) don't trust software by itself enough. It's by the same rationale software people are proponents of electronic voting machines printing physical, verifiable paper copies of votes.

My Latitude 7440 has a physical slider switch that covers the camera, in addition to turning it off in a software-detectable way (it shows "no signal" and not just a black screen once the slider is about 50% covering the lens). My only criticism of this is that it's subtle and at a glance hard to tell the difference between open and closed, but I guess you just get used to the slider being to the right.

I was just testing and the white LED comes on when I open something that wants to use the camera, even when the cover is closed. This seems like a useful way to detect something (eg malware) trying to use the camera, and is a good reason to not bluntly cut power to the entire camera module.