Skip to main content

Data Doctors: Should I be covering my cameras?

Q: With everything we learned about the doorbell cam in the Guthrie case, should I be concerned about video being captured by all the cameras in my house?

A: The recent headlines about investigators retrieving video from a doorbell camera — even without an active subscription — have understandably made people uneasy.

If you have cameras inside or outside your home, it’s natural to wonder: Is everything I’m doing being stored somewhere? And who can access it?

The short answer is that your cameras are almost certainly capable of capturing more than you realize, but that doesn’t automatically mean you should panic.

Let’s break it down.

How home cameras store video

Most doorbell and security cameras are cloud-connected. When they detect motion, clips are transmitted to company servers. A paid plan usually determines how long you can view and store those clips in your account.

Even without a subscription, short-term data may briefly pass through back end systems before being deleted. That technical nuance is what fueled concern in the case of Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance.

If footage exists on a provider’s servers — even temporarily — it can potentially be obtained through proper legal process, just like email or social media data.

That doesn’t mean someone is casually watching your feeds. It does mean cloud-connected devices create digital trails.

What about cameras in TVs, laptops and phones?

This is where fear tends to outpace reality.

Most smart TVs today do not include cameras. A handful of older models once offered built-in cameras for video calls or gesture control, but the feature never gained traction.

If your TV has a camera, it will be obvious — typically centered at the top bezel or retractable. If you don’t see one, you likely don’t have one.

Laptops, tablets and smartphones absolutely do have cameras and microphones, and they are internet-connected by design.

However, modern operating systems tightly control camera access. Apps must request permission before using the camera, and visual indicators now appear when the camera or microphone is active.

On iPhones and many Android devices, you’ll see a green dot when the camera is in use.

On Windows and Mac laptops, an indicator light is wired to the camera hardware itself, so it physically illuminates when the camera is powered on.

The far more common threat isn’t secret government monitoring — it’s malware or a compromised account granting unauthorized access.

Should you cover them?

Covering a laptop camera is a reasonable precaution if it gives you peace of mind. A simple sliding webcam cover works well and won’t damage the device.

On smartphones and tablets, covering the camera isn’t practical. Instead, focus on:

  • Keeping your operating system updated
  • Installing apps only from official app stores
  • Reviewing camera permissions in settings
  • Using strong passwords and two-factor authentication

smart TVs without cameras don’t need covers. If yours does have one and you don’t use it, disable it in settings or physically cover it.

Where you should be most careful

Interior security cameras pose the highest privacy risk because they’re intentionally designed to stream and record.

Before installing them, ask yourself if the benefit outweighs the exposure. Hallways and entry points are one thing. Bedrooms and bathrooms are another.

Technology isn’t inherently invasive — poor security habits are.

Understand which devices actually have cameras, know how they store data and secure your accounts properly.

If a small piece of tape over a webcam helps you sleep better, that’s fine too.

Peace of mind comes from understanding your tech, not fearing it.

Massachusetts court hears arguments in lawsuit alleging Meta designed apps to be addictive to kids

BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts' highest court heard oral arguments Friday in the state's lawsuit arguing that Meta designed features on Facebook and Instagram to make them addictive to young users. The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by Attorney General Andrea Campbell, alleges that Meta did this to make a profit and that its actions affected hundreds of thousands of teenagers in Massachusetts who use the social media platforms. “We are making claims based only on the tools that Meta has developed because its own research shows they encourage addiction to the platform in a variety of ways,” said State Solicitor David Kravitz, adding that the state's claim has nothing to do the company's algorithms or failure to moderate content. Meta said Friday that it strongly disagrees with the allegations and is “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.” Its attorney, Mark Mosier, argued in court that the lawsuit “would impose liabilities for performing traditional publishing functions” and that its actions are protected by the First Amendment.
Read Next Story