I feel like a high value target to me, though. If the environment is untrustworthy enough for Zuckerberg to defend himself against it, he should consider his own role in making it that way.
But the truth is you should always treat your environment as untrustworthy. I don't think you should deduct him points for blocking his webcam.
It is an ADDITIONAL privacy step. He runs a company with thousands of employees, and with any company like that you never know if someone may decide to become a bad actor, and physically compromise him.
Yes, because they're voracious collectors people's personal information. We can hate on "bad actors" as well, we don't have to choose one or the other. But as long as Facebook is behaving creepily, whether deliberately or inadvertently, let's hate on them. There is no reason to tolerate their mistakes.
This is common practice among US government employees as well. The fact that Zuck does it as well doesn't say anything about Facebook's practices WRT their users.
This is common practice among US government employees as well
Sure, but they are protecting themselves from the Russian hackers that are in all the US government networks. Zuck is protecting himself from Facebook itself.
I do it. My wife does it. My sister does it. The cameras at Bloomberg all had shutters, and I used it there as well. It's just good (paranoid?) OPSEC to defend against remote takeover exploits.
It doesn't, obviously, and I never said it did. It prevents the camera from being used to surreptitiously record useful information when a machine has been remotely compromised. It's the same reason nothing with a transmitter is permitted in classified areas without specific authorization. Preventing a remote takeover is effectively impossible, but these steps reduce the usefulness of such an action (which is part of the defense against them).