Although George Orwell's novel 1984 didn't get all the details right, today there is still a prying eye in our living rooms.

OPINION: In the dystopia of 1984, ordinary people can't turn off their watchful televisions.



Although George Orwell's prescient novel didn't get all the details right, today there is prying eye without an 'off' switch in all our living rooms.



Recent news stories have highlighted how smartphone cameras and webcams can watch us and eavesdrop on our conversations.



Yet go into any big box technology retailer and look at the row upon row of camera and microphone-equipped notebooks, desktops, smartphones and webcams – not a single one has a physical "on/off" switch.

READ MORE:

* No expectation of internet privacy

* Erasing yourself from internet nearly impossible

* NZ spy agency records sharp cyber attack rise

Stop and think for a minute about this simple omission.



It's nearly 220 years since Alessandro Volta closed and opened the first electrical circuit, otherwise known as "on" and "off" yet today's consumer tech can't manage this simple safeguard.

SIMON MAUDE/STUFF Webcams and smartphone cameras can watch us and eavesdrop on our conversations.

You might say, "Why would hackers care about me? I haven't done anything wrong"? Until you do . . . or don't.



The New York Times revealed a company's app listens in on your smartphone microphone to discover what television and music you're watching.

Meanwhile out-and-out criminals have been caught watching in on people's webcams, and sometimes governments do the same.

In 2015, a UK man was convicted after using easily-obtained software to hack into people's webcams mainly to watch people having bedroom sex.



Worse, in 2013 a former FBI director revealed the United States agency could monitor webcams without users knowing.

SIMON MAUDE/STUFF In 2013 a former FBI director revealed the United States agency could monitor webcams without users knowing.

The FBI insists it only occasionally breaks into webcams, only for bad people or that sort of thing.

Yet such assurances should be cold comfort to the likes of the Nicky Hagers and Jon Stephensons of this world and everyday people.

MONIQUE MARY FORD/STUFF Investigative journalists like Nicky Hager, left, and John Stephenson rely on confidential communication to protect whistleblowing sources.

Investigative journalists like Hager and Stephenson rely on confidential communication to protect whistleblowing sources.

End-to-end communications device encryption is for naught if hackers get access to one microphone or webcam in a conversation - including the ones ordinary New Zealanders have.



We are democracy today, but perhaps one day we won't be. What if police come knocking, 'cautioning' you about 'strong' comments you made about the new regime while chatting with mates on the webcam.

It happens already overseas.

STR In 2009 Iran's theocratic regime faced a large-scale uprising coordinated through social media.

Following internet spread 2009 anti-government protests, Reuters revealed Iran's theocratic regime turned technology on its citizens and arrested critics using intercepted telephone and internet communications.

In 2016 60 Minutes demonstrated how Chinese corporate spies sent trojan emails to American computers which activated webcams for eavesdropping.

Netsafe's technology director Sean Ryan agrees that hackers can't defeat physics, so there's something to be said for putting physical on/off switches on devices.



But he said if people are really concerned about their online privacy there's an immediate fix available: simply cover your webcam with duct tape.

SIMON MAUDE/STUFF There's more than one hole needing duct taping to guarantee no-one's watching or listening to you on today's smartphones.

Great number eight wire fix, Sean, but several things, what about audio? That's more holes to cover.

Haven't I just made my brushed aluminum, ode to design smartphone bloody ugly?



More importantly, I've paid hundreds or even thousands for my device: surely manufactures could build in, at minimum, flick-of-a-switch privacy.

Apple manages to put a physical mute switch on the side of its iPhones, so why not a webcam/microphone kill switch?



I asked a salesman at a Harvey Norman in Auckland why none of their internet devices had such a switch.

SIMON MAUDE/STUFF Apple manages to put a physical mute switch on the side of its iPhones, so why not a webcam/microphone kill switch?

"You'd have to ask the manufacturers," he said.

So I asked Samsung, Apple, Microsoft and Lenovo.

I'm still waiting.



You could liken big tech's unresponsiveness to 1950s car manufacturer's preposterous heel-dragging over making seat belts standard.



Much like the manufacturer-absolving sticky-tape-over-cameras argument, seatbelt poo-pooers argued people were safer being thrown from car wrecks than being belted in.



Maybe it initially felt quixotic, yet eventually government regulation and market pressure made seat belts compulsory, all for a few more cents on the dollar in car production costs.



Surely our privacy is worth a few cents too?



One query could be construed as tinfoil-hatted - asking whether governments had quietly asked manufacturers not to build in physical comms switches.



Perhaps he's being generous to me, but Netsafe's Ryan doesn't think so.



"I wouldn't call it nutty," he said. He talks about the US government's demand that Apple give it backdoor access to customers' encrypted devices.

SCREENSHOT Consumers should pipe up now and demand internet device physical comms switches, lest 1984's predictions keep being realised.

It appears Apple has so far refused that demand.

Lest we emulate 1984's protagonist Winston Smith, commanded to do jumping jacks by a literal health-Nazi via his always-on television, we should pipe up now and demand device physical comms switches.

"Not enough of us have those conversations with retailers about devices that possibly infringe our privacy," Ryan said.

"If that's not working we need to have those conversations with the manufacturers."