Putting stickers over your cameras might be a reasonable thing to do, but it's pretty silly to pretend your threat model is the same as Mark Zuckerberg's.

I keep reading similar statements on HN. Are we honestly saying that because of Zuck's "stature", there are more people actively attacking him than people taking access of an attack vector to gain access to as many people/devices as possible? Sure, some hacker might get some cred points for being the one to hack the Zuck, but ultimately these guys are after financial gains. This seems to be a prime example of quantity over quality being the better option.

If I was a billionaire I would pay security experts to make sure my workspaces were secure, things like locking down USB ports and blocking video/audio inputs that aren’t used would be a completely expected part of that. Still rich with irony though.

I’d be almost certain that there are more people looking to crack exceedingly high value targets like politicians, and billionaires than there are me.

There’s also people looking to crack huge swathes of the population, but state level actors seem more interested in breaking key individuals for blackmail, and espionage.

Although some state level actors are interested in mass surveillance as well.

Tl;dr: yes, Zuckerberg has more to worry about with his devices than the average individual.