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).

> > > It's just good (paranoid?) OPSEC to defend against remote takeover exploits.

> > > [Camera shutters are] just good (paranoid?) OPSEC to defend against remote takeover exploits.

> > > [Camera shutters are] ... good ... [defense] against remote takeover exploits.

Clearly I misunderstood your intent, but the comment does seem to indicate what I thought.

Nothing there says or indicates anything about preventing takeovers. Preventing is a strict subset of defending against.

Physical controls can be as effective as technical.