Ah, I see, end to end encryption comes up in the context of user to user communication (Whatsapp, Zoom, telephony, iMessage, Duo, other videoconferencing) where there are parties talking to one another and a provider intermediary who should not be able to see the streams and data.
But for something like recorded videos on Wyze’s Amazon storage this terminology does NOT make a lot of sense. They already have a copy, so the point would be to make sure it’s encrypted when they receive it.
End to end encryption WOULD apply to viewing live video from camera to phone… except that Wyze already can’t typically see that, since it uses P2P services that eliminate Wyze from the content stream anyway.
Anyhow, this doesn’t take away from the validity of your concept.
Interesting you bring this up. As it stands the lower courts are divided, with most, it seems, authorizing passwords to be compelled with force reasonable. Scotus has so far left it to the lower courts to hash out.
Regarding the missinterpretation of video, I am glad you bring that up. Video DOES NOT speak for itself and hopefully, a certified forensic video analyst is consulted in any case that relies on the video.
While IANAL, & I know a lot has happened in the last 10 years, 10 years ago I personally knew of a case where the DA subpoenaed a defendant’s lawyer to turn over the password to his phone or sit in jail indefinitely. The defendant then gave his attorney a precedent setting federal appeals court case that ruled passwords in someone’s head qualified under 5th amendment protections, but knowledge of where a physical key may be does not qualify. He told his attorney to submit that to the court to bind them to drop the subpoena and threat of jail time, and the court agreed. Of course, this only made the DA more angry and determined to use all discretion he could to punish the defendant for it… So there was a trade off of sorts.
I don’t profess to have thoroughly read all the lastest updates in the last 10 years, but I recall an article saying that Federal Courts are all bound by the precedent cases saying it’s protected, and some states supreme courts have ruled it may not always be protected, thus causing a potential allowance in a few states, but not others. With the supreme court staying out of it, it sounds like the highest ruling is still the federal appeals courts which have ruled it’s protected… Though states might be able to make certain exceptions. Idk…
Anyway, the main point is that at least if it’s reliant on the user, nobody is sharing anything without the user’s knowledge and cooperation even if it is legal to try to compel it (I guess they could still refuse and get obstruction charges instead?). Being compelled is still better than everything happening in secret anyway and having no idea at all. I am definitely for people having the choice… As I said, I have even voluntarily shared stuff and would again in the future, so I am supportive, but not in the dark/secret nor against my consent, and preferably not with the company incurring expenses that are passed on to users who want nothing to do with it but still have to subsidize the feature with higher costs. That would be my main concern.
In the long run this type of Option inevitably may become a non option, hindsight
This type of option is unnecessary if you decide to share videos with law enforcement is easily done already
2¢: Legal processes, procedures, and rules are in place for a very specific reason. They are the guidelines put in place by society to protect all of society, even those who are incapable of comprehending those protections.
Inventing ways for government agencies to usurp those control barriers by exploiting user ignorance is an affront to our right to privacy … Even for those who lack the ability to comprehend those rights.
Building an express lane bypass of the legal process for those too ignorant to recognize it as a threat to privacy erodes liberty, freedom, and privacy for all of us.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
Speaking from a real life situation i have right now…there have been a lot of shootings in my area…one was 5 ft away from my car. Anyway, i wamt to give my videos to police to help catch these criminals! But…its hard to send EVERY video i think he needs…he needs to view cars from hours before the shootings because they tend to scope out the area…and i dont want anyone knowing because then I’ll be a target.
Now, we can already share wyze cams…with your friend, roommate, etc…so obviously i can share with a police officer, but if they did that for the whole area (as an option) then i would’ve feel so singled out.
I want bad guys off my street…its not like the cams are in my room or even my back yard…it just faces the road…wchich is not designed to be “private”…anyone can see you anytime your in your yard just by walking by or your neighbors nextdoor can see and hear you…if you want privacy, go inside. I’m not doing anything wrong so i don’t care what they see! I just want my neighborhood safe again! It was never like this until November and its been everyday since…very scary
