Home bugluarized-cam taken-no true cloud storage-only 12 seconds?

My home was burglarized. In the process the Wyze cam was stolen.
Now, all I have is a 12 second event of the burglary.

I contacted Wyze by Twitter and a support ticket which left me much perplexed.

I can only access my video if the cam is active.

I’m am very disappointed. This makes Wyze Cam as a security camera useless.

Also, support totally ignored my request to get notified if the stolen Wyze Cam was reset and activated again on a new account.

Wyze Cam should immediately setup a department team that will let registered user get an archive, even if it has to be manually by their staff of any video recorded within reason and should work doubly hard to get some way for purchasers of these security cams to be able to gain access to their 14-days of cloud storage.

Sorry to hear about the theft :frowning_face:

It may only be available in beta, but Wyze is working on keeping event clips accessible even when the original camera is no longer associated with the account. It doesn’t help you after the fact but it’s coming. Also coming soon is Complete Motion Capture that will allow longer clips to be stored in the cloud, which might make identification of the thief easier.

As for tracking the MAC address, I’m sure that’s technically possible but has a host of privacy/legal implications. How does Wyze determine the rightful owner of a Wyze Cam? What’s to stop someone from requesting that info about any camera? What if the thief never activated the camera, but later sells it to an ignorant third party who gets tracked down and questioned?

Again, I’m sorry and I hope you are able to recover the stolen items.


Also sorry to hear about the theft - here are a couple wishlist items where you can have your voice heard by voting, and keep up on any new developments -

here is the article on complete motion capture

1 Like

Also this:


Sorry to hear that happened to you!

Are you talking about the video from an SD card installed in the camera? I’m assuming you can still access the cloud recordings, since you mentioned that you have a 12-second video of the event. But yes, the camera has to be on and connected in order to retrieve recordings from the SD card, obviously. A camera with continuous cloud recording would be much more expensive and would certainly require a subscription fee.

You asked for the IP address. If Wyze provided this kind of information without a warrant, people would rightfully raise privacy concerns. In theory, you might be able to obtain this information if you worked through law enforcement and they served a warrant to Wyze for the relevant logs, but it’s doubtful that law enforcement will be willing to jump through those hoops for you unless your camera captured Watergate 2.0 or something.

HOWEVER… If they simply allowed a camera to only be tied to ONE account, without the original account releasing it, this would give people the ability to obtain the kind of information and security you’re looking for without raising the same concerns. Hopefully they’ll do that in the future. Add your voice to the wishlist item I posted above. :slight_smile:

yes, thank you, that is the one i was thinking of but couldn’t find

I don’t mind paying for cloud access when they open it up, either as beta or public. This is what is needed for security systems. As of right now, the signup sheet says there is an issue. I think their competetor is like $3 a month for cloud access.

It’s already available for trial in the beta app. Note that it’s not continous cloud recording, but it removes the 12-second limitation and the 5-minute cooldown. That means that if there’s motion on the camera, you should be able to see it in the cloud. Once they roll it out officially, it will apparently be $1.49/month.


Sorry for the theft but this is specifically why Wyze states that this camera is not a security camera. Hopefully the Full Motion Capture helps people in situations like this in the furture.

1 Like

the rebuttals here about “What’s to stop someone from requesting that info about any camera? What if the thief never activated the camera, but later sells it to an ignorant third party who gets tracked down and questioned?” are pretty thin in my opinion. Once originally ‘registered’, WYZE should have the connection to that userid. Granted if a user sells a camera that might create a possible issue, but for the cloud storage to function there is still a history of accounts that each camera is tied to. Using those accounts and email addresses for validation is a pretty simple thing these days.

This is just not a valid reason to be unable to flag a device as stolen if reported from a user with an account that can be authenticated via normal communication channels.


It shouldn’t be a problem for Wyze to disable future activation of a camera, as long as that camera was activated on the user’s account and was reported stolen by that same user. This is done all the time. If a cell phone is stolen, the customer can contact their provider (who has it listed on the account) who can prevent activation. The problem is if the user is requesting information on if / when / where it was connected after. That’s a legal issue, as mentioned above.

1 Like

This whole issue is a minefield of privacy issues and lawsuits just waiting to happen which is why Wyze is wisely staying out of it.

Wife hates cameras, bundles them up while partner is at work and throws them out/gives them to Goodwill/Sells them on a street corner with a free puppy.

Single guy has one, dies in a plane crash, his possessions go unclaimed, eventually sold at auction by his landlord.

On and on go the scenarios, no company wants to get in the middle or attempt to arbitrate. Much better to not start down that path.

When my brother moved into a condo he found an ADT alarm system with components as well as a door lock and two Alexa’s. He did not buy the condo he is renting it. His land lord did not know about them nor did he want to, the previous renter could not be reached.

ADT was happy to inspect the system and give the new codes to my brother.
Yale helped him reset the lock.
Amazon helped him factory reset the echo’s.

None of those companies wants to get involved with ownership verification and they all have much deeper pockets than Wyze. Besides when’s the last time you filled out a registration card and sent it in? Most people throw them out.

I bought most of my Wyze cameras from Amazon, Wyze does not know when I activate one if I am the one that ordered them or a porch pirate.

it is an issue loaded with landmines.

1 Like

That is just not true. Without activating, your Wyze cam just doesn’t work.
Also, unlike the other companies, Wyze stores the video on their servers and touts 14 day cloud service. What I am asking for his the data that is mine that Wyze purports in its advertising, the 14 day cloud video. The former owner of the Echo would still have access to their cloud services after your brother gained access to it.

I do have some relief that the thief can’t gain access to the 14 day stuff unless he can get the cam on the web.

Either way, this entire event has taught me one thing that my grandparents taught me many decades ago, DON’T BUY FOR PRICE.


1 Like

I am asking for data on my stolen camera, which I still own. That is not an issue. It’s the same with a person with a car with a Lojack. The cam is my stolen property, i.e., my Wyze Cam. If the thief stole itthe purchasers received stolen property. It’s still not theirs, I still own it.

1 Like

It’s only a $20 to $30 device. Is there any contractual guarantees that Wyze has to provide you with your data? Seems that will add to the already cheap price. This is a toy being used as a security device. I now understand why they state this.


You did not read what I wrote even though you quoted it. Wyze does not know who bought a given camera from Home Depot or Amazon. I Robert could have ordered it from Amazon, but Peter the Porch Pirate stole the camera from my porch. He installs the camera and activates it. How would Wyze know that camera was supposed to be Roberts? Wyze has no idea who bought a camera from Home Depot or Amazon. All they know is XYZ camera was activated on ABC account not if that was the account that bought the camera.

1 Like

That’s true, but I still think it’s better to only allow the camera to be associated with one account at a time (without the original account releasing it)

Sure, that theoretically means a porch pirate can activate a new camera before the rightful owner. But that already happens anyway. If a porch pirate steals it, the rightful owner likely isn’t getting the camera back anyway.

But it’s much more distressing if a camera that already has your data on it gets stolen. In that event, it would be useful to have access to the camera locked, and to be able to see any information about what happens to it after it leaves your premises.


Follow this logic.

I buy a camera and activate it. After some time has passed I give it to my son, I forget to take it off my account but he just hard resets it and adds it to his account. Some time later he upgrades to the brand new Wyze V4 cameras and gives his V2’s including the one I gave him, to a buddy. Buddy puts them on his account, he has to reset them to do so. Sometime later his cameras are stolen and activated again. Now how is Wyze supposed to know its stolen or not?

What you are suggesting would really be some form of activation lock like Apple uses for its phones. Thats great, but part of the reason Apple charges 900 - 1100 for a phone is features like activation lock and the staff to support it. Plus it makes tech supports job tougher since now the have to verify you actually own every camera you call for support on etc.

Yup it might make stealing cameras tougher or whatever but its not going to get you your camera back. People steal iPhones for parts even knowing they can’t use them. Cameras are stolen just to deprive you of any data they may contain etc.

The real issue here is cost. Yes Wyze or Amazon, or Ring or Blink could make it tougher to use a stolen camera. But really all that would do is mean the crooks would steal em to deprive you of the camera, your not going to get them back.

if Cops pay little attention when my 1000 dollar phone is stolen I don’t think they are going to care much when your 20 dollar camera is stolen.


Under the system I would be in favor of, this would be impossible. After hard-resetting the camera, Wyze would refuse to add it to his account until you release it from yours. That’s all I’m talking about. No need for them to verify anything, except that “This camera is already connected to an account, therefore it can not be connected to another account until the original account releases it” This would also most likely notify the original account owner that someone is trying to add their camera, and prompt them to release it or prevent it.

That’s it.

I described in another thread that one way to deal with “abandoned cameras” is that an activation attempt on a new account could trigger a countdown period in which the original account has the ability to claim the camera. The original account’s app will pester the account owner to release it or not, until the original account responds. If the original account doesn’t respond after 30 days, it can be assumed that the camera/account is abandoned and it can then be added to a new account. I don’t think that’s necessary, since I don’t think Wyze has an obligation to bend over backward to support people who are buying their cameras aftermarket, but it’s one way of dealing with that potential problem if they wanted to.

How do you figure? How many porch-stolen items get returned in the first place? And if you DO catch the porch-pirate, do you think they’re going to give you the camera back but refuse to release it from their account? Why give it back at all? And if they WILL give it back, why refuse to release it? To spite you? If they don’t cooperate, you can just turn them into the cops. Doesn’t seem to be in their interest. I’m just having a hard time imagining the scenario you’re describing.

You’re wrong. They are sending Wyze a warrant for the data. As far as I know Wyze may have already received the warrant. It is the weekend and Wyze’s only response for the warrant was just a simple “feedback form” which really upset the cops and the district attorney because Wyze didn’t have any other way to contact Wyze then a simple feedback support form.

Because it is internet device also, if the criminal attempts to connect it to the internet, they are going for stronger charges than theft.

Once I get a copy of the warrant this week and the John Doe charges I will attach it to this thread.