[POLL] - Who has Wyze Cams indoors in Living Areas?

:blush:

Nearly A Third Of GenZ Favors ‘Government Surveillance Cameras In Every Household’

:fearful::scream::nauseated_face::face_vomiting:

1 Like

No cams inside my house.

2 Likes

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

4 Likes

But once you have, will you be likely (or allowed??)* to take them out?

 
* Legislation providing that if you had voluntarily shared your live feed with police, and they were actively investigating something using your cam, you would not be allowed to remove or disable it or their access to it. I remember reading this, probably regarding the tech/govt developments in San Francisco, which is one city leading the way. Cannot find it, though, so may have misremembered.

I had previously assumed that the vast majority of American adults had a basic understanding of their fundamental constitutional right to Privacy.

Upon the voluntary forfeit of that right behind the facade of safety and security, it no longer exists as a fundamental right. It becomes only a privilege.

To what do we owe the departure of respect and reverence for these rights in the younger generation, as the article and study on which it is based infers?

I will be reserved with my thoughts on this, especially not being the Water-cooler, and it being a volatile controversial topic. But to simply summarize the article in question, it indicates that these opinions are mostly due to excessive rates of abuse/domestic violence (and other illegal activity) and wanting protection against such abuse.

I DO use cameras and smart assistants inside my house, but not in any privacy-critical areas. I like being able to record and save good family memories with my kids, etc in the main rooms, especially when my kids do or say something funny or memorable. I save these kinds of events all the time, and the value I get out of it outweighs the small risks that come from it, to me, and there are always places anyone can go that have no cameras.

Having said that, I personally would never voluntarily give the government individuals unrestricted access to any of my video, etc. The government is also made up of individuals, and individuals can be creepy and abuse power/access too.

Cardinal Richelieu once explained why you always exercise your 5th amendment right, no matter how honest and innocent you are when he said:

“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”

It is not discourteous to insist upon your rights. It doesn’t mean you are guilty, and there are good reasons for doing so.

Having said that, people also have a right to not be subject to abuse. I am not saying that rampant government surveillance by random other flawed individuals is the cure to this, but I can understand people desperately reaching for ideas for solutions.

I respect everyone’s right to make their own choices in this matter…as for me and my house, we choose to use some, with some limitations and caution.

Just last month, Ring got fined $5.8M for allowing almost any employee or contractor unrestricted access to customer’s videos (view, download, transfer, etc) for their own purposes and without ANY tracking of what employees were doing (they can’t even tell anyone which creepy employees are guilty, which customers were affected or how often because there are no logs at all, just free unrestricted access with no accountability), and without the customer’s consent. That doesn’t mean Ring as a company is necessarily creepy/bad, but they are also made up of individuals who may/will abuse their access just as any organization may have, including the government or any other group of flawed humans. This is why strict policies and accountability (including logs/tracking) are critical.

Speaking of Ring and surveillance…there is the issue of Ring sharing people’s videos with the government upon gov request without needing a warrant (unless you specifically give up a bunch of features and opt-in to E2E Encrption). So, honestly, this is all already being done…just not with Wyze (which will only cooperate with law-enforcement if they are legally compelled…at least the last time I read the policy).

2 Likes

What’s your take, fisherman? :slight_smile:

Answering my question with a question?

I gave my take in post #71 :point_up_2:.

The more distant historically significant events become, the less likely we are as a society to apply the lessons learned from those events to our guiding principles. The past becomes obscured by the present. Those ignorant of history become doomed to repeat it.

Education is not a state responsibility but an individual one.

2 Likes

More :frog: is like more cowbell at this point, if you catch my clank. :slight_smile:

@Seapup @Bam , what say you? :slight_smile:

1 Like

I support more cowbell!

3 Likes

What Slab said and more cowbell. :grin:

3 Likes

Thanks, guys!

Line creep. ‘I draw the line at x.’ Current line is implanted chips/sensors for most.

Traditional privacy principles are beyond quaint to fresh young things. It’s a line they were born(e) across.

{Tin Foil Hat On}
And the Vaxx serialized bio-ID marker those whom got the jab received :rofl:

2 Likes

I forgot how specific this was… and how long ago.

Well, I just did an in-depth analysis of the difference between the ratio of responses between the two poll options BEFORE post #70 seven days ago (which revivified the topic and poll you’re welcome) and now and it turns out it is THE SAME. 14 additional responses heaped upon the prior 59 at exactly the same ratio. By FDA standards this is CERTAINLY of significance to the user. You may now draw conclusions compatible with your individual truths with confidence.

Rejected out of hand by the

image

What does he know. :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

:rofl:
Love the sign.

I will point out a few things though.

  1. The poll does not have neutral wording and would in no way be considered scientifically valid
  2. The Sample size is not representative
  3. It is not correct to say I reject anything here out of hand. This is not a black and white issue to me where everyone must have the same preference and opinion. It is completely reasonable for some people to want to use cameras indoors, and for others to be totally against it. I totally respect anyone having a different opinion and preference related to this and believe both sides can be “right” for them. I do not think either side should attempt to enforce their views or preference on everyone else though.
  4. Even my preference is more of a cautionary middle-ground. I allow cams indoors, but I don’t have them in privacy critical areas like my bedroom or bathrooms, and a few such areas. I do not reject the importance of privacy by any means. However, the benefit I’ve have gotten from being able to save happy and funny family memories has, for me, been far more valuable & far outweighed the potential privacy risks in those fairly public areas.

I guess I’m personally used to some areas of my house being fairly public areas instead of private areas. My wife is the oldest of 12 kids and most of her family has lived with us at one point or another, so we’ve always had areas that were fairly “public” areas with constant guests, etc. So it’s never bothered me much to always consider the main rooms public. I totally respect anyone who does consider everywhere private though. I do not oppose that all. I fully support everyone choosing their own preference and comfort level.

1 Like

Would you agree that most of the powerful folks driving the trend away from traditional privacy are zero-summers?

They are not really negotiating anything with those who disagree. They are effectively dictating it. Removing options.

Seems to me we are meeting a sustained if slow motion aggression with appeasement.

Sometimes that doesn’t turn out so well. :face_with_diagonal_mouth:


How does this relate to Wyze?

Business plan: Offer people things they like and want. Provide rationales that support their decision to have it. Downplay perceived detriments.

And I give them big props for accepting counter-speech. They’ve been consistent in that from the outset. :+1:

I don’t think it’s a conspiracy or as intentional as some other people may think. I think it is a fairly natural byproduct of trying to either monetize or leverage as much as people are willing to allow, combined with the natural progress of technology.

And while I don’t believe the following is IDEAL, I personally think the disappearance of general privacy is almost inevitable (at least in some physical areas), whether we want it to be or not. For example, several completely separate groups of researchers have demonstrated how they can use the changes in WiFi signal interference levels to actually create a 3D image of anything within it’s reach, including the exact shape of every human, their movements, poses, etc. Anyone could use this technology to spy on anyone even through walls (the theory behind it is that SWAT could see what is going on inside a house/building during a hostage situation without having to put any of their agents in danger or have a direct line of sight through a window, etc. Now they can just leverage nearby WiFi radio waves to map out the entire area including where everyone is and what everyone is doing, all live).

Nowadays even if you don’t personally use WiFi, your neighbors probably are and their signals probably bleed throughout your house too…in fact, in urban areas, and many suburban areas, it’s hard to find a single inch of territory that doesn’t have some kind of WiFi signal going through it, so they could probably just use other people’s WiFi signals to see every single thing every person is doing if they really wanted to, all by simply collecting and interpreting publicly available radio signals that already exist. I don’t think there was ever a conspiracy or plan to get everyone to widely adopt WiFi everywhere, but ultimate effect is that anyone who leverages one or more of these methods of WiFi signal interpretation can theoretically see everything anyone is doing almost anywhere. I don’t know that there is realistically a way to undo or prevent it now. The cat is out of the bag. It would basically take EMP-ing the whole world back to the stone age to undo it now. :man_shrugging:

That is not to say that we can’t still probably have some measure of digital privacy, at least for a while…though that is a whole different conversation. Some will argue that quantum computing will make digital privacy go away, but that is mostly a misunderstanding as there are quantum-resistant cryptography options, as well as quantum-safe hardware options. Even some forms of Multi-factor authentication are not vulnerable to quantum computing attacks. There are also interesting proposals for specifically leveraging the Bitcoin Blockchain in a way to be the ultimate security and identify proof of the future… Very interesting stuff IMO. A combination of such things will certainly be able to stay ahead of quantum security concerns and preserve some degree of digital privacy.

BUT I still think physical privacy’s days are numbered, inevitably. I am not saying I like that or want that, I believe it is just inevitable in the long run, and that we as a species will have to come up with new laws to adapt and address how to handle the way things evolve as a matter of fact, rather than how we would ideally wish. Even making something technically illegal (interpreting WiFi signals to 3D map everything and everyone in the vicinity), doesn’t mean that people can’t still do it in secret without anyone knowing. It will still be commonplace no matter what IMO. Even if we ban all WiFi, the same thing could be done with lots of other radio signals that permeate everything at varying frequencies.

On the plus side…I would totally love to be able to run a gesture interpreter locally on my smart home. Have it watch for when I make certain gestures to silently execute different rules and automations, or watch when I get close to a room and turn the light on in advance. Watch when I leave a room and turn off those lights. It can watch for hundreds of things and do whatever I want it to do based on how I program it. I would prefer not to have any of that info in the CLOUD on some company’s servers, but it would be kind of cool to run locally through Home Assistant or something on my own server. It could even have different preferences for every member of my household and have different rules of what to do when we are alone, vs multiple of us in the same location, etc. I’m not saying I want to lose privacy to have these benefits, but if physical privacy is ultimately a lost cause in the long run anyway, I’m sure going to take advantage of the benefits of that technology.

I totally respect anyone who feels or believes otherwise. I have just ready some of the different experiments and research and concluded that I believe physical privacy has a terminal diagnosis…and while I wish it didn’t, I’m also excited for some of the cool things I’ll be able to do with some of that tech too.

(Braces for peepeep to break my limbs for not saying privacy is definitely guaranteed forever)

1 Like