Hey @kuda07 , @Customer often says something about somebody’s razor but he’s holding off for some reason so I’ll fill in. 
And…
We have so many adventures ahead of us! 
1 Like
I’d be willing to bet my yearly paycheck you were not hacked. Seriously, no one cares. 
Those IR lights click on and off as the light level changes…
and when you approach it …you’re changing the light… Blocking - reflecting, etc…
1 Like
And if you didn’t throw out your cameras that are now “GONE”
you want to send them to me? 
I know some, (less paranoid), folks that would love a camera, to keep an eye on their dog while they’re at work.
Then I guess I’m “no one”. I think you would be surprised at how many people have two or more networks in their home/office without even realizing it.
For instance, if you have a wireless router in addition to your ISP’s modem/router, then you have (at least) 2 networks. While they may be set it up to appear as a single network, or maybe you are only using the one and not the other, those are implementation details and do not change the fact that they are two different networks.
The only exception that I can think of for that scenario is if you set the second router up as a simple repeater.
Cheers.
“Then I guess I’m ‘no one’.”
Don’t sell yourself short. I expect you’re quite the nice gal or fella.
2 Likes
Hey CCT, imagine this. You leave your house doors unlocked because you like to. In the middle of the night, you scare an intruder out of your living room and off they run. From now on, you lock your doors. Is that being ‘paranoid’ or just being smart, mitigating future instances?
Remember, I did not turn my camera’s on. They are only used when I’m on vacation. I have NOT had my camera’s turned on when I saw the one on early that morning. It was dark. I had a dark sweatshirt on. I saw the camera on by virtue of the IR lights being illuminated in a dark room…which the IR lights would only work with the camera ON. When I approached the camera in my black sweatshirt in my dark room, the camera switched off. It was deliberate switching, and not by me. So, instead of tossing the camera’s like I said I was going to do, I changed my mind and put it outside. So far, after one week in freezing weather, it’s still working. Temps as cold as 16 and as high as 40. I couldn’t care less if the camera’s are turned on now. Let them see grass. So my point is, the camera was turned on by someone other than me. That’s the point. If you don’t care about privacy, so be it. As for me, I will never have any camera in my living areas again.
I’d move to a better neighborhood… Or maybe everybody’s just out to get you.
and I thought you “left”…
And I’ve had 15 cameras some of them for over 4 years never had one turn on by itself…
Yeah, I guess somebody’s out to get you.
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?
Answering my question with a question?
I gave my take in post #71 
.
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
is like more cowbell at this point, if you catch my clank.
1 Like
I support more cowbell!
3 Likes