I just realized the blanket statement “No, Wyze does not share monitoring data with anyone” is part of the Home Monitoring service FAQ and may have nothing to do with ordinary camera feed and recording sharing.
1 Like
That’s nice. But the statement does not say “via warrant/subpoena”. Just your comment that it means that. Respectfully. Words are important. Specific words are important. If Wyze means that, the statement should include that.
1 Like
The local police here where I live in Komiefornia have requested all people who own outdoor video cams to “Volunteer” to make their outdoor cams accessible to them via IP address or other means. :astonished No thanks, I don’t want them arresting my 
or Possum friends for prowling, or watching me washing my truck during a drought (which is always here). 
3 Likes
Related to this topic, directly from the Founders/owners in an AMA from back when they first started creating their own in-house facial recognition feature:
So, Amazon and others actually proactively share and SELL your data to law enforcement and the government for extra profit, no legal process needed. Wyze said they will never do that.
Now let’s be honest, if Wyze is court-ordered to turn over some kind of video, they would have no choice but to comply. Anyone would. I saw a graph on Reddit the other day that showed of visualization of how many law enforcement requests/court orders all the major tech companies have to comply with yearly and it is ridiculously high. The only way to prevent this is if the company itself has zero access to comply because everything is totally encrypted and not accessible.
Personally I am glad Wyze at least abides a step above Amazon/Ring/Blink and others. Most other major companies voluntarily sell your data and events to law enforcement…no court order/warrant needed. The fact Wyze doesn’t do that is reasonable to me. Now nobody can get it without a judge agreeing it is critically necessary for a really important critical reason.
Wyze did confirm in that same AMA that even “employees who are actively developing our system…are not granted the permission to directly download video.” -per Tianqiang Liu between 1:34:20 - 1:36:12
Anyway, hope the above helps a little.
5 Likes
So what? Maybe I’m naïve but if I’ve done nothing wrong then I shouldn’t worry.
Your rights and privacy in this particular arena are not contingent upon you doing nothing wrong. It is a matter of principle due to the erosion of personal rights, liberties, freedoms, and privacy brought on by the rapid growth of a digitally connected, tech rich, social media ecosystem. Your video and data are NOT in the public realm unless you choose to stream it there. Those advocating open access would argue that the video recorded, while on private property, is capturing activity within the public realm and should therefore be public domain.
And, law enforcement requests for content and data are not always about you. Your cams may well be pointed to an area with other activity of ‘possible’ interest.
The fundamental questions here is Who gets to decide if your content and data are released… Not Why.
- Does the tech provider have an ethical obligation to protect your personal rights and privacy?
- Are your personal rights and privacy expendable based on the assessments made only by the tech provider?
- Is the tech provider qualified to make the assessment as to what does or does not constitute an appropriate reason to release content and data outside of the legal safeguards in place?
- Is there a reasonable expectation that your data and content will be kept private by your tech provider?
- Are there limits to this reasonable expectation… If any?
- Is it acceptable for a tech provider to release your personal and private content and data through an administrative process that circumvents the judiciary oversight in place that safeguards rights and privacy?
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” - Author: Benjamin Franklin
“When we quietly go about our business as our rights are plundered, when we yield to passivity and switch on the wii and hand over our power, we are not acting like true Americans. Indeed, at those moments we are giving up our citizenship.” - Author: Naomi Wolf
“If we buy into the notion that somehow property rights are less important, or are in conflict with, human or civil rights, we give the socialists a freer hand to attack our property.” - Author: Walter E. Williams
“I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.” - Author: Ron Paul
Well that would be insane (if someone seriously argued it). “Public realm” means taking the video in a public place is okay - no model releases - but I have a copyright on anything my camera captures. Even if I’m pointing it a public street (let alone private property!) you can see it if and only if I choose to distribute it (or as required by law).
Oh and @LHF is probably just trolling. Tons of people use these cameras indoors.
1 Like
Including folks in this sample from the forum. 
1 Like
My brother lives in the boonies. But had a Ring doorbell. After some news that Amazon/Ring folks were looking at some videos (who knows who/what). my brother disabled his, took it off and put it in the basement. He said, he was done with Alexa/Ring stuff. I told him, he didn’t have to go quite that far. These’ useful features within Alexa that don’t need video. All he really needed to do was stop having sex on the front porch in front of the camera.
2 Likes
@SlabSlayer, love your comment. But you left out how Law Enforcement is ignoring and taking eroding our right more and more every day as they disrespect anyone that reminds them and stands up for those rights. Its shameful to the degree that LEO’s don’t honor the oath to the U.S. Constitution that they swore to uphold, and don’t even know what it says.
I’m not going to go so far as to cast that stereotypical net over all of law enforcement. There are many, perhaps a majority, who do have a very healthy respect and understanding of the trust bestowed upon them by the public and the gravity of the constitutional restrictions placed upon them.
Rather, I believe this trend spotlighted in the article is more a result of taking the easy route. It is much easier to just ask for the content than it is to go thru the long, but necessary, process of obtaining a court order. And, for Ring, it is so much easier to write policies that indemnify the company and then just hand it over rather than to employ an entire legal team to review thousands of court orders. It is easier and less costly for them to say yes than it is to say no. And, law enforcement and lawyers know this so they exploit it.
IMO, I don’t believe that my privacy rights should be allowed to be voided by any user agreement. In other words, accepting the terms and conditions of service for any company should not in any way diminish my right to privacy or expectation thereof.
Perhaps this is the legislation that Senator Markey was suggesting: User agreements, terms and conditions do not convey informed consent as it relates to waiving privacy rights.
EDIT: FWIW, An example of the legislation suggested above has already been passed, applied, tested and proven effective in the Health Care\Medical industry. Regardless of the paperwork, questionnaires, forms, polices, agreements, etc. you fill out with your medical or dental provider, or insurance company for that matter, there are incredibly severe penalties under HIPAA if they release medical information without “Express Written Consent” from you expressly and specifically identifying what information can be shared, for what period of time, and to whom it can be shared. Your right to privacy in this regard cannot be waived outside of this written requirement. Even the Federal Government cannot circumvent these stipulations without penalty.
2 Likes
Maybe one’s doctor could prescribe IoT stuff as medically necessary to get its data under the HIPAA umbrella?
I know some folks keep an eye on the infirm with the cams…
…I assumed HIPAA had been compromised by emergency-use-authorized contact tracing and deemed-vital data sharing stuff.
Some things have been tromped pretty good.
I think.
1 Like
It is an unexpected honor to be in the presence of true unbridled genius!
“The truly creative mind in any field is no more than this: A human creature born abnormally, inhumanly sensitive. To him… a touch is a blow, a sound is a noise, a misfortune is a tragedy, a joy is an ecstasy, a friend is a lover, a lover is a god, and failure is death. Add to this cruelly delicate organism the overpowering necessity to create, create, create – so that without the creating of music or poetry or books or buildings or something of meaning, his very breath is cut off from him. He must create, must pour out creation. By some strange, unknown, inward urgency he is not really alive unless he is creating.” - Author: Pearl S. Buck
1 Like
‘…and his ass into a golden tassle.’ 
I think I’m echoing and extending a little something I heard here a long time ago.
Beautiful quote. 
I’ve known people like this. One didn’t watch films in theaters. The faces were ‘too big’ he said.
1 Like
HIPAA applies to people working in the medical field. EDIT: Some people not directly medical professionals can be responsible and violate for medical PII. This could be IT personnel for example working at a hospital. So, management may cast a wider net than simply medical personnel at training time. Those HIPAA trained persons would also be subject to HIPAA law and violation.
If Nurse A or Doctor B are at clinic and accidentally placed or left someone’s medical Personally Identifiable Information (PII) out in the open and I or you saw it and even recorded it with our camera, you and I did not violate HIPPA, - they did. You and I are not HIPPA trained and are not responsible for protecting someone’s medical information.
If the nurse or doctor walked outside and sat on a bench to read someone’s file or even a single paper containing a patient’s medical information. Then walked off leaving it on the bench, they are in violation of HIPAA. If I pick it up and make copies passing it out on the street corner. I am not in violation of HIPAA because I am not legally responsible for protecting that information.
2 Likes
Which is why I’ve shown remarkable restraint so far in letting the adults debate. Even in that I excel!
1 Like
Didn’t mean to steer this into a HIPAA discussion. I just wanted to use it as an example of the application of the Express Written Consent requirement, wherein Consent for Release of Information cannot be waived by use of policies, procedures, contractual agreements or waivers. It must be specific written consent authorizing release on each occurance… or a court order. Law Enforcement is not an exception to this.
1 Like
oh… my bad, no more outa me
Hah, made me laugh.
1 Like
My job here - is done.
1 Like