I can’t quite make out your bank account number… what’s the first 30 digits again?
Given the recent issues on security breaches, there is a heighten concern about cameras. Agree that WiFi can be hacked, but I think most would like to minimize their exposure with video / data being ‘hoovered’ en-mass with remote real time feed at galactic headquarters. See HIK vision, Dahua, etc.
So if there are no backdoors in WYZE firmware and provides users an option to opt-out (not upload video to cloud), I would think that is reasonable.
By having RTSP supported as mainline WYZE firmware would provide a tangible delivery of providing customers with choice around security.
per CEO mid-year letter … “In May, we released the highly anticipated, highly requested RTSP and Google Assistant integrations along with our first non-camera product, [Wyze Sense]”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-22/china-s-hikvision-weighed-for-u-s-ban-has-probably-filmed-you
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-10/banned-chinese-security-cameras-are-almost-impossible-to-remove
“Trust but verify” - Ronald Reagan
Perhaps WYZE could have IPVM or similar organization review their security? Better housekeeping stamp of approval?
Update:
A good discussion with a range of opinion from users claiming technical expertise. Wyze staff taking claims seriously and requesting that users provide logs and media clips to support their investigation.
Funny world, eh? 
if your IP address and MAC is compromised, Nothing is safe on your network.
RSTP will not protect only give another Feature (option).
This is my 3 edit, and WYZE keeps all your comments.>> SO being that said, It’s like Google.
So WYZE has continually shown " if it smells like a Pig, looks like a Pig, it is probably a PIG".
SO if you trust, then don’t worry about it. IF you are sane and worried, Get a Gun.
Yes, the forum software does retain edit history. However, only you and the admins can see it. Other users cannot.
3 Likes
Hi Loki, (rev.1)
would you be able to clarify , how long the comments are kept’d for? Alongside all images and videos on the WyZE Cloud servers in USA?.
Are foreign nationals under the FISA laws data kept’d indefinitely ; con-currently, since the data is kepted on WYZE servers has the usage and privacy rights been relinquished when the WYZE Product is used (meaning activated on their network ; AKA turned on)?.
Sorry to throw this out there…
I am not so concerned with HACKING… I am more concerned with how the privacy laws of the country of product origin affects foreign users of WYZE products.
In my area of residence, the data is not allowed to be kept’d nor audited (analyzed) nor released to any public authorities within a certain period of time (suppositely).
Is this the case if Foreign nationals was to use the same product.
My Opinion: “lesser of 2 evils” : we continue to bash others while allowing another to do so seems hypocritical. What makes keeping Data on servers in America safer when the constitution does not protect Foreign Users of WYZE products and service.
FYI; most companies who have SANs in the country where the product has been distributed to be sold at subjecting it to It’s Data laws.
I believe your company does not do this due to cost of hosting (colocate) and creation of NEW SANs. i would like to know how you protect my data… Please elaborate.
Please advise…
I’ll give some examples.>>Project Prism … This was to bypass the Constitution.
@BillyBob, I am not a Wyze employee. I am a user and volunteer moderator. I will see if I can ask a Wyze employee to respond here, but no guarantee.
That said, I think some of the answers you are looking for can be found here and here.
1 Like
I love It! 
The best summary ever. Perfecto! 
They will be really bored looking out my window. Car is there then empty spot then car back.
Who cares. Plus if I was a spy satellites clearly pick up a dime on the ground.
ON WHAT EMPLOYEES SHOULD TELL FRIENDS WHO DON’T LIKE FACEBOOK
What can we do to help improve Facebook’s self-image to our peers and friends that might have a negative opinion of the company?
MZ: Well, look, I think humanizing stuff is always really important. So I’ve always focused more on the substance and trying to deliver things, and a little bit less on the perception. And I think we don’t have that luxury anymore. You know, for the first 10 years of the company or so, we got more glowing press than I think any company deserves. And it wasn’t just Facebook; it was the whole tech industry. And then I think a lot changed in the last few years, and especially since the 2016 elections. And people are just more aware of a lot of these issues, and the pendulum in terms of perception is swinging, or has swung, towards focusing more on issues.
But I think some of the most devastating critique is not around substance in terms of what the companies do. it’s around a motive. So either we don’t care because we just care about making money because we’re a business. Or we don’t care about certain issues because we’re biased to not care about them. And I think it’s tough to break down these perceptions and build trust until you get to a place where people know that you have their best interests at heart. So that’s one thing that you all will be well-suited to do as ambassadors, if you choose to be, having spent time here, as I think you know the heart of this place at this point. And you don’t know every single technical project, but you have a sense of what we care about and what people here think about and what the conversations are on a day-to-day basis. And in the conversations that I have, even with some of our biggest critics, I just find that sitting down and talking to people and having them know that you care about the problems and acknowledge that there are issues and that you’re working through them … I think it just makes a big difference.
The thing that gets me is how lifelike he looks, even when you’re up real close.
Disney couldn’t dream that animatronics would have progressed so far in one generation.
But just like Wyze, the AI stuff still needs work.
Fascinating 
1 Like
A top priority of these cats is self-survival.
A “merit-based” future imaginable by some.
I only use Wyzecam for outdoor use, which cover my needs. I use Amcrest for indoor use with encrypted connection to my DVR.
And? What’s the big deal about that?
Yes, I am sure China/Russia/North Korea/Etc. really gives a crap about viewing footage from our front porch. Or even inside our home video. You really think they care about what some random person is doing in their yard or living room?
MOD NOTE: Post edited to conform to the Community Guidelines
2 Likes
Maybe an itinerant security pro happening by could easily debunk this? I hope so.
Basically they demonstrate (credibly?) that anyone on the web can be pwned and have his computer made a “slave” very cheaply, with little effort or expertise, and despite multiple layers of consumer security you have installed.
The VPRO [a Dutch broadcasting org] is known for producing and broadcasting quality (and sometimes avant-garde) programmes, documentaries and films, the target audience of the VPRO is highly educated and creative people (e.g. artists, designers, scientists).[2]
[…]
It was the first to show a nude woman on Dutch television, Phil Bloom in 1967, in the Wim T. Schippers show Hoepla.[1]
[…]
VPRO often collaborates with other broadcasting organisations such as WDR, the BBC, and Arte.
[-Wikipedia]
Subtitles available via the gear icon.
/edit 5/18
Emailed the filmmaker this:
Hi, I enjoyed your documentary “Buying Hacked Computers.” One’s vulnerability seems to be dependent on whether an “exploit kit” has ever run successfully on one’s computer.
Is your film implying that, even if you have multiple consumer security programs running, and you practice safe computing, the risk of being compromised by an exploit kit is substantial?
Also, it would be interesting to hear the reactions of top security professionals and/or the major antivirus companies to your film. Have you contacted any?
1 Like
Brother Porter weighs in:
yes, root kits survive reboots. No, they are not “undetectable. By anyone.”
Root kits are a very invasive form of malware, but they survive reboots by manipulating the boot sectors of the boot device. Predominantly, they are designed in a manner to “appear invisible” to software that is looking for issues as they are mostly able to intercept calls to the storage system and report back what they want to instead of what’s real - this is how they are able to evade detection. There are programs out there that can easily identify many root kits through special methods of interrogating the host, though. So, they are by no means “undetectable. By anyone.”
2 Likes
I said they were “supposedly” undetectable. And manipulating boot sectors is actually common to all kinds of malware not just rootkits. That said an awful lot of PLC chips commonly used in computers are now vulnerable. Read here for one example, there are others.
Stuxnet was an earlier version that also attacked process chips not hard drives. It’s core code has been in circulation and use for years. Again there are others.
1 Like
That may have been what you meant, but it isn’t what you wrote. You indicated that they “supposedly” survived reboots…
Supposedly “root kits” can survive reboots, reformatting hard drives etc.
You followed that up by saying that this (nothing “supposed” about it):
While that’s the widely held belief the other side of it is that in order to do so they are undetectable. By anyone.