Wirecutter (NY Times) revokes recommendations for all Wyze cameras
Following Wyze’s apparent failure to alert users or respond in any way to news of some users being able to view other users’ videos through the web portal. Wirecutter has revoked recommendations for ALL Wyze cameras
Interesting that you came to that conclusion. Where did you read that misinformation? We knew about it here in the forum mere minutes after it happened and Wyze shut it down within 30 minutes. Wyze has identified the 10 users affected and has contacted every one of them. Updates on the scope and cause of the incident we’re provided very shortly afterward. And we have been updated several times.
I’m posting what I received from the NY Times Wirecutter service. This is how they feel about it. I don’t have any other way of letting Wyze know about this. Hopefully they already do. Wirecutter is still pretty influential.
I chose Wyze for my cameras in part because Wirecutter gave them a seal of approval. I’m still using them (though some are crapping out over time).
You may want to be a bit more critical of your information sources. The NY Times… biased opinions for sale, no objectivity required. Wirecutter… they are still endorsing Eufy, that’s a really good credibility barometer right there.
Who gives a hoot about how “they” feel about it? They are being paid for their opinion and will spew whatever shock story sells more ads, not the truth. Post how you feel about it after doing the research to learn the truth.
And your comments about the NYTimes isn’t opinion?
My comment about only ten reporting is based on my experience with coding software for CPAs and knowing, as a fact, that only 1 in 10 would report an error in our code. One would think that a CPA would want dead on accuracy. It’s human nature to be lazy and not report what you perceive doesn’t affect you. A casual user of a cam would be very likely to fall into that category.
So. when you run a website, you have these things called logs. And when a user accesses anything, it gets stored in the log. As this was limited to people that were using the view.wyze.com website during a period of about 30 minutes, I’m guessing that someone at wyze looked at the logs and checked which users accessed that website during those 30 minutes, and there were 10 unique users… Thus no, it was not 10 people that reported the issue to wyze themselves themselves - Think about it… if the users had all notified wyze of the issue, there would not really be any reason for wyze to notify them,
Since this is in the watercoooler, and as much as I hate bleeping computer for basically being rage-bait and slanted reporting, check this out:
Apparently T-Mobile (I have T-Mobile) just got caught doing almost the same thing, but their issue has been getting reported and ignored for over 2 weeks!
I do have to give Wyze props for their quick response within 30 minutes. So far, basically every similar situation I’ve seen reported had a way worse response time, even for companies with Billions of dollars at their disposal and a huge security team, and still, Wyze beat them all out in responding and fixing reported concerns the fastest/best of all of them so far.
Hopefully Wyze will give a good final official report on the matter soon. Even the biggest companies with the best security can have occasional issues. The issues aren’t necessarily super concerning [for me] since nowhere online can be 100%. It’s more about the response and leaning and what they do about it. I think Wyze’s quick response is to their credit. It speaks highly to their team. They did give some details and they contacted the people affected. Their last step is to finish their investigation (which they’ve said is ongoing) and tell everyone their final report.
I was one of the 10 people informed. They explained the situation to my satisfaction. My cameras are all outdoors, however. I would never put cameras facing indoors because no technology is without issues. I’m keeping my cameras and even bought more. They are the best bang for the buck.