Heads up! - security risk on shared wyze cameras

But that is exactly what I mean. You can say you want a new feature, which is great. But to say that an existing feature that has many usecases that just aren’t your usecase is flawed when it works as designed? Same on the other end of people arguing that the one that is designed is the one and only way to do it and covers all usecases. I think people on both ends of the argument are just not looking at all usecases. We should be discussing adding new features, not saying existing ones are flawed and should be changed, or that new proposals are stupid and shouldn’t be thought of.

3 Likes

As was already discusses and acknowledge…It’s a feature to some and a flaw to others…depending on how the users see it and use it. Unless one giving comment or feedback works for WYZE as an employee in product design or product engineering, which WYZE has not, who is to say if it is a feature or a flaw. So Yes. it is probably incorrect to call it either or direct others on how to comment on a “Featured Flaw”. Lol. Features are usually listed in Product Description or Product Specs. Flaws usually are rarely acknowledged, discussed or commented on by company. Also, in personal experience in swapping emails with WYZE Customer Support regarding the fact that a shared user can turn off ALL Notifications on a camera, it was said that that this was not true, a shared user cannot do this…then it was reversed and said that oh yes they can…so even WYZE Customer Support is confused on how things are actually suppose to work.

So, swap out the WYZE cameras “aka. lock”? With digitally controlled electronic locks nowadays, I am sure there is a PIN or Key Code that can be changed for users instead of swapping out the whole lock right? Not sure if WYZE makes door locks or not but where’s that PIN Option in the WYZE Camera App? Only ON / Open or OFF/ Locked…for all.

1 Like

I want to thank everybody on this thread for being thoughtful and respectful with each other. This is one of those threads that could easily have gone off the rails. We mods appreciate how you all have handled it. Thanks!

6 Likes

This is the concept I’m disagreeing with. Unless Wyze has stated something like “when sharing your Wyze cam, the shared user cannot turn off the camera”, then that is not something that should be expected of the functionality. If they did state that, and they can turn off the camera, then it would be a flaw. But currently calling this a flaw is incorrect. I understand you might have received some incorrect information from customer service, and that’s a separate issue to be addressed. I also want to be clear I’m not dissmissing your need. I think it would be great if when you share cameras, you as the owner get full control over exact functionality that is shared, like “can view”, “can turn on/off”, “can see events”, etc. I just don’t think it is a reasonable expectation to have existing functionality function in a way that you might want when that was not claimed by Wyze as the way it is supposed to be functioning at the moment.

2 Likes

Look at it this way. You share your car keys with a friend or multiple friends. They drive your car. They move the mirrors,they change the radio station and they move the seat. Is that a flaw in the those features in the car? The answer is no. You gave them access and they changed what they wanted to change. If you give them access and give them explicit instructions not to change anything and they change it then revoke access. But the features are working as intended you’re just not happy that people are changing them. I understand that. I’d start revoking privileges to people.

2 Likes

Even Wyze has acknowledged that the sharing feature needs work.

We are arguing the semantics of the word flaw. Whether this is a flaw or poor design really doesn’t matter. For me, not having control over what is shared is poor design. As it is now, it’s all or nothing.

1 Like

In this case I don’t think Wyze predicted into how sharing would affect the device owner.
Wyze seems to release a feature then wait for user feedback to refine it.
This is not a criticism, just an observation. I don’t disagree with that method of development.
I write software. No matter how much research is done, there is no way to know what people are going to do with it. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

very true. I have a friend that makes video game apps for iOS and android. And he says you can do all the testing in the world you want but until you roll it out to millions of people who are using it differently you don’t really know exactly what you have and what problems might pop up

1 Like

Yeah, I don’t have a problem with that. All products “need work”, and it is great to have a company acknowledging this instead of saying things are perfect and not having any improvement over time. And it’s not the word that I don’t like, we can use any word, it’s this expectation that I’m seeing. There is nothing that is broken, there is a thing that doesn’t fit everyone’s needs, and I want to direct the conversation in that direction. Basically I want to try and move from arguing about which implementation is the correct one, because there is no correct one, there is just the one that Wyze put out there that works as designed. And lets give Wyze all the info on how we would like to use the products, and identify any gaps in usecases that the current implementation might have, and vote in the wishlist on which things are most important to each one of us.

2 Likes

Change your password, stop sharing? I see what your asking for, typical of a “user account” in Windows (as opposed to an admin account), which comes with restrictions. Ya, the more I think about it, it seems like a WYZE thing to do. (A lookie no touchie guest account!)
Cheers
Rob

1 Like

I really would like to use the “share” feature but have currently decided not to. My main issue is that if you share a camera in your house with someone else and turn OFF the audio, the person you shared it with can simply turn the audio back on. Until this “feature” gets changed to NOT allow a shared person to turn the audio ON, I will not be sharing with anyone and will be sure to mention that to anyone I recommend this camera system to… Just my two cents. And yes, I have placed it in the “feature” request forum.

1 Like

I get that I truly do. But I think it’s funny that people are worried about the sound part of it while many people have Google and Amazon devices in their house that are listening to them. And you don’t even know those people. So the person that would be listening to you that you shared it with I gather would be someone that you trust or you wouldn’t have shared the camera.

You might not be someone who has Google or Alexa so I’m not saying you in particular. But I’m saying that a lot of people that are concerned about shared users listening in on their conversations also have Google and Alexa and those conversations are being listened to regardless of what Google and Alexa are telling you.

1 Like

100% Correct…in that “particular” situation. Here’s the counter perspective…I pull into a full service gas station (No More) and I just want my fluids topped off, gas in the car, and the air checked in the tires. I want to give them access to the vehicle but not give them the keys or to drive it. They don’t need it. Same way as if your 13 year old neighborhood kid washes and details your car…you don’t give him the keys or allow him to drive it but you give him access to it. Again, it’s 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. It all depends on how the user wants to use the device and the ability for the user to choose access and set boundaries.

As far as “flaw” or “feature” or “design” goes… again we still have not heard from any WYZE product designer or anyone with WYZE that has said “This was the Intent. This was the Design.” We are all reading into it what we want.

Also, Can’t Designs and Features have Flaws? Yes. Below is part of the release notes from latest WYZE Firmware Update V4.9.5.98

  • Fixed event videos making noise when camera has disabled sound recording and CMC service is being used
  • Fixed live stream disconnect issues for camera groups
  • Other bug fixes

What are they fixing? Flaws.

We can all argue all day long about design intent and if it’s really a feature or a flaw and where this post needs to correctly be filed… I believe it’s a waste of time. Everyone has their own perspective on this and they are allowed to. They have their own use and needs for the WYZE Cameras. We are all not going to want the same thing… BUT if WYZE gave us the ability to choose for ourselves what shared user rights, privileges, and device settings we so desire to grant access to… then we would all have what we want for all uses.

Open Forum. Open Discussion. No one is wrong or right.

3 Likes

The difference between my Scenario and your scenario is that you gave them full access to your cameras when you shared them. You didn’t share Access to parts of the camera you shared access to the whole of the camera. Essentially giving them the keys.

I disagree with this being a flaw as you put it. I think it is the way the camera was designed and the camera is functioning the way it was designed and they just need to make the changes now that the customers are asking for. But you are right this is just going around and around in circles. You’re not going to convince me and some others and we are not going to convince you.

I do agree with you on the fact that notifications should be sent to the owner of the account at the very minimum but I think the owner of the account should be in control of all changes just like you do. So I will just end it on a good note and I hope you have a good week.

2 Likes

This reads like simple fear-mongering. Don’t share or stop the share. What’s the big deal?

2 Likes

Read the entire post. You can’t give partial access. There is no way to give partial access.

1 Like

LOL. Yawn. This post is going in circles now that it has gone on so long. Later.

1 Like

If I sold you a rock, and said it was a great paperweight, would you then tell me the rock has a flaw because it can’t fetch you a beer? I didn’t tell you that the rock can’t fetch a beer when I sold it to you. Is that a flaw of my product? Unless Wyze specifically said that something should function in a particular way, you should not have any expectation of it functioning how you would like it to. I’m not against asking Wyze for new features/functionality. I just want the world to move away from having unreasonable expectations when things don’t function how they would have liked them to.

1 Like

@JeffS, tell me if I am I understanding the needs of restricting share level access because if so, I would vote for the item too.

I set up security cameras for a construction company where obviously the admin gets full control, turns cameras on/off, can review/delete footage, export videos, create users, etc… In order to protect the integrity of the camera footage, I created a single user for the owner and his son (who are both not as technically savy as myself), where they could view live streams and watch previous footage. I did this is the event that if their phones were stolen, hacked, or if someone tried to unmask the stored password of the cameras within the app itself, they could do considerable harm to the company. I alone controlled the user-level privileges. For this type of setup, they’ve never needed to control any other aspects of the cameras, and should they need something, such as video, they reach out to me.

Is this the understanding? You want to provide shared authorization, but limit the type of access that the share has control with regarding the cameras?

  • Admin - full control

  • Shared Access - limited control determined by Admin

1 Like

That would be here:

Multiple Users' Permissions for Shared Users