This is one of the few threads I hope engineering is paying LESS attention to. Wyze has enough real issues on the technology and business sides.
This is the rough equivalent of seeing someone in a mask walking their dog and claiming a burglary ring is operating.
Let’s try again: it’s the equivalent of me using the word “ring” in a sentence and your tool concluding I’m getting married.
MOD NOTE: Post edited to conform to the Community Guidelines.
Hey Bob, do you believe in “micro-expressions”?
Not sure? What do you mean specifically?
re tip-off, or “tell,” to an individual’s earnestness or true intent.
The expression that you highlighted in this case was not so subtle:
There may have been subsequent textual microexpressions that reinforced your developing hunch. Or not. 
/edit
I’m not endorsing or referring to Wiki’s full piece - it’s just a point of common reference.
I read a book, I don’t know, twenty years ago, written by a police detective, I think, who explained how he had used this tool and others to determine a subject’s credibility in an interview.
He found it (again, memory) a useful tool, at minimum, and at best, quite incisive, in that quest.
/edit
Apropos, roughly, to the subject of truth and trust:
This week in discussion with a family member I found out that they didn’t consider lies of omission “really lying.”
This was startling, because to me, they are the worst.
I explained why, but I don’t think my view was persuasive to them, so it becomes just a good thing to know about each other as we communicate.
Bringing it back to this thread, here’s an omission (no response) that I filed away:
I follow a lot of the above but to be perfectly honest I am not sure how it applies?
You’re right, I don’t have full command of the subject, guess we’ll have to work it out, together, on the fly, toward this:
Another option, of course, is to just reject it. Bad attempt. Next. 
Totally fine.
Anyway, bareboned:
Is the OP a legitimately concerned customer, or a troll.
How do we determine if he is trustworthy?
Are there contradictions in what he is claiming, communicating.
Are there omissions in what he is communicating, is he fully forthcoming?
Microexpressions are expressive of an internal contradiction ineffectively masked.
What is omitted? A truth that may be relevant.
Ok so final update here. Thank you for your patience while I worked through this. I’ve attached 3 CSV files with the name resolved logs for all IPs (or IP/PORT combos) from my vlan with only WyzeCams connected. Each sample was c.250k packets and all outputs were pretty much exactly the same. I ran as many features triggered by app and camera as possible for each sample.
For samples I ran:
tcpdump -ni eth1 net 192.168.2 -e -vv -tttt -w /tmp/tcpdump -W 48 -G 1800 -C 100 -K -n
…on my USG gateway, pulled the dumps into wireshark and “filtered” using endpoint statistics feature.
TL;DR
All traffic was to expected/trusted hosts, no untoward traffic. CONCLUSION (with help from some useful guidance from the community - thank you): The Unifi DPI classification is clearly inaccurate and the cameras’ traffic seems entirely legit.
Apologies, again if this thread irritated anyone and thanks to those who contributed useful information.
UDP: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z5gALh5LkBmBtFnOLa58sRWv94NHNJ0_/view?usp=sharing
TCP: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v8fyuGlbr0oxnJFKmuxXWlFt5wgajziU/view?usp=sharing
IPv4: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PV51PcL0pkLNng384TgL_vdqdr47sSah/view?usp=sharing
Thank you for all of the info here and for several folks who helped investigate this event.
Admins, could we please lock or close this thread as it’s no longer on topic and the OP has given his findings on it?
Some posts were removed or edited that did not follow the Community Guidelines. Please flag posts that violate the guidelines so the moderators can respond appropriately.
Key points from the guidelines to keep in mind:
Important sections:
This thread has been declared solved by the OP and is now closed.