Good to hear. Hope something comes from it!
Crazy how Wyze blatantly ignores privacy issues for years.
Good to hear. Hope something comes from it!
Crazy how Wyze blatantly ignores privacy issues for years.
Your previous comment was 22 days ago. Youāre probably still within the 30 day return window for those 5 cams. Probably your best option now, given that continuing to use the cameras knowing about the privacy concerns and possible law shoots might put you in an awkward position.
Iām not returning them, just not adding additional users / sharing.
Iāll check back in a few years to see if this is still being ignored.
Hopefully, the class-action lawsuit I am filing against WYZE will be processed soon. Maybe then, someone within this company will stop ignoring us and get this resolved. Pretty sad actually.
On April 25th you stated you were not going to buy anymore and would be returning the one you had.
If so, how can you file a class action suit since you donāt own any?
And if a product is rated as IP65 does that mean it is waterproof?
I still own my camera. The class-action lawsuit will address the privacy issue and zero response. It has nothing to do with the IP rating.
Why do you care anyway?
A successful class action suit would involve all of us that have cameras and we might get a few bucks where you might get more. Most of us donāt want to sue Wyze, so the idea that youāre filing āfor usā is a little pushy. Opting out of these suits is usually a pain.
No, thanks.
Why do I care!
I may own Wyze products. Maybe I would want to join a class action suit.
It would seem that if it was a real class action suit the more users that join the better. Oh well I guess not.
Of course on July 18th you indicated that the suggested workaround would āIt also renders the camera to no longer be waterproof.ā Arenāt most cameraas rated at IP65 which is not a waterproof rating.
You donāt have to participate. You just do nothing if you arenāt interested in joining.
Not a pain at all.
Thatās great. Thatās also why I mentioned it here. To let people know it was likely an upcoming possibility. Of course you can participate.
The waterproof thing is a non-issue. Regardless of the rating, drilling out a microphone is not an acceptable solution and also voids the warranty.
Both microphone removal recommendations are non-destructive and do not change the waterproof rating of the camera. Why would you drill it out?
Nonsense. If the law suit is successful and I do nothing, Iām likely listed in the complaint and get a check for $3.08. Without opting out, Iāve āwonā a case against a company I didnāt want to sue. Leave me out of your shenanigan.
I am no lawyer (by any stretch), but based on my extensive research (skimming the internet and asking Google Home ) about CALSs leads me to believe this ācaseā is faaa4aaar from something that would be accepted by any court not to mention getting Wyze users not to opt out if it did. I think the new feature request makes good sense and I voted for it but my $1 bet says there wonāt be any suitā¦
why isnāt this feature a thing yet? It can be so useful.
LMAO. Mind your own business and Iāll take care of mine.
Exactly.
Indeed.
A physical way to disconnect the microphone would have swayed me to try Wyze years earlier. In fact, I would ALWAYS buy my cams without a mic in them if I could, from any brand. (Currently, our only cams with Mics are outdoorsā¦ basically useless in the wind / distance anyway)
There is a post here that addresses how to physically remove the V2 or V3 camās mic:
Wondering why this still isnāt a feature yet?? I stream my donkeys on Reddit, and many of my followers want to watch the 24/7 donkey Cam. Only, I donāt want them to be able to talk I to the mic any time they please. I also donāt want my daughter or mother listening to what they have to say.
Isnāt there an easier way to be able to share the video feed, but not allow viewers to talk into the mic?