If the seller sold you an item that was unusable, why not return it? Why throw it away?
It was a returned item. Only that person can release the previous installation lock.
Cost to ship the item back for refunds wasn’t worth it.
This is why I don’t like this software lock proposal.
Where did you buy it? Any reputable merchant or marketplace should cover you in the event that they sell you an unusable item, including return shipping. Even on something like eBay, if the seller refused to cover it, you’d just open up a formal dispute and eBay would withhold the funds from the seller. The seller is obviously the one at fault, not you.
Craigslist or a garage sale is about the only scenario in which I can imagine someone getting stuck in a situation like that.
This is a cool idea. Hope Wyze will make this possible.
I can see how you would lose access to anything stored locally on the camera Sd card, but if it gets setup on another account how does that make you lose access to clips stored in the cloud.
Surely those clips in the cloud are protected with your username and password and can still be accessed after the camera is stolen and set up on another account.
How do you lose access to cloud stored clips supposedly protected with a password.
It used to be that if the camera was set up on a new account, the old account would lose access to the cloud recordings. They’ve now fixed this aspect of the issue. However, it’s may be preferable for a number of reasons not to allow the camera to connect to a new account in the first place, without the old account first releasing it. That’s not yet possible.
Wow that’s ridiculous, I didn’t realise they were initially set up so insecurely.
Regarding locking the camera to one account, why would that now matter, you would still lose all the recordings on the Sd card which is the main problem with having it stollen.
As I in see it, there are more urgent things that need fixing such as having the camera set the time from the router or at least stop the app asking every 7 days if I want to sync the time when in a different time zone.
Mainly because if it’s locked to your account, there wouldn’t be privacy issues if you wanted to look at the device’s history to see whether it connects to the internet again, for example. In most cases, it probably wouldn’t, but it seems like a better way to do it.
That’s the only reason I could think of but in order to reconnect it would need to stay in range of your wifi after being stolen which is extremely unlikely.
Also since the cameras are relatively inexpensive who really cares if they reconnect.
The only way this feature adds value would be if the Sd card was encrypted and could only be read with the camera connected to the account.
That way if it’s stolen your privacy is protected as the thief can’t look through all the recorded footage.
However turning the cameras off whilst at home is a more effective way to ensure privacy.
Locking the cameras to one account is just not worth the effort for the practically non existent benefit.
The videos in the cloud will still be available to you if your camera is stolen and set up on another account , the person that stole your camera has no access to any of your videos on on the cloud , I don’t think it’s necessary for this to be implemented
Exactly my point and especially since the time would be better spent adding missing features that should have been there from the start.
Seems like they have their priorities wrong.
It has come to my attention that some really insufficient security meansures are presently being employed by Wyze and their devices, specifgically in regards to the cameras and any and all associated accounts.
Any sufficiently ‘smart’ device should employ ‘smart’ forward-thinking tactics, such as: requiring cams to be ‘released’ from an account once initially set up, but prior to being automatically being transferred automatically (to anyone with physical access tot he device), and then automatically removing all access from the previous (thieved) cam owner?
Mac addressed should be recorded and associated with accounts initially, but after that, requiring the device to first be designated as released, sold, retired, or no longer possessed.
Previous account access to a cam should NOT be revoked and removed simply due to the device being registered to a new account without first being designated as released, indicating a stolen device, or physical access to a particular device with nefarious intent. Presently I could walk up to any Wyze camera installed outdoors, reset, have access to and cause access to be revoked immediately from the legitimate, rightful device owners by using my phone’s hotspot as the local network to setup the new device on, and right there on the spot be complete with my ‘attack’. Huge security flaw imo, which should be addressed immediately for all devices, not just cameras (though they present some obvious security threats which may warrant prioritization on the Wyze fix-list).
Seems like the mac addresses should be saved to the cloud and not editable by account owners (though it wouldn’t hurt to display them for the account owner) and associated with a specific account until otherwise ‘released’ to the new owner, OR disabled in the device itself (possibly requiring Wyze intervention to release and correct the issue). I would immediately flag an account and temporarily disable the camera for having been set up on an initial account and then again on a new account without, first, having been released by the previous owner. There are some really basic and fundamental steps which could and probably SHOULD be employed already on, both, the devices, locally, and at Wyze, remotely, to protect consumers and increase device security. Anything less than the aforementioned is just negligence on Wyze’s part imo.
I would also suggest that a device be allowed to be designated as stolen and (possibly even) disabled locally on the stolen device semi-permanently and irreversibly, requiring Wyze intervention and assistance in resolving. Should be easy enough to prove device ownership via receipts/initial device setup. Heaven forbid someone sells a camera and forgets to designate it as released or sold first and the new owner has to get on the phone with Wyze to enable camera operation and association with
an account. Maybe send a notification to the previous owner alerting them and prompting them to either confirm or deny the legitimacy of the new device possession by others, this could fast-track the process getting the device back operational for the new device owners, get them new account association ability. or fast-track the disabling of a device designated as stolen in response to the attempted new account association.
Just require thing to be registered, explicitly associated, and require intervention by Wyze and/or confirmation in each step of the device transfer and setup process after the initial setup has been done and the device has been previously associated with an account. Send notifications to current account owners and encourage them to dictate device access or account access changes first before actually allowing device registration/account access/ownership/possession transfer/compromised physical access with nefarious intent.
Did you not read the previous posts.
According to folks on here, a thief doing what you suggest could not get access to clips stored in the cloud and could not revoke the owners access to these clips. They would still be accessed with the owners username and password.
Yes with physical access, a thief could prevent the owner from accessing the actual camera itself and SD card if fitted.
However having the camera locked to the owners account wont prevent this.
Even with the camera locked to the account, it would lose connection to the internet when the thief takes it out of range of the owners WiFi at which point the owner losses access to the locked camera as it can no longer connect to internet.
So very little benefit locking the cameras especially given how cheap they are.
This is one reason here why locking down the cameras to an account is not so much of a good idea , but it’s just unnecessary anyway
I’m so frustrated. I set up a Wyze camera in my mom’s home, partly to monitor my sister, who lives there, out of concerns we are having about who she brings in the home. This same sister, was able to take the camera and set it up under her own account! Without our permission, and now she is the primary account person managing the camera! How in the world could this happen! She’s the reason we got the camera and now she has control?! Makes no sense and this needs to be fixed. I have no idea how I’m going to put the camera back in my moms Wyze account and keep her from doing it again.
It’s easy to put it back to your mums account, press and hold the setup button on the camera until you hear a beep and “Ready to Connect” then tap the Next button in the app.
Keeping her from setting it up on her own account in future isn’t really the issue here.
Even if the camera was locked to your mums account. Your sister still has physical access which gives her ultimate control.
She could unplug it, cover the lens or just smash it with a hammer.
Even if you put the camera in a tamper proof box your sister could still cover the box or turn off the wireless router which would stop you from controlling it. She could even turn off the electricity to the whole house.
So the only realistic way to stop your sister tampering with your security camera would be if she didn’t know it was there.
I’m not suggesting you should hide it or spy on her, Just pointing out the limitations of all security cameras ever made.
If a person has physical access to the camera, they can stop you watching them one way or another if they want to or have something to hide.
Another layer of bureaucracy. Just something to chew on. Would the community be willing to register their MAC address with a second agency? I am sure there would be a small cost but it would forbid new registrations of a unit without a pin code issued by this agency. Maybe we are just putting too much effort into a $20 camera. It could track an attempt to use a stolen camera.
Yeah this is a lose/lose for Wyze. Just imagine all of the calls from people who bought the camera used from someone who didn’t “release it” from their account. Then Wyze gets to deal with the backlash from people who can’t use the camera because either they can’t get ahold of the seller or the seller refuses to do anything.
Is your sister an adult? The problem you have is that the home is her residence. Whether you agree with her actions or not, you have no standing when it comes to video recorders inside her residence. Unfortunately next to a court order, there is nothing you can do. Depending on the state it could very well be illegal to do without her permission because it is her residence. Please note that this comment is in no way a comment on you, your sister or anything going on between you. I don’t know the circumstances that lead to this dynamic, I just know the issues that can arise from it. How do I know? From being in THE EXACT SAME SITUATION. I do feel for you, it is a really tough situation.