Require existing account to release camera before it can be set up on new account

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.

1 Like

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.

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

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.

Hi @lcarter194. I have moved your question to the relevant #wishlist thread. You can VOTE for it at the top-left. :slight_smile:

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.

Bad idea.
I don’t know of any such third party agency that would do what your suggesting.

If such an agency does exist, no one would want to pay a monthly fee to stop a £20 camera being used after it was stolen.
So wyze would have to spend time developing this feature which no one would use.
They could make the feature compulsory at setup but then no one will buy the camera as it would come with a monthly fee for an unwanted feature.

Very bad idea.

However this feature might be useful for the Outdoor Camera Wyze is working on.

So what benefit would it give on an outdoor camera that’s worth paying a monthly fee for and how much would you pay each month for this feature.

I would like to see a feature on the app to lock our cameras to our account in case they are stolen then they can’t be used elsewhere, and if we give it away or sell it just go into the app and touch a button to release it to work on another network.

1 Like

I’m sure we all leave stuff outside that’s way more valuable than a Wyzecam.
Plants, tables, chairs, ceiling fans and lights on verandas. Not to mention all the expensive stuff we have indoors.
Locking a cheap camera so no one else can use it isn’t worth the effort. Especially considering all the times people will inevitably get locked out of their account ending up with a useless camera.

1 Like

Fair enough. I added and then took back a vote once I realized the “your clips move with your donated camera” problem is reported to be fixed. Referred in via

Sorry to hear about your friend.
I personally would not welcome this feature as it could cause all sorts of problems for genuine users.
The Wyze cams are so cheap it’s not worth the effort to add this feature especially when there are other more beneficial features that could be added.

For a better chance of catching thrives I have multiple cameras that overlap and cover each other with cameras hidden wherever possible or as inaccessible as I can make them. Outdoor cameras in full view and fairly easy to get to are watched by other cameras inside of high up on the building. That way if someone steals or disables a camera I have others that could pick up / record what’s happening.

Not infallible but it gives me more chance of identifying / catching a thief than bricking the camera after it’s stolen.

I disagree. Being able to “report” a stolen camera via the Wyze account and disabling it’s future use on any account would be useful. Amazon firesticks have that provision…cool feature.

1 Like