So apparently this is still going on in 2022. They got called out for opting everyone into neighborhood police surveillance years ago, but it seems to still be happening…
One would imagine other companies operate similarly. I would HOPE they would respond to any valid court order or subpoena but this level of unauthorized “sharing” is debatable.
Anyway, this is one reason I’m happier having gone with Wyze.
Is it Wyze policy to cooperate or not give in to police bullying for videos? Anyone know their official policy? Anyone know if they follow or ignore their policy and help the popo without our consent?
Thought provoking article.
A couple of things stood out in the article:
There are higher security settings that Ring users can change on their devices to stop recording audio and start using end-to-end encryption for data storage, though. By changing these settings, users can ensure that no third parties (like Ring or the police) can access their recordings and know they’re not recording any protected free speech that happens within 30 feet of their front doors.
Wyze doorbells and cams already have this feature. Advanced Settings → Record Sound.
Hey Wyze… End to End encryption?
However, it’s become undeniable that police view video doorbell technology as a free law enforcement tool
Sure, so long as the public can freely access the police cam footage as well. We wouldn’t want anyone to think there is some sort of privilege there.
how often police have requested data (approximately 20,000 requests in 2021)
Nearly 55 requests per day.
2.28 requests per hour, every hour, every day, for 1 year. Just from Ring.
When it comes to sharing private data with police, Ring’s audit agreed that more regulations were needed, with the Policing Project reporting, “one of our central conclusions is that it is time policymakers pay attention to and regulate the ways that policing agencies rely on commercialized private surveillance.” Until lawmakers catch up, Markey says he’ll “continue to exercise oversight of these harmful corporate practices.”
Harmful Corporate Practices… Indeed.
the public will continue slowly gaining more data on whether video doorbells provide more security for users—or if the lack of “privacy-enhancing” updates could be leaving them open to more threats.
One can only assume that users would show more loyalty toward and be more apt to recommend a company that values the rights and privacy of users.
That position (as much as some of us might value it) just seems impossible? They have to comply with valid US court orders, not to mention the secret court FISA stuff.
Let me say first that I am NOT SPEAKING IN ANY TERMS OR ANY PARTICULAR STANCE FOR THE COMPANY AS A MAVEN. This has been only my experience. I personally have turned over quite a few videos to law enforcement. As I have I will say a very good relationship with them because of former jobs. Everything they have done has been requested with me directly to my knowledge. I know not a single time where they have requested of anyone at the company give video.
Of the thing that makes ring stand out is that they have the neighborhood watch {I believe that’s what it’s called) program which allows members or I believe is it in their terms and conditions local law enforcement the ability to see where cameras are placed. TO MY INDIVIDUAL KNOWLEDGE Wyze has nothing of the such. I know of programs where ring was actually giving out for free ring doorbells to local police departments their doorbells so that they can be distributed in the neighborhood with the express consent of the person being given the doorbell for free that they allowed law enforcement access to the video. I think this was one of the things that begin the debacle. AGAIN…WYZE HAS DONE NOTHING SIMILAR.
I’m not saying it’s impossible because every company is different but keep in mind that every user accepts terms and conditions for use of equipment especially iot devices. These are readily accessible at any time and I urge everyone to read through these quite carefully. I have done so but due to interpretation I’m not going to discuss findings here. My point of my post was only state the expressed differences of public statement as to the programs made and differences between the companies and usage of the cloud video. This I am doing because I find it far too easy for someone to slip down the rabbit hole these days of one company does it so all companies probably do it type thing. I’m only expressing my opinion and in no way I’m speaking on behalf of Wyze. Feel free to dissect what I’ve said. 
I’m always up for good conversation and our community has proven time and time again to be producers of just such!
America: Ready, fire, aim.
I don’t say this happily but isn’t it just realistic at this point to consider ourselves pwned with respect to privacy? Who are we kidding?
The trend to me is undeniably dark and I am an optimist by nature.
It’s the same pattern over and over. Truly, are we idiots??
This was confirmed in the article.
The legal warrant process is in place for a purpose. It provides the checks and balances oversight through the judiciary to keep the powers of the police within their legal limits for the purpose of safeguarding the rights and privacy of citizens.
This article deals with requests and grants of access OUTSIDE of that legal oversight by a company freely offering content and data without a warrant. Police don’t need a warrant if Ring says “here ya go” and writes into their user agreement where no one will read it that they can do so without your consent.
Legally obtaining content and data is one thing. This is not that thing. This is the use of unregulated corporate policies and procedures (Ring) to cooperate with law enforcement outside of that legal warrant requirement, thus completely circumventing the safeguards it provides.
No, Slab, I was talking specifically about your Wyze quote where they state unequivocally that they won’t turn over anything, period. That’s not a legally sustainable position, just as you have described. That was my point here.
I agree with you @Customer. I don’t believe Wyze doesn’t or hasn’t already shared. They likely will say, under duress or court order, but while I have 0 proof, I don’t believe it.
Agree. What little say or control that I have, I will use to prevent someone (mr popo) from getting anything I have, for as long as I can prevent them from getting, until I am ready/willing to give them a copy. They come knocking at my door, 1) I will use my camera to see they are there and not answer the door. 2) get any media or video and make a copy and secure it. And wait. I will turn over to “them” when I am ready unless they can force me to.
I’ve got 3 independent sets of dashcams in my car. Those 3 sets consists of 360 degrees image capture, with its 7 cameras. I am prepared to turn over a bad SD card if demanded, and later decide if “oops” is warranted.
Everything/anything the police can get their hands on will be used against someone. And when they are done with that person, you never know if they will turn back to you. I have two rules when it comes to the police. 1) Never talk to the police. 2) Always record the police. (And long ago, I used to be the police, I know what I am talking about, whether anyone agrees or not.)
Oh, yeah, let me add. REALLY good thread on a valid topic.
I like this, for whatever reason it made me chuckle. Fondly.
I think the degree of darkness one is willing to acknowledge is dependent largely on whether you have kids or grandkids - people you love for whom you want to project a positive future.
To me this is an enormous impediment to society facing a reality that is objectively dark. If instead we choose to embrace pleasant phantoms, when they vanish it will give us a terrible fright.
Agree, and look forward to it richly expanding.
I have no kids or grandkids of my own. Well, none - except those chained up in the basement. And I deny having a basement.
Yeah. I can see where you are coming from with that. I think the distinction comes within the very last line of that statement …
…on your behalf.
Just ambiguous enough to placate the concern, but open for deeper interpretation.
Sort of infers that the stated policy applies to voluntary sharing rather than the aforementioned involuntary type. Would be nice to see Wyze expand this wording to provide a bit more definitive scope.
Here is an excerpt from the Wyze Privacy Statement.
In response to a request for information if we believe disclosure is in accordance with, or required by, any applicable law or legal process, including lawful requests by public authorities to meet national security or law enforcement requirements
Basically means Wyze will turn it over if legally obligated to do so via a warrant/subpoena.
Including a commitment to notify and confirm with reply that the owner of any video knows that said video has been given up/turned over to someone via a legal process that they were forced to comply with. Also provide a copy of whatever legal document from whatever legal authority was used to demand said video. Right now, it anyone’s guess and the would guess not.
Unfortunately, there are many instances of legal orders to produce evidence, such as a Grand Jury Subpoena, that strictly prohibit the provider of such evidence from disclosing any such information under penalty of law.
Unfortunate for us the citizens and owners of such video that they want. But that’s the exception. Okay so maybe Wyze could not notify us of those. But should for all that they can. Okay, accepting for the ones they can’t. But for the ones they can; to make sure they do the ones they can.
100% with you there. It would be reassuring to know that Wyze would inform users of requests for content and data by 3rd parties when not so prohibited by law.
