Security system or not?

Right - your definition.

They do not offer all components of a security system (eg batter backup, LTE, central monitoring, etc…) but they operate in this space by selling components of a security system (cameras, sensors, and locks).

I’d be more than happy to agree to that; would you?

Agreed. Insurance companies provide security, in the form of insurance against loss.

They do not provide site security like all these cameras and sensors.

Well, no, because I wouldn’t call something DIY like that a “security system” in the first place. But we’ve already established that. Some people may use those components to monitor things, which may be their own “security” purpose, but they haven’t bought a security system, no. The sensors are used for home automation at least as much as they’re used for monitoring purposes.

Anyway, I’m kinda bored of the semantics game. Ultimately, the company decides what they want to be.

ADT is a security company because that’s their focus, and the way they market themselves. They also stand behind using their products for that purpose, and they’ll send a professional to make sure you’re using/installing them right.

Wyze seems to market itself as a smart-home, home automation, internet-connected gadget company. It certainly doesn’t do any of those things I mentioned above, which ADT does.

But people can use their products for whatever purpose they find useful.


To further illustrate - the lock provides perimeter security, but can be defeated.

Onion model - that’s why I purchased the Wyze system; if my lock is defeated, I fall back to the door sensor to indicate if it’s been opened without my authorization.

That door sensor triggers my camera recording - guess where the camera watches? My entrance way, from the inside of my home.

If the Wyze door sensor and Wyze camera are defeated, well, I have several additional layers to my security onion. In doing so, I have all the security I need. Without the traditional model offered by companies like ADP.

EDIT: typos

1 Like

I concede that Wyze makes no claim, implicitly nor explicitly, that they are a security system, nor that their devices are intended to compete with the services of ADP and the like.

I hear you - thanks for entertaining the thoughtful conversation this morning.

I’m really starting to like these forums.

Have a great day! :smiley:

And that’s great. Honestly, that sounds like a good DIY system. It sounds similar to what I’ve done. But there is a difference. Let’s say Wyze’s servers happen to be down when someone breaks into your house, for example. Wyze offers you no guarantees, and they certainly aren’t at fault if someone manages to escape the camera’s view in this situation.

A professional security company WILL offer your guarantees. If they’ve professionally installed it and monitor it, and it’s THEIR products or systems that fail, they’re at fault and they carry insurance to make you whole again in this situation. If your DIY cobbled-together system fails, it’s all on you.

Anyway, I need to retire from this conversation for now, because I’ve got somewhere to be. But it’s been stimulating. Haha.

1 Like

I couldn’t agree more.

Actually no, security, the reality of it has not been changed. But some folks who don’t understand what they are talking about think it has.

As you mentioned security is and has always been in modern times, back to the 60’s anyways, a layered model. Oddly enough I was in the Air Force and part of my duties were providing physical armed security for our Nuclear Missile Fields and related systems.

Guess what, no cameras, no contact sensors. We had some motion sensors but they were not and still are not considered very reliable. Yet since the late 40’s not one single “break in” has even been close to successful.

The missile silos are not manned. They have a standard everyday chain link fence around them. We had a crazy nun attack one with a sledge hammer once.

Look, I love Wyze products and really like the company, but the “we’re not security” while technically correct is a disclaimer so they don’t have to take any responsibility if it doesn’t work like they would if they called themselves Wyze Security. They like the majority of people know the most common use for sensors and cameras will be for monitoring/security.

I get it, no central monitoring, battery backup, or cellular, but Cameras, motion sensors, and door locks are classic examples of security devices. Add to that, cloud saved motion “events”, person detection, smoke alarm notifications, etc, and you have what any reasonable person would consider devices used to add security to their home.

If you showed 1000 people a photo of all the Wyze devices labeled what they are, camera, motion detectors, locks, etc, without any further information about the brand and asked them what they would be used for, I guarantee the most common answer would be security.

They certainly don’t call their cameras Wyze Baby monitors, or their Sense devices Wyze closet and pet detectors.


I respectfully disagree, and object to your implication that I - and others who are challenging your perception of the security definition - don’t understand what we’re talking about.

1 Like

This is similar to to the way companies put disclaimers on things. Like a Bluetooth blood pressure monitor and app that says in the app “For entertainment Purposes Only” when any reasonable person knows the device and app are for taking and tracking blood pressure for their medical purposes.

Yeah, i prefer TOTP ,which google authenticator uses, for 2fa. I use Authy which is not tied to a device. I originally used GA but once i realized damaging, losing, or replacing your phone would force you into the back up codes, i decided to go with Authy.

More positively, i imagine totp 2fa doesn’t consume an api and service that costs money per text, although im not familiar with totp implementation

Seems like something you could implement open source like oauth

1 Like

Historically, yes. Today, people are also using devices like that for home automation. I use my sensors this way. When my front door opens, my lights turn on. Wyze also sells bulbs and plugs. They’re also working on a bathroom scale, among other things. Are those security devices? If we want to play semantics games, maybe they are. I guess it would be hard to see an intruder without lights. You could theoretically plug something security-related into a plug. Maybe you could hide a scale under a doormat so that you’ll know an intruder’s weight? :laughing:

Absolutely, it is. It’s definitely a disclaimer. I don’t see a problem with that. It’s saying, “use it at your own risk,” basically. That should tell you exactly what I’m telling you – that it’s not the same level of security you’d get from an actual security system. You shouldn’t be using it in a mission-critical application with no backup plans.

1 Like

I have a new question for you, @mailmeoffers – Is Alexa a security system?

I would suggest it’s an insecurity system, given the way it’s always listening.

Joking aside - you tell me? I could make an argument that, given the controls it provides over other security devices in the home, it could be construed to also be component of one’s security posture.


EDIT: presence > posture

1 Like

Alexa has a guard mode that listens for breaking glass and intruders. It can also play a (laughably quiet) alarm sound when it thinks it has detected an intruder. (I keep the glass-break listening on, but I turned off the “intruder” listening aspect, because every time a car passes, it seems to think an intruder is in my house.)

I don’t think most people consider Alexa a “security system.” I certainly don’t. It’s a smart speaker. It plays music. It lets you control your lights with your voice. It has a cool feature that can add some peace-of-mind maybe. But if someone breaks a window and gets into my house and Alexa doesn’t notice, I don’t think I have any reasonable claim against Amazon, for example.

I’d put most of Wyze’s products in a similar category.

I don’t own an Alexa device - my security posture is to not allow listening devices from vendors known to monetize the data points collected from its user base.

But you make an interesting case, having learned about some of its functionality. I suggest it strengthens the notion that it may be deployed as a security device.

I will give you this - I no doubt understand the differences between Wyze and ADP. I equally understand the risks I take by choosing Wyze over ADP. As you illustrated elsewhere, ADP will install, monitor and insure you against loss - and Wyze makes no such claims. Still, many people, myself included, enjoy the security provided by all the smart home offerings, without the costs and hassle associated with installing, paying, and maintaining an ADP-like system.