Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank harrekki
03-21-2023 at 01:15 PM.
FYI: this company was just caught laying about how video is transmitted and protected.
Short version: they transmitted footage externally, after saying it stayed local. They did not encrypt the videos sent out to the servers. They had a flaw that allowed anyone to enter an unsecured website, and see random people's video feeds.
Then they denied it for weeks, and once evidence was put forward, they said "sorry".
As a smart home consultant, I can't suggest eufy to clients, because the issues have not be resolved satisfactory.
You want to have cameras in and around the home that you believed were locally stored, as advertised, just to find it was being transmitted, unsecured, to a server that allows anyone with the address to view your video feeds without your consent?
You can also get an adapter that goes into an outlet if you don't have an existing wire and don't like changing/charging batteries. Great deal for the wired
Well, Facebook, Tic Tok, Instagram, cellphones, smart TV's, smart speakers all come to mind when "privacy" is brought up. Sounds like you may just have beef with Eufy.
I don't know how to explain to you that a company ACTIVELY LYING ABOUT THE PRIVACY OF YOUR HOME CAMERA FEEDS, is a problem.
It wasn't disclosed in fine print, or in the EULA. It literally said the footage was local storage only, no footage shared to servers.
If you can't comprehend the issue here, then I can no longer expect you to make a cohesive argument worth responding to.
As a smart home consultant, I can't suggest eufy to clients, because the issues have not be resolved satisfactory.
What DO you recommend? Because if it's Ring with their proven warrantless releases of customer video to police, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Google's policies also allow that. though apparently hasn't done that yet.
FYI, Eufy has fixed that issue. Ring and Google won't do that with theirs.
What DO you recommend? Because if it's Ring with their proven warrantless releases of customer video to police, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Google's policies also allow that. though apparently hasn't done that yet.
FYI, Eufy has fixed that issue. Ring and Google won't do that with theirs.
Eufy just brought their terms in line with ring and Google. They aren't better, and they actively lied and tried to gaslight the community over it.
Ring is better with its addition of an active home security setups, which Google/ nest no longer offer. But one a privacy level, they aren't it.
If privacy of local storage is your utmost concern, you'll be talking any local only system, in a Home Assistant setup. That's the only way you can guarantee security of footage to any degree. But that's beyond what most people want to setup and maintain.
You could do a closed circuit camera system, with a motion sensor trigger to activate local recording and 2 way speaker set up.
Last time I looked at wyze, they were still claiming to be making a stand alone camera that would work, but all I have seen is server connected devices from them.
What DO you recommend? Because if it's Ring with their proven warrantless releases of customer video to police, then you don't have a leg to stand on. Google's policies also allow that. though apparently hasn't done that yet.
FYI, Eufy has fixed that issue. Ring and Google won't do that with theirs.
And ring and Google did not actively lie about their data and footage storage. Eufy did, and tried to hide it. Multiple times.
Ring and Google's issues are within their EULA, but still a shitty system with zero checks and balances.
Eufy just brought their terms in line with ring and Google. They aren't better, and they actively lied and tried to gaslight the community over it.
Ring is better with its addition of an active home security setups, which Google/ nest no longer offer. But one a privacy level, they aren't it.
Google and Amazon are evil. I will keep my storage local even if facial "stills" are kept on Eufy's servers for the facial recognition benefit. Eufy has no way of releasing footage, even if they wanted to. And, now, even those images are encrypted. They weren't before. Just like with Watergate and Stormy Daniels, the coverup is worse than what led up to it. Eufy should have disclosed that in their EULA and encrypted these images, and there would have been no issue.
24 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank harrekki
Short version: they transmitted footage externally, after saying it stayed local. They did not encrypt the videos sent out to the servers. They had a flaw that allowed anyone to enter an unsecured website, and see random people's video feeds.
Then they denied it for weeks, and once evidence was put forward, they said "sorry".
As a smart home consultant, I can't suggest eufy to clients, because the issues have not be resolved satisfactory.
You want to have cameras in and around the home that you believed were locally stored, as advertised, just to find it was being transmitted, unsecured, to a server that allows anyone with the address to view your video feeds without your consent?
Get real.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/384568580854
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I don't know how to explain to you that a company ACTIVELY LYING ABOUT THE PRIVACY OF YOUR HOME CAMERA FEEDS, is a problem.
It wasn't disclosed in fine print, or in the EULA. It literally said the footage was local storage only, no footage shared to servers.
If you can't comprehend the issue here, then I can no longer expect you to make a cohesive argument worth responding to.
As a smart home consultant, I can't suggest eufy to clients, because the issues have not be resolved satisfactory.
FYI, Eufy has fixed that issue. Ring and Google won't do that with theirs.
FYI, Eufy has fixed that issue. Ring and Google won't do that with theirs.
Eufy just brought their terms in line with ring and Google. They aren't better, and they actively lied and tried to gaslight the community over it.
Ring is better with its addition of an active home security setups, which Google/ nest no longer offer. But one a privacy level, they aren't it.
If privacy of local storage is your utmost concern, you'll be talking any local only system, in a Home Assistant setup. That's the only way you can guarantee security of footage to any degree. But that's beyond what most people want to setup and maintain.
You could do a closed circuit camera system, with a motion sensor trigger to activate local recording and 2 way speaker set up.
Last time I looked at wyze, they were still claiming to be making a stand alone camera that would work, but all I have seen is server connected devices from them.
FYI, Eufy has fixed that issue. Ring and Google won't do that with theirs.
And ring and Google did not actively lie about their data and footage storage. Eufy did, and tried to hide it. Multiple times.
Ring and Google's issues are within their EULA, but still a shitty system with zero checks and balances.
Ring is better with its addition of an active home security setups, which Google/ nest no longer offer. But one a privacy level, they aren't it.
Oh, and Wyze is a godawful company.