Received email regarding New features (Desktop Notifications/Privacy zones)

[Arlo1342]

Check this garbage out,

Got an email today to welcome me to my "new features", desktop notifications which won't work with corporate networks that implement enterprise software and intranet systems because most if not all corporate networks block 3rd party access to desktops because of spyware or keyloggers, so this won't work for 99% of work place pc's

Oh but how about "privacy zones", but only for new customers, when all they had to do was allow the current activity zones to be overlapped so you could pick areas to cover, this is just a useless feature to generate more income because they will charge for this feature no doubt.

Why even bother sending people an email about a feature I can't have?

They have a troubleshooting guide for something they haven't even implemented yet, that's an overwhelming vote of confidence then.

You can always rely on arlo to scr*w the pooch each and every day, spending their time thinking up this crap instead of fixing the plethora of current serious issues already affecting countless people.

That first paragraph has to be the epitome of hypocrisy though.

[StephenB]

---

@Arlo1342 wrote:

Oh but how about "privacy zones" ... when all they had to do was allow the current activity zones to be overlapped so you could pick areas to cover, 

---

Either I'm misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding the feature.

The privacy zones blur out areas so they are not visible - quite different from activity zones, which control when recordings are made.

• https://www.arlo.com/en_gb/support/faq/digital-masking-privacy-zones/what-are-arlo-privacy-zones-and...

This has been requested regularly, particularly by folks in countries where it is not legal to have cameras covering areas outside your property.

FWIW, activity zones can be overlapped already, so I don't understand that aspect either.

That said, I do think there still far too many bugs that need to be fixed.  And it doesn't make sense to me to limit the privacy feature to new accounts.

[Arlo1342]

I really wish I could have the cameras you guys seem to have, one of the reasons I cancelled my sub is because activity zones was useless, no flexibility at all.

I can't see how the cameras will blur anything out, I don't think the software is that advanced or intuitive, technically the camera will still see everything so that data will still be sent to the arlo servers and only when the feed comes back to the app (desktop or mobile) will the code be applied that will activate the blurred out segments.

There will still be a feed where there is nothing hidden.

It's a useless update, what is needed is more adaptable activity zones so you can focus on what should be covered, using circular activity zones would give better coverage than squares/rectangles than only have 1 axis of manipulation.

FYI, I could never get activity zones to overlap correctly, it was a nightmare to implement and I doubt many people actually use it or even if they can use it successfully.

[StephenB]

---

@Arlo1342 wrote:

I can't see how the cameras will blur anything out

---

I don't have the feature (since I don't have a new account).  But the link I posted shows the areas blocked out in the recordings, and says it applies to both recordings stored in the cloud and local storage.

It's not clear from the link whether it also applies to live streaming - perhaps @JamesC will clarify.

---

@Arlo1342 wrote:

FYI, I could never get activity zones to overlap correctly, it was a nightmare to implement and I doubt many people actually use it or even if they can use it successfully.

---

I can create multiple zones with my cameras.  I do that on a PC (my.arlo.com), as I personally find that much easier than trying to get them positioned correctly on my phone.

[Arlo1342]

Which must mean it is an app update that supplies the code to make this happen, which also means the feed going from the cameras to the local storage or cloud is NOT privatised (at source) in any way.

This just seems like a gimmick to make it look like you're getting a new feature, any logical user would be able to set up their camera in a way that doesn't record anything it's not supposed to.

And as you clearly point out you can overlap activity zones (if you have a subscription) so what use is this feature really?

The only use I can see for it is to be use.....less.

[StephenB]

---

@Arlo1342 wrote:

Which must mean it is an app update that supplies the code to make this happen, which also means the feed going from the cameras to the local storage or cloud is NOT privatised (at source) in any way.

---

Note it is only available on a few cameras.  Which does suggest that there is some hardware support at the source.

But this is just guessing, as Arlo isn't saying how the feature is implemented.

---

@Arlo1342 wrote:

And as you clearly point out you can overlap activity zones (if you have a subscription) so what use is this feature really?

---

Obviously people will have different ideas on the value of the feature, and it is not something I'd need with my current camera placement.  But it's completely different concept from activity zones.

There are places where it is illegal to record public areas. That can complicate aiming/positioning the cameras (especially video doorbells).  The privacy feature should address that, and in some cases could make neighbors more comfortable with cameras that cover part of their property.  It could also have some value indoors.

Activity zones wouldn't help - while they reduce the amount of recordings, the recording always covers the full field of view.

[Arlo1342]

Couple of things wrong with that assessment.

1. Your cameras shouldn't cover any part of your neighbours property in the first instance, if it does then it should be moved, because privacy zones is not actually protecting their privacy because only software at the end of the feed chain is covering up any potential hot spots, like I said, I believe and it's fairly certain, that the feed FROM the cameras is not being privatised in any way, only the feed TO any viewing device is, so the arlo servers are still getting unfettered views.

2. There is no law in the UK where it is illegal to film on publicly accessible areas as long as there is clear notification that cctv coverage is present.

This link explains it all:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property/domesti...

Using a cloud subscription for arlo in the UK could mean you are actually BREAKING the law by storing footage offsite (and for too long a period in some cases) where others may have access, local storage complies with the law in a better way, which is what I use.

Unsure about US law but I think this new feature is geared more to the US than the UK.

[StephenB]

---

@Arlo1342 wrote:

Couple of things wrong with that assessment.

1. Your cameras shouldn't cover any part of your neighbours property in the first instance,

---

Impossible to guarantee with the video doorbell, as it cannot be aimed, and almost always covers the public street and/or the property across the street.  FWIW, about half of my cameras need to cover part of the street, or have some part of my neighbor's property in the field of view.  Your "shouldn't" just isn't practical for me.

---

@Arlo1342 wrote:

...because only software at the end of the feed chain is covering up any potential hot spots, like I said, I believe and it's fairly certain, that the feed FROM the cameras is not being privatised in any way, only the feed TO any viewing device is, so the arlo servers are still getting unfettered views.

---

You are guessing here.  Personally I think you are wrong - since if you were correct then local recordings would also have the unblocked field of view.  They don't pass through the Arlo servers.  And Arlo's announcement clearly says that the local recordings also have the feature.

---

@Arlo1342 wrote:

2. There is no law in the UK where it is illegal to film on publicly accessible areas as long as there is clear notification that cctv coverage is present.

.

---

I never claimed it was illegal in the UK.  I live in the US, and it is not illegal in my state.  In general, under US law there is no expectation of privacy in public places.  Although there are laws in some states that require all parties to consent to recording audio, that is easily handled by disabling audio in the camera settings.

I have seen info that says it is illegal in Germany.  So perhaps that explains why Arlo is launching the feature in Europe generally.  Their contract with Verisure might also factor in.

While it's clear that you see no value in the feature, quite a few other folks (not me) have requested this feature over the years.  So let's just stop this.

[Arlo1342]

Stop what?

Stop complaining about almost useless features that you need to pay for whilst the very basics of the system fall apart on a weekly basis whilst arlo do nothing to prevent it?

Stop complaining about basic functionality failing making this supposedly secure system about as secure as a chocolate padlock?

FYI, I did mention that I was unsure about US law in my comment but you chose to ignore that bit I see.

Also yes, I will complain about my time being wasted with emails about crap that I either can't have or didn't ask about.

They're pimping new almost useless features when they can't even get basic streaming functionality nailed down.