How is that definition misleading?

>the phrase before the "so" does not imply the phrase that comes after, meaning the sentence still is not factual.

This seems highly pedantic, unnecessarily so in fact. Sure if you take "so" to mean "implies" then your statement is reasonable, but "so" doesn't solely mean "implies".

The point seems to be that you're in control of the photos, and they aren't being sent off to a secret google dark site to mine for data about your toddler. Do you disagree with that, or just have further grammatical quibbles?

I'm not saying Google IS collecting everything the camera sees, I'm saying they COULD. This statement is meant to give the reader a sense that the device is safe from privacy concerns because it physically can't be accessed remotely, which is not accurate.

Can they? Bluetooth video isn't a thing (no really, it's not supported by the spec, I just looked). Whereas sending a boolean "my screen is blocked" is.

Edit: apparently it is a thing but not really, like very low bandwidth.

I can see video from my phone’s camera on my watch via Bluetooth.

Say someone compromised a clip and a nearby cell phone.

Can we be sure that the compromised clip isn't uploading images to the phone? Not the little video clips supported by the standard device, images created by additional software.

Of course this is pedantic, but is also a useful way of analyzing what internet of shit products might end up doing (that is, reasoning about the capabilities in addition to the advertised features).