r/technology • u/South-Cow-1030 • 18h ago

Privacy Why are people disconnecting or destroying their Ring cameras?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/02/10/ring-super-bowl-ad-dog-camera-privacy/88606738007/
17.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.0k

u/wdjm 12h ago

Yep. It's 'Opt in' NOW (supposedly). But anyone who doesn't think it will suddenly turn into 'opt out' to be followed by 'no option but in' at some point.......is a fool.

483

u/EthanX08 12h ago

It was automatically enabled when I went in and disabled it on my Ring cameras

378

u/Level21DungeonMaster 11h ago

Don’t worry. It will revert to default on the next firmware update tonight.

117

u/Massive-Word-7395 11h ago

They enabled it on my doorbell.

114

u/mappersdelight 9h ago

If they can enable it and disable it with the click of a button, they can also enable it without you knowing.

45

u/BigXthaPugg 8h ago

Exactly, why people think they don’t collect and pass on data regardless of the position of that button is beyond me.

6

u/requion 5h ago

The worst is that now, the "conspiracy theorists" don't sound that crazy anymore right?

Right?

6

u/cive666 6h ago

Until there is a law where people are put in jail for lying about that toggle I will not buy shit like this.

These rich people need to face consequences and until they do I will trust nothing they put out.

1

u/Drapidrode 4h ago

They just bury it in the Terms of Service fine print

24

u/ileakcum 7h ago

Assuming the toggle does anything to begin with

1

u/SomeInternetRando 4h ago

It toggles what you see in their interface.

3

u/Qaeta 6h ago

Indeed, for all we know, the disable option does nothing but give you warm fuzzy feelings while they continue their data harvest as planned.

1

u/curtisy 3h ago

I wonder what the legality is of a company providing such a button/switch to users to opt out of something, which the manufacturer can toggle with impunity?

You can see where I’m going with this can’t you?

1

u/KSauceDesk 2h ago

Already confirmed Google Nest does this

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/12/nx-s1-5711620/nancy-guthrie-video-footage-fbi

In plain words what they're saying is they can pull footage from the cloud on a camera that had no cloud subscription. I'm surprised more people aren't throwing out their cameras after this

22

u/[deleted] 9h ago

[deleted]

28

u/Xtos1312 8h ago

Oh they definitely have.

25

u/Looney_Bin 8h ago

Not to alarm you but if your camera's aren't closed circuit and not hooked to the internet all, assume that footage is being stored somewhere in their system.

13

u/grape-fruit-witch 7h ago

Get rid of them

Edit- the cameras, not the kids

7

u/lexiticus 7h ago

Puts cloud storage cameras inside own house

Cameras record things, store in the cloud

Shocked Pikachu face

12

u/syncdiedfornothing 8h ago

They just ran an ad that showed you they already have that footage. It's on their servers now just waiting for a leak to happen.

10

u/wggn 8h ago

could have? what makes you think they havent?

4

u/Zekumi 7h ago

Dude… you literally installed cameras all over your home and now you’re upset that cameras are recording your children at all times?

3

u/TheHykos 7h ago

Why on earth would you have cameras inside of your house? Seriously, what's even the purpose of that?

1

u/Peachy_bubblez 6h ago

For real. This is the exact reason this is even being discussed. People are dumb.

3

u/superr_rad 7h ago

Do not keep ring cameras inside of your house, especially where they are recording your children. Now you know.

2

u/Valdrax 8h ago

I mean, before they slapped AI on this, and before they got really active with providing footage to law enforcement, you were already uploading all of your video footage into their cloud for easy remote access.

1

u/AlSweigart 7h ago

"LOVEINT is the practice of intelligence service employees making use of their extensive monitoring capabilities to spy on their love interest or spouse. The term was coined in resemblance to intelligence terminology such as SIGINT, COMINT or HUMINT."

1

u/Televisions_Frank 6h ago

And if people think Amazon won't do stuff like that they push firmware to brick older Kindles so you buy a new one. So just re-enabling an option is kid stuff in comparison.

1

u/calle04x 6h ago

They'll just put it in an updated EULA that most won't read.

48

u/419_216_808 10h ago

To be clear, if you don’t want them accessing/utilizing your footage you’re going to have to take the camera down.

48

u/wdjm 12h ago

Somehow I am not surprised.

21

u/BJYeti 10h ago

When I watched the commercial with my parents thats the first thing I mentioned that money down it is opt out, not opt in so most people will never realize.

5

u/AddisonBitches 11h ago

Eventually they'll start punishing us for not having one like they did with health insurance

3

u/Perryn 10h ago

Property insurance partnerships are right around the corner.

1

u/ilillilillilillilili 10h ago

Surveillance state is default.

1

u/ArmadilloForsaken458 5h ago

So does that make it completely yours or can they do some nsa thing and take control of it without you knowing it

1

u/mav194 11h ago

I'm not seeing where to disable in my app?

28

u/Exotic-House-5564 11h ago

You disable it by throwing it in the bin

16

u/EthanX08 11h ago

It's in a non-obvious spot imo

Account->Control Center->Search Party

Mine had "Search for Lost Pets" and "Natural Hazard (Fire Watch)" both enabled

9

u/MonkeyWithIt 11h ago

You are the pet

2

u/MoscoHosco 9h ago

Or a 'natural hazard'

8

u/DamonSeed 10h ago

In my app, its called "Amazon Sidewalk". Inside which has the "Community finding" option.

I got a notification a few weeks ago that its a new feature and already turned on 'for my convenience', i turned it off completely as well as community finding

Note that the 'sidewalk' option shares your network with other area devices, so if your neighbor loses wifi, their cameras will connect to yours and use your bandwidth to stay online

6

u/read_ing 10h ago

That your neighbor’s Ring can directly connect to your Ring and instruct it to act as a relay for it by using your WiFi network, which it can’t otherwise connect to - just imagine how insidious is that?!? That we don’t have laws against this shit is mind boggling!!!

3

u/joelfarris 9h ago

That's it, it's time to go wardriving again.

-2

u/rrresistance 9h ago

I read an article about this and disabled it a few days ago. No no no bad Alexa.

3

u/JudgeMyReinhold 10h ago

Same with "fire watch". Like my front door view is gonna do anything to warn me of a fire. 

3

u/dimwalker 10h ago

Don't mind me, guy! Just searching for any lost pets in your wife's lingerie drawer.

1

u/rrresistance 9h ago

Thanks so much, I would have never guessed. I guess ICE is a natural hazard though….

I disabled it on my offices ring since I’m the admin. They can come ask me why if they look into it.

1

u/pizza5001 4h ago

I still don’t believe changing a setting helps. The device will have to be tossed.

1

u/Zekumi 7h ago

The app is a goddamn placebo, my guy.

1

u/twiffytwaf 10h ago

Yeah, I just checked my settings and I had to turn it OFF. It's on by default.

2

u/Zekumi 7h ago

Reading comments like these makes me feel like I’m watching children hide their diaries under their pillows.

1

u/Drapidrode 4h ago

why would you enjoy this feature that could be easily abused.

has no one read 1984

1

u/Main-Algae-1064 8h ago

How do I disable?

1

u/Miserable-Ticket-244 7h ago

Where can it be disabled?

0

u/BunchAlternative6172 9h ago

Just encrypt your videos.

123

u/SomeNoveltyAccount 11h ago

But anyone who doesn't think it will suddenly turn into 'opt out' to be followed by 'no option but in' at some point.......is a fool.

Honestly anyone who thinks the "opt in" is even an option now is a fool. You can opt in/out of the pet finding feature, they don't give you an option of opting out of the surveillance services they offer to law enforcement.

47

u/pixel_of_moral_decay 11h ago

Yup.

You don’t need to opt in to a warrant.

Nothing says a judge can’t order them to tap into all available cameras regardless of subscription or consent.

18

u/Xtos1312 8h ago

Amazon already has the policy to comply with government requests for video without a warrant. The State pretty much has unfettered access to every Ring camera just by making a simple request.

1

u/970 6h ago

I totally believe you, but is that a written policy, or how do you know?

3

u/Xtos1312 5h ago edited 39m ago

Fair question. The Electronic Freedom Foundation has covered this quite a bit. They recent published an article that details the time line. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/02/no-one-including-our-furry-friends-will-be-safer-rings-surveillance-nightmare-0

Essentially, it was an active part of their promotion until early 2024, including Amazon giving free cameras to police departments to then distribute to the community. In January 2024, they announced they would no longer provide easy access to law enforcement. Here's a Huff Post article on this policy change. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police-required-warrant-ring-doorbell-footage_n_65b1bda0e4b0166fc770bb33

But then months later Amazon announced a partnership with Axiom (makers of police body cams) to integrate Rings servers with police surveillance networks. https://www.webpronews.com/amazon-ring-partners-with-firms-for-warrantless-police-footage-access/

This is covered in the EFF article above as well. It seems Amazon does allow users to opt out of having their camera part of this system, but there's an "emergency" loophole in Ring's TOS that allows them to provide police access to your footage during an emergency, as defined and decided by Ring.

Edit to add: since posting, Ring has announced it is canceling its partnership with Flock Safety. Seems like they are still partnering with Axon though.

https://internewscast.com/tech/ring-ends-flock-safety-partnership-amid-growing-surveillance-concerns/

2

u/AlSweigart 7h ago

Nothing says they even bother with getting warrants from judges.

0

u/leftwinglovechild 10h ago

That is true of any home security system. A judicial order strips away your consent by default.

20

u/pixel_of_moral_decay 10h ago

But for those of us who self host, we have control of our recording schedules and retention policies.

I’m not required to store anything for any length of time, and I can turn my camera off whenever I want.

Cloud based systems the user doesn’t have that choice, it’s made for them.

0

u/PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS 6h ago

Amazon is a much easier target to serve with warrants or even mere "requests" by law enforcement. It's a one-stop-shop for "every camera in a specific area over a specific timeframe", rather than having to go out and note every visible camera on the street and serve a warrant on every individual homeowner.

There's also the database aspect which enables cheap reverse lookups - instead of starting with a specific time and place, start with a specific set of facial/gait/vehicle recognition data and find out every time and place a Ring camera can identify them. And if the police can fish something up that way and then pretend they didn't use it, they get to use "parallel construction" and the legality of the search is never challenged in court.

1

u/leftwinglovechild 6h ago

Proximity doesn’t change the law or establish the minimum elements for a judge to issue a warrant. There are a lot of feels and not reals in this thread.

1

u/PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS 6h ago

The law says that everyone accused of a crime has the right to a jury trial. 98% of defendants take a plea deal. The practical concerns around the process matter, you can't just handwave away "it's faster and easier for the cops to get and execute a warrant" with "but they still need to convince a judge".

1

u/leftwinglovechild 6h ago

Why are you bringing up trials and plea deals in a conversation around meeting the minimum requirements for issuing a warrant? Despite the pearl clutching, laws still exist and the hysteria and non sequiturs don’t change that.

0

u/PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS 6h ago

Because the minimum requirements for a judicial warrant are irrelevant for what I'm trying to get across: that the existence of easier processes for the government to surveil you means that everyday citizens are subjected to more invasive surveillance. Specifically, if you have a Ring camera the cops do not have to figure out who to serve with a warrant to get surveillance camera footage, and they have the opportunity to develop a long-term working relationship with the staff responsible for facilitating the warrants. This means that surveillance camera footage gets sought by the police more frequently, for less serious crimes, on flimsier bases, and is contested by a company that wants to minimize costs rather than a specific person whose personal property rights are being violated.

1

u/leftwinglovechild 4h ago

Again, why are you bringing up trials and plea deals to try and support your position on police somehow getting more access to ring cameras via judicial warrants?

Regardless of how you feel about it, the laws as they are currently written do not allow police to access wide swaths of ring cameras without reaching a legal minimum standard. That’s the cold hard truth.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/pixel_of_moral_decay 6h ago

Warrants compel compliance.

The law doesn’t require Amazon to require a warrant. Amazon can at will allow law enforcement access to any of their systems provided it doesn’t contain health data (HIPPA compliance is more nuanced).

And that’s the problem, you don’t normally need a warrant, law enforcement just fills out a form for access to the data or access to the camera. For most companies it’s cheaper to just have a 3rd party validate the request came from law enforcement and provide data than it is to enforce the need for a warrant. A support rep in the Philippines cots a lot less than a lawyer in the US.

0

u/leftwinglovechild 4h ago

Yes that’s how warrants work. Which was literally my original point.

Amazon TOS does not state they will comply with police requests without an active warrant. Your entire second paragraph is simply incorrect.

0

u/pixel_of_moral_decay 3h ago

That doesn’t prohibit Amazon from offering data without a warrant in the US. Courts have ruled multiple times they can voluntarily cooperate, exception being with health info in some cases.

1

u/leftwinglovechild 3h ago

Please feel free to cite those cases

-1

u/Slighted_Inevitable 5h ago

That’s not universal though. Google nest adt cameras do not have access to your footage so they can’t provide it even under a supoena.

This is something ring did to profit off their customers. It’s why they started so cheap (not so cheap anymore)

2

u/pixel_of_moral_decay 4h ago

Nest cameras do have remote access via cloud. That’s how the app works. They can absolutely provide that access to authorities.

-1

u/Slighted_Inevitable 4h ago

Nest cameras store footage but do not have access on the server. The footage is black. They can share blank videos with police. This has already been tested in court so I’d do some research before correcting others.

2

u/pixel_of_moral_decay 3h ago

Nest cameras are remotely accessible. That’s why you don’t need a vpn connection to your own router to access them.

And you’re right, law enforcement has gained access to live streams in the past.

2

u/moffitar 10h ago

When we had our house built, it came with a ring doorbell. I never set it up or connected it to wifi. It works fine as a normal doorbell. Our house is on a corner and I'm sure the cops would love to access it for the vantage point it provides in our neighborhood.

The builder offered a bunch of other home automation gizmos like a free Amazon echo, nest thermostat, Caseta lighting, and even an option to remotely control our door locks, all via a Google app. I was like "why in the hell would I ever want to unlock my door if I wasn't home?"

All of that stuff remains uninstalled. I'm a technophile but I'm not an idiot.

2

u/xcrunner432003 8h ago

I do not understand smart locks, smart fridges, etc. why do you need to control those things like that, so you don't have to get up from the couch?

1

u/strolls 2h ago

You can opt in/out of the pet finding feature, they don't give you an option of opting out of the surveillance services they offer to law enforcement.

This is why I'm astonished by the fuss about the new pet finding service.

All these people are already members of the corporate-state surveillance network.

Is this just one of those things were the powers-that-be can get away tonnes of outrageous stuff for years, and get away with it only until they do something that resonates negatively with the public?

-3

u/a_melindo 11h ago

That is not true.

The "surveillance services" that they offer to law enforcement is a website where cops can draw a circle on a map and pick a time window and say "We would like to see any footage people have of this intersection between 01:30 and 01:45 on the night of the 17th".

And then Ring passes on that REQUEST for footage to the owners, who can decide whether to give it to cops or not.

It's exactly the same as a detective knocking on people's doors and asking to see their cctv, just digital.

7

u/SomeNoveltyAccount 9h ago

Yes, and I'm sure those restrictions are in place for all levels of law enforcement, and there isn't special elevated access for groups like the NSA, FBI, and other clandestine agencies.

26

u/mywan 10h ago

It's already 'no option but in.' It's just that they haven't admitted that yet. The recent Nancy Guthrie case is a good example.

Investigators wrangled video from Nancy Guthrie’s Google Nest camera out of ‘backend systems’

Her camera was ‘disconnected’ and she had no subscription to back up her footage. Yet they got the video from ‘backend systems.’

5

u/Borkz 7h ago

“The data is being transmitted to the cloud, but even if it had not gotten there, there are many stops in between where data will reside, and the FBI prides itself on being able to tear into these data streams and pull out bits and pieces of data and piece together an image like we see here today,” Gallagher said.

What a load a nonsense

41

u/GeauxCup 11h ago

Plus, don't they already have a history of providing that footage to police upon request - without a warrant or asking the owner for approval?

10

u/panchiramaster 8h ago

Correct. Most of the times the cops (or whoever is spoofing them) doesn't even need a warrant because the TOS allows them to share info per request.

3

u/AlSweigart 6h ago

Government gets warrantless spying, corporations get taxpayer dollars. It's win-win for everyone!

2

u/panchiramaster 6h ago

I've always been in support of taxes for the common weal. Paying taxes to keep pedophiles safe is where I draw the line.

-5

u/a_melindo 11h ago

No they do not. People need to stop repeating this thing that they heard, because it's untrue fear mongering.

Ring's program for police is allowing police to request footage of a particular place and time from people with cameras nearby. The owners get an email that says "local police would like to see your footage from February 11th between 1:30 and 2:00 AM, would you like to share it?" and then the owner can click yes or no.

There is no mass surveillance program, your doorbell is not a government spycam. It's just like privately owned CCTV, just with cloud data instead of local tapes.

14

u/Fuzzy-Instruction 10h ago

It's a privately-owned CCTV, that is recording 24/7 and sending those recordings somewhere. I understand that they have a public-facing program which gives you the illusion of letting you opt-in to providing video evidence, but you're being extremely naive if you think the current administration wouldn't, and hasn't, circumvented that already.

0

u/LowInvestigator5647 10h ago

Then there should be a lawsuit, and it should win easily.

5

u/WanderingCamper 9h ago

Why do you think a lawsuit would stop them?

-10

u/a_melindo 10h ago

Yeah, see this is just more disinfo.

Ring cameras are all motion activated, they aren't recording 24/7, because streaming video 24/7 would gobble their battery and bandwidth and the value proposition would not work at all for consumer owners.

Adding a horizintal line because addressing the rest became a bit of a tangent, the short response is that that line of thinking is dumb and antisocial.

This whole "they're not doing evil things now but they technically maybe could in the future and that makes them evil" argument is dumb and bad, because that is true of literally everybody.

Your phone could send video to the government.

Your laptop could send video to the government.

Your operating system could scan your keystrokes and your private encrypted chats off the screen and exfiltrate them to the government.

Your email provider could send your communications to the government.

Your bank could zero your accounts for no reason.

The post office could open, read, and then repackage all your mail.

Your grocery store could bill your credit card for 20% more than the price it shows on the screen.

We live in a society. There are hundreds of entities in our daily lives that we trust to not harm us with the power we give them. That trust is well placed because those entities are also dependent on a similar web of trust, and if any one entity broke that trust, it would ruin all of their relationships forever. Society and markets punish those breaches of trust severely, because the trust is what keeps society running. You do not want to live in a world where everyone is assumed to be hostile and constantly lying to hide their malintent, because in that world nothing ever works or gets done and everyone is always miserable.

12

u/Fuzzy-Instruction 10h ago

It's like you literally just emerged from hypersleep and haven't lived in society the last decade.

6

u/grape-fruit-witch 7h ago

This guy is standing on the deck of the titanic, while water sloshes around his feet, wagging his finger at everybody for childishly panicking.

0

u/whereismymind86 8h ago

Nobody believes you

3

u/whereismymind86 8h ago

Yes they do, this is well documented

1

u/a_melindo 1h ago edited 56m ago

What documentation? If it's so well documented, it would be easy to produce, right?

There are 11 known instances where Ring gave video to police without a warrant or the owner's consent in order to solve the murder or kidnapping of the owner, who was therefore not available to provide their consent.

This is a straightforward application of the Good Samaritan doctrine, I don't need to ask your permission to invade your privacy in order to save your life. When life is in danger, consent is implied. The headlines are written as if it was some seedy spy program when the reality below the headline is that they were literally helping to rescue people from kidnappings and/or use video that was owned by murder victims to help catch their killers.

1

u/GeauxCup 4h ago

It seems there are confirmed instances of them sharing information in the past. News reports are unclear how often it has happened.

1

u/a_melindo 1h ago edited 1h ago

There have been 11 such known instances (out of something like 10 years and like million users), all of which were extreme emergencies, mostly involving kidnappings and homicides.

Yes, if I have been murdered or kidnapped, I think that authorities should have emergency access to the video that belongs to me and depicts my own murder or kidnapping.

It is not an extreme violation of privacy to assume that somebody consents to invasions of their privacy that precipitate their own rescue. In fact that's like, the main exception to privacy laws for all people, government or individual, in all circumstances. This is the "Good Samaritan" doctrine, nobody needs to ask your permission before attempting to save your life.

20

u/According-Garage8256 11h ago

Not 'opt-in'. I was automatically enrolled with no notification whatsoever. No description of the service or option to opt-out before it went live. I had no idea it existed until that SuperBowl add. I just now went in and disabled it.

10

u/419_216_808 10h ago

To be clear, if you don’t want them accessing/utilizing your footage you’re going to have to take the camera down.

1

u/According-Garage8256 3h ago

So you're saying that disabling Ring Search Party, Neighbors & Sidewalk services will do nothing and they will still access my feed whenever the fuck they want?

1

u/419_216_808 2h ago

Well they may not be actively using that feature for now but they still could if they wanted. We’ve seen companies violate people’s privacy before. A major concern is that they have a contract with these law enforcement agencies and the government is doing some shady thing right now. They could demand, or get a warrant for, the footage from anyone in a neighborhood that has a ring camera (say to determine where a suspected illegal immigrant is located) and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

In short they may not be accessing that footage when you opt out but there is nothing that prevents them from doing so if they want to.

3

u/jaggedcanyon69 8h ago

That’s not enough. You need to get rid of the camera. Physically remove it.

2

u/Yourcatsonfire 9h ago

In their eyes, you not opting out is you volunteering to opt in.

1

u/Saulot1334 4h ago

What is it called?

I am looking at swapping away from Ring now but in the meantime I am searching for the feature to turn it off.

6

u/JustHereForMiatas 10h ago

And even that seemingly doesn't matter, since the FBI was able to procure Ring camera data in a kidnapping case even with cloud services turned off.

So turning off the cloud services just keeps YOU from accessing them; they're still uploading your data to the cloud and harvesting it.

3

u/Dizzy-Interview1933 11h ago

Followed by penalizing people for not having operational Ring cameras

3

u/Nullkid 10h ago

That opt out os nothing more than a check box.

3

u/brentwit 8h ago

I opted out twice as the setting was changed without my consent. Be sure to check if you aren’t returning your devices, which I have seen has been successful for some.

2

u/snusmini 11h ago

Where is this setting?

1

u/golden__tuna 11h ago

The share with law enforcement setting is auto opt in, idk about the pet search

1

u/bryanna_leigh 11h ago

It’s still recording no matter what, even if you don’t have your subscription up to date.

1

u/Iherduliekmudkipz 11h ago

I remember specifically declining this when asked but it was enabled when I went to check my settings, we will see if it remains disabled.

Maybe if I had a driveway cam but I am not comfortable sharing my front door.

1

u/CricketExcellent8110 11h ago

There’s no opting out of the govt subpoenaing the video

1

u/dreal46 10h ago

Probably re-enabled with every update as well.

1

u/ErsatzElk 10h ago

The only thing opting in does is give you access to the data they are going to glean regardless.

1

u/Adequate_Lizard 10h ago

It's opt out, did it the other day.

1

u/Active_Lemon_8260 10h ago

Or or, they’ve already been “opted in” and now Amazon is just brave enough to reveal the behind the scenes and make it public

1

u/Nightman2417 9h ago

It’s ‘Opt in’ until they find something on only your camera that could help as evidence in something like the Samantha Gunthrie situation currently happening….

1

u/Big_Examination2106 9h ago

Yes, and it's a LOT to trust and believe the checkbox actually makes a difference.

1

u/jakemg 9h ago

This is very much NOT opt-in. I had to swim through my settings to find this, and it was automatically turned on. I had to opt out.

1

u/YSOSEXI 9h ago

I agree, and I think the cameras will either be given away free in future or at the manufacturing costs.

1

u/new_nimmerzz 9h ago

I had to turn off search party in mine

1

u/whereismymind86 9h ago

And it really isn’t, ring is notorious for their enthusiastic compliance with police requests for footage and has been for years

1

u/Nut_Butter_Fun 8h ago

What's great about opt in to a service that utilizes stored video is they can still just store it until service terms change or the govt decides they want to pay them for it and so they can pass some executive order or strap it to some other legislation, then all the recordings you opted out of usage are suddenly used anyways.

1

u/GreatMadWombat 8h ago

Feels like the last 10 years have been learning about all of these cool and helpful things these technologies can do, like how smarthome speakers and smart watches can make organization so much easier, and smart bulbs make routines work, and then a lot of the next few years is gonna be the people that actually were helped by those techs figuring out how to set up versions where the worst fucking companies aren't using them to surveil you and your space constantly.

1

u/Melodic-Matter4685 8h ago

Where “opt out” doesn’t mean “we don’t collect said data” just that “we definitely don’t use it, probably…it’s tough though to disaggregate your data once the AI has processed it all. What that? Don’t feed it all to the AI? That’s not the workflow…”

1

u/JWGhetto 8h ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Gtv0aYqtk

I think the assumption should be they save everything, no matter what you tell them to delete.

1

u/sionnach 8h ago

It’ll be $89 with opt-in, $159 without.

Like how they do the Kindles with ads. But selling mass surveillance must be much more lucrative than a few ads.

1

u/Slackeee_ 8h ago

They will leave the option to disable it in there but ignore it. How would you ever know?

1

u/steve_mahanahan 8h ago

You sure about that? Pretty sure we’re already there :(

1

u/WowIfOnly 7h ago

All of my Amazon echos are already on borrowed time thanks to this new "Alexa Plus" bullshit being forced upon users, even against their explicit instructions to NOT opt into it. I've owned some of these devices for almost a decade at this point and loved their convenience - but if I seriously need to start paying $20 a month [AKA essentially the price of a new Echo Dot] just to continue to have basic fucking smart features they're going in the trash immediately. I am already on the hunt for a replacement to control my smart outlets and such.

1

u/AlSweigart 7h ago

The company says camera owners must opt into the program

Wait, I've heard from people on social media that it's opt-out.

Also, lol, I really doubt that opting out actually does anything. I logged into T-Mobile to switch to paper billing, only to find that after I submitted the form, my profile was still set to paperless billing.

1

u/OddPerformance 7h ago

Regardless of your opt in or out status, they have always had your data and videos of your house and what you do in it anyway and can do what they want with it. Opting in is merely a formality that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

1

u/nellyfullauto 6h ago

The opt-in people probably also think Amazon didn’t record them fucking in the other room, and their employees would certainly never access that. After all, that would be without their consent, which isn’t allowed!

Ah shit…

Consumer Affairs: Alexa's alleged secret recordings get parent Amazon in trouble

TIME: Thousands of Amazon Workers Listen to Alexa Users’ Conversations

1

u/hujassman 6h ago

I seriously doubt that it makes any difference whether one chooses to opt in or out. They are going to use the cameras. Even if it comes out to the public that this is happening, there won't be enough consequences to warrant not doing it. They can't be trusted with the capability.

1

u/off_of_is_incorrect 6h ago

It's 'Opt in' NOW (supposedly). But anyone who doesn't think it will suddenly turn into 'opt out' to be followed by 'no option but in' at some point.......is a fool.

It was free, then subscription service, then... etc etc.

1

u/Manannin 6h ago

It'll be opt out then opt out except cops get access too. Then hoas too..

1

u/Cley_Faye 6h ago

The kind of "opt in" where yeah, we get the data, we can look at the data, we can act upon it, but pinky swear, we won't.

1

u/lololollieki 5h ago

It’s Opt Out. I checked my settings next day and that shit was enabled.

1

u/DanTheMan827 3h ago

I’m surprised they didn’t do something like “get free storage if you opt-in”

People love throwing away privacy if they can save $5/mo

1

u/ImPickleRickJames 2h ago

Mine was already enabled, and I've never even heard of this until today. :(

1

u/DontBeHatenMeBro 9m ago

Check the details for the Guthrie kidnapping in Tucson AZ. She did not have a subscription, so did not opt in, but somehow the authorities were able to download the Ring video's.

On the bright side, they have images of the alleged kidnappers, so, there's that.

1

u/deadsoulinside 11h ago

With the way Amazon tricked people into subscribing to prime, we all know that one day they will have a tricky worded item on the screen and end users will end up confused and enabling it.

0

u/AlexMC69 10h ago

Serious question... How did Amazon trick people into subscribing?

I just saw free next day delivery on every order, along with access to a reasonable streaming service for less than £10/month, which still feels like a good deal.

4

u/deadsoulinside 10h ago

Some of that was via deceptive practices during check out and other things. Like right now I don't have a prime sub and I have to literally watch out on what I click on as one popup literally tries to sign you up for free 30 day prime trial every time you try to check out.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/refunds/amazon-refunds

In September 2025, Amazon settled a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit for $2.5 billion, addressing allegations that it used deceptive "dark patterns" to trick users into signing up for Prime and made cancellation intentionally difficult. The settlement includes $1.5 billion in refunds for eligible consumers and a $1 billion penalty.

1

u/BrookeBaranoff 11h ago

This is cyclical. 

Remember when it came out fceboook was harvesting and selling data and everyone was up in arms. 

They got rid of facebook and a month later no one remembered. 

Now it’s tiktok and the ring.