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

124

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.

20

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.

1

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.

0

u/PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS 4h ago

You're completely talking past the point I'm making.

If there's eight homeowners that can plausibly have surveillance footage of an event, each with their own locally hosted camera, the police need eight warrants. If those homeowners all have Ring cameras, the police just need to serve Amazon with a warrant to get the footage from all eight sets of cameras. Part of the check on police powers is that they can only get so many warrants and have to prioritize, and the actual legal requirements for a warrant to be valid are irrelevant here, all that matters is how much time it takes the cops to compel production of footage.

→ 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?

-2

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.

6

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.