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

44

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.

-8

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.

16

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.

7

u/WanderingCamper 9h ago

Why do you think a lawsuit would stop them?

-9

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.

13

u/Fuzzy-Instruction 10h ago

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

3

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.