
Amazon Ring went from a smart doorbell company to a surveillance network - jrepinc
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/zmjp53/how-ring-went-from-shark-tank-reject-to-americas-scariest-surveillance-company
======
takeda
Slightly offtopic, but it's getting harder and harder to get a surveillance
equipment that's not connected to "the cloud" all I want is to be in full
control of my own data.

I would install Ring if it was closed loop system. Same thing with other
technologies to make a smart home. Why so many people (especially the ones
that understand technology) seem to be ok with this? This attitude causes that
there are less and less options for privacy conscious people.

~~~
mattferderer
A popular DIY setup: Hikvision cameras & Blue Iris software

Hikvision cameras have the benefit of not being wireless and using Power over
Ethernet for people who don't mind running some cable. I think that has a lot
of value over a bunch of cameras killing your wifi. Off the shelf cheap
routers do poor with a ton of wifi cameras it seems.

Blue Iris can send you mobile alerts without a subscription. All videos are
stored locally & it's very configurable.

You could upload alert photos/videos to a cloud provider for cheap off-site
hosting if you choose. That way if the bad people destroy your PC you still
have video unless they take out your internet. One could setup limited backup
internet with a mobile company for this case &/or for when your internet goes
out in general. This of course applies equally to Nest/Ring etc.

\---

Honestly I'm surprised Ring/Nest/etc still charge for storing video footage.
At this point I would have figured they would have found one of countless ways
to monopolize off the video footage. Most average people seem to be fine with
their data being sold if it provides them some value.

I' also wondering when the first services will start to pop up that provide a
marketplace for video footage.

~~~
mindgam3
Hikvision is based in China and partially owned by the Chinese state. Not sure
if that would be my first choice for surveillance gear.

~~~
hazmazlaz
It depends heavily on what your threats are and what you are trying to
control/prevent. For myself and for most Americans (making a big assumption
here I know), the Chinese State is not a serious threat to be concerned about.
This due to the fact that they are across an ocean and have close to zero
effective physical force projection capability in the US. A greater concern
should be domestic criminals (I.E. burglars) or the domestic government
because both of those potential threat actors have the capability of using
information from a home security system to cause one harm in some way.

~~~
friendlybus
They are fundamentally tied into the US economy and are known to effectively
share data and behaviour across industries. If you were plausibly competing
with a Chinese company and working from home, the question on where the
HikVision information goes is a curiousity.

~~~
ska
How much does it matter where the hardware was made if it is using local
storage? If you are worried about this sort of thing, there is no reason you
need to provide routing for the devices outside of your local network (e.g.
VLAN). Unlike any hardware relying on cloud services.

~~~
jonnismash
Yeah I have to agree with this. If you're savvy enough to setup your own
close-looped surveillance system then you're savvy enough to check if the
camera is pinging home to a China-based server. And if it is then just block
all WAN connections from that IP.

------
factotum
It's interesting how the article accuses Ring and Amazon of selling via fear,
but that's also exactly what the article itself is selling.

I live in Albuquerque. We have Ring cameras, and I feel so much safer when I
leave town. We caught someone rifling through our pickup truck a few weeks ago
and were able to correlate it with other reports in the area so that if/when
these thieves are caught, they'll go away for longer.

Why did I decide to buy these cameras? We were subject to a massive burglary a
couple of years ago in which we lost $30k worth of valuables.

There are always downsides to every security-related thing, but I highly
appreciate the ability to better police my own property, and I bet a bunch of
other people feel the same.

~~~
citilife
I think the point a lot of other people make, is that you can simply use
another camera network that doesn't sell your data, centralize it, and share
with 3rd parties without your knowledge or [knowledgable] consent.

I have a camera system that is similar, I set it up myself, and I could do
exactly what you suggested. All without also telling amazon my neighbor goes
to-and-from their house 6 times a day (because my door camera faces them). Or
that my daughter comes home from school at 3pm.

~~~
nullc
Exactly this: People who respond with the benefits of having a security camera
are arguing a false dichotomy.

IP security cameras are inexpensive and readily available, and support things
like remote access fine. (And I say this from first hand experience)

When you narrow the counterargument to the actual differential features of
ring-like solutions-- that they automatically store video offsite mitigating
by default the fringe risk that a thief takes the recorder--, the argument in
favor of handing this video feed to state and corporate surveillance apparatus
alike is much less interesting.

It would be trivial for ring to encrypt the video with a password only known
to the device and your remote client never to the server... and would avoid a
lot of trouble dealing with requests for video and potential civil ligation
for leaks. The primary reason these products don't is because surveilling the
user _is_ the business proposition.

Aside: I have lots of security cameras, I like security cameras. Yet at the
same time people radically overestimate their usefulness in stopping crime:
The positioning and lighting have to be nearly perfect to get a shot that you
can identify a stranger with and it's easy for people to conceal their faces
against an unmonitored camera. Even if you do get a clear face shot the police
often can do nothing useful with it. With the low prices today I think cameras
can well worth their price, ... but where they create mass surveillance risks,
the case is far less clear.

~~~
spamizbad
> Yet at the same time people radically overestimate their usefulness in
> stopping crime: The positioning and lighting have to be nearly perfect to
> get a shot that you can identify a stranger with and it's easy for people to
> conceal their faces against an unmonitored camera. Even if you do get a
> clear face shot the police often can do nothing useful with it. With the low
> prices today I think cameras can well worth their price, ... but where they
> create mass surveillance risks, the case is far less clear.

If you already know who you're looking for they can be quite useful. They can
be quite effective when they're used to help document violations of an order
of protection or restraining order, where even a profile shot at an odd angle
is sufficient.

~~~
nullc
Indeed. I've found cameras super useful in debugging issues with wild animals
and contractors, figuring out where something outside went or how it got
broken, etc.

Anyone interested in cameras should check out the forum at
[https://ipcamtalk.com/](https://ipcamtalk.com/)

One of the reoccurring points there though is actual experience with the low
utility of cameras-- especially if they're not very carefully positioned and
prolific-- at identifying strangers.

------
Aaronstotle
All IoT devices are corporate botnets, I still don't understand why people
install them in their homes. Alexa/Google assistants provide very little value
for the user and give companies a microphone into your private life.

~~~
baddox
I suspect your misunderstanding comes from your mistaken belief that these
devices provide very little value for their users.

~~~
autoexec
I get that these devices do some useful things, but I can't really think of
anything they do that can't also be done with a cell phone and a laptop and
without letting contractors listen to you having sex.

~~~
bootlooped
Once you already own a cellphone, the marginal privacy loss by getting a smart
speaker is very small.

~~~
autoexec
Only if you think your cell phone is always listening, and in some cases it
might be. My phone doesn't use any kind of smart assistant and unlike a smart
speaker preventing your phone from listening 24/7 doesn't make the device
useless

~~~
thebean11
If you trust Google/Amazon/Apple etc, smart speakers only record when they
hear the hot word. What's the difference between that and Google/Apple saying
they don't record at all if you turn the assistant off? Either way they could
just be lying about how the device works.

~~~
autoexec
If the companies are lying and bugging us no matter what 24/7 we're screwed
either way, but even if google/amazon are being 100% honest their contractors
are still listening to people with smart speakers having sex. If you turn off
your phone's smart assistants and they are telling the truth nothing happens.

disable smart assistants on your phone and the phone won't start recording you
"accidentally". You don't have that option with a smart speaker.

[https://thenextweb.com/google/2019/07/10/google-
contractors-...](https://thenextweb.com/google/2019/07/10/google-contractors-
are-secretly-listening-to-your-assistant-recordings/)

[https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-siri-listening-
re...](https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/apple-siri-listening-recording-
contractors/)

~~~
baddox
> disable smart assistants on your phone and the phone won't start recording
> you "accidentally". You don't have that option with a smart speaker.

In fact, you do. Amazon Echos have a physical button that disables the
microphone. Apple HomePod has a setting to disable the "Hey Siri" feature. I
haven't tested this, but I presume that both continue functioning perfectly
fine as Bluetooth/AirPlay speakers.

~~~
autoexec
I didn't know that they had an option to disable the mic at all. I'm glad that
they do, but I'd question anyone who bought one just to use as a speaker. If
you aren't going to use the mic, you're better off buying a regular speaker
with better quality. Disabling the smart assistant on the phone still leaves
you with a highly functional device.

~~~
fastball
The Apple HomePod is a pretty great speaker whether you have the mic on or
not.

~~~
autoexec
I've heard it's okay, but not as good as google home max which is again
impressive for a smart speaker but still can't compare to other wireless
speakers. At a certain level though speaker reviews get to be a bit too much
for me to take seriously. The farther they get into audiophile territory the
more skeptical I tend to become. Probably because I've been pretty happy with
shitty speakers at much lower price points, but I figure if you're going to
drop that kind of money on a wireless speaker it'd better sound incredible.

------
AWildC182
It's staggering how little the average person on the street cares about these
issues. My friend is a software dev and when I asked him why he got a Ring
knowing full well how intrusive the system could be, he shrugged and said
"Well, can't be worse than my Alexa"

~~~
sylens
People don't care as much about a camera outside the house. They'd rather
catch package thieves and car break-ins

~~~
autoexec
I'm guessing they just haven't thought about how much a camera on their door
tells others about them. How often they come and go, what they wear, who they
are with, how often they order food, the age/race/sex of every person living
there, etc. It's a massive look at their lives just as much as a camera in
their living room would be.

~~~
criddell
> How often they come and go, what they wear, who they are with, how often
> they order food, the age/race/sex of every person living there, etc. It's a
> massive look at their lives just as much as a camera in their living room
> would be.

What's the downside of that? Is it worse than using a phone with lots of
Google software on it?

~~~
autoexec
What's the downside to having a amazon camera in your bathroom or bedroom
recording what you do? If you don't care at all about your privacy it doesn't
matter. If you are concerned with the massive surveillance and data collection
amazon and google does it would make sense to try and limit the amount of data
you hand over to them.

The idea that simply owning a cell phone invalidates any effort or incentive
to try to keep the personal details of your life from any company ever is
deeply flawed.

We all make trade-offs and must decide for ourselves what amount of data we're
comfortable handing over to companies who profit from surveillance capitalism.
Personally, I can install a camera without giving amazon data about me. I
can't get a cell phone that doesn't leak information to google or apple
(although I can try to limit what I use my cell phone for and what data those
devices leak)

~~~
criddell
I get that it means a loss of privacy but I'm asking what the downside of that
is. Amazon and Google know lots about me and it doesn't feel like it's
obviously bad. If I had a magic wand and could erase my data from those
companies today how would my life be better tomorrow?

~~~
austhrow743
It's not about tomorrow. It's about in X years when violent government
oppression on some group or other starts up again.

It's not making the assumption that your government is never going to be
rounding people up for brainwashing/torture/gassing/etc ever again.

When that happens, all the data these surveillance companies have is going to
make the future gestapo downright gleeful.

~~~
criddell
And that gets back to the phone being the absolute goldmine and doorbells and
voice assistants barely move the needle.

~~~
austhrow743
Well sure, phones are a greater evil than doorbell cameras. I'm not disputing
that. It's not like you're only allowed to dislike one type of device.

------
alchemism
I have a Ring and live on the edge of a seriously bad urban district. Many
people in the bad 'hoods have Rings also, so I get notifications as part of
the surveillance network.

The network is both a fascinating source of local news and -- more to the
point -- a surprisingly-valuable tool for people who live in places that the
police ignore (or don't have the resources to protect).

Once the 'guy who steals Amazon packages' has his face on camera in the act of
stealing a package, and someone on every block in a 2 mile radius knows it, it
makes his life on the street that much less fun. The community can police
itself with tools like this.

------
g_sch
I see a lot of comments here saying that users are buying Rings because they
like them, so clearly there must be a need for them. However, in the US, crime
rates have nationally been on a downward trend for decades now. Meanwhile,
around 60% of people think crime rates are _increasing_ [0].

This is why I'm uneasy with the idea that we should allow revealed preferences
to make decisions about the level of ambient privacy we have in US society.
There's clearly something pushing people to buy these things, and it isn't a
higher crime rate.

[0] [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/17/facts-
about...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/17/facts-about-crime-
in-the-u-s/)

~~~
trophycase
Maybe crime is decreasing but the streets still barely feel safe to walk at
night depending on where you are. The homeless problem seems to be getting
worse though I'm not sure the statistics back it. The difference between
walking around at night in Japan, China, and even Europe compared to the US is
night and day honestly.

------
cbdumas
The only clear moral breach I can find in this article is the questionable
assertions of Ring cameras reducing crime. This is definitely wrong if Ring
does not have any evidence of the truth of these claims and they should stop
doing that.

Everything else, to me, can be boiled down to the fact that the author is
uncomfortable with the tradeoffs people are making between privacy and
security. The author engages with this point only in passing, at the very end
of the piece: "But for ordinary people, like those in Northwest Baltimore, the
reason for trusting Ring is simple: they are scared. Pastor Moore said that he
understands concerns that people have about Ring’s use of data. However, he
said his community didn’t share these concerns."

~~~
jessriedel
Yea. I can't figure out why the "Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal" is
supposed to be so terrifying. It lets police see which addresses have Ring
cameras running so the police can request footage directly from a nearby
resident when there's been a crime in the neighborhood. I can't tell if I'm
supposed to be afraid because this leaks the bit of info that the resident own
cameras, or because police might get the footage "without a warrant" by,
horror of horrors, asking the resident for it:

[https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43kga3/amazon-is-
coaching...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43kga3/amazon-is-coaching-
cops-on-how-to-obtain-surveillance-footage-without-a-warrant)

------
geddy
I'm a pretty paranoid guy about Big Brother and the surveillance state and
what-not. That being said, I got a Ring to try it out. I got it at a huge
discount and figured, if I don't like it, I'll sell it. I actually love this
thing now - by far the best feature to me is how I keep on top of neighborhood
happenings. I live in a nice part of down but, like many "nice parts", it's
right around the corner from a not-so-nice part of town.

Package stealing, particularly this time of year, is rampant, and the first
time I installed the app I was able to see all of these local reports near me
and watch footage of people stealing packages. This is a HUGE deterrent as
soon as word gets out that certain houses are "bugged".

I think about it from this perspective and immediately think of the "giving up
liberty for safety" quote, but I refuse to have any speakers _inside_ of my
home. The camera is pointing out towards the street, in broad daylight, in
public. I like knowing when my dog walker shows up, when packages arrive, and
of course when someone down the block sees a random guy trying to break into
cars parked on the street.

Overall, I'm conflicted over it, but I'm reminded several times a day (when
the thing goes off) that it's a _huge_ convenience to me, particularly as we
have expensive packages delivered multiple times per week. As long as I own
the data and police don't have default access to it, I'm cool.

~~~
WaxProlix
Do you own the data? Do the police have access to it? What about Amazon or
their partners?

Starting a post with a sentence about how you're a paranoid guy and dislike
Big Brother and what-not, and then pivoting to spend multiple paragraphs on
how you live in a nice neighborhood and don't mind providing data and
surveillance on those around you feels more than a little disingenuous.

Despite (because of?) being an Amazon employee, though one who works nowhere
near the Ring, I'd never buy a Ring - and I don't exactly think I'm the most
"paranoid guy" about "the surveillance state and whatnot".

Isn't the whole point of the article that the corporate-cop partnerships which
are budding here seem distinctly dystopian? Why post all of these positive
aspects which -- ostensibly -- exist in competitors (Arlo, maybe?) without the
shady downside?

~~~
secabeen
Currently, the police do not have access to it. There is a centralized system
they can use that simplifies the process for the police to request footage
from a homeowners, but that's all it is, a request.

That said, since it is data in the hands of a third party, if the police
really wanted that footage, they could issue a search warrant on Ring, and
compel them to turn it over, just like they could compel you to turn over your
footage with a subpoena or search warrant.

> Ring will only provide video content in response to a valid search warrant
> or with the verified consent of the account owner.

>[https://support.ring.com/hc/en-
us/articles/360001318523-Law-...](https://support.ring.com/hc/en-
us/articles/360001318523-Law-Enforcement-Legal-Process-Guidelines)

~~~
WaxProlix
I know this is their stated, current stance, but given their sort of bizarre
ball of incentives to integrate with the cop process as much as possible in
order to drive revenue, I imagine that barrier - to the extent that it
actually exists today - will degrade over time, if allowed to. You can't take
your data back; in this case, you can't take your family's or neighbors' data
back, either.

------
taurath
It comes down to data ownership. If my recordings of outside my home are
“mine”, then police can’t get it without a warrant. Amazon certainly shouldn’t
be able to access anything without my full consent.

In that case, I don’t see any reason it’s different than a closed loop system.

~~~
shadowgovt
Precisely. Most of the controversy about Ring is the risk that the data is
being accessed without user consent by parties hostile to the user's best
interests, not that the device collects the data at all.

In general, people bought the device _to_ collect this data (for their own
use).

------
ravenstine
It's fortunate that people are too lazy to either change the batteries or plug
in these devices.

When I was driving for GrubHub last year in LA, I'd say about 1 in 10 Ring
doorbells actually worked.

Surveillance sucks.

------
TurkishPoptart
I didn't see anyone mention Wyzecam here.
[https://wyze.com/](https://wyze.com/) Their models start at $20, the
smartphone app is very well done, and you can configure it to record events
under various conditions quite easily. Can anyone comment on Wyzecam's data
security policy? AFAIK there's no cloud feature that lets it interact with
other Wyzecams, and I like that.

~~~
Kalium
Wyze definitely has some cloud integrations. There's a notification and remote
viewing system and it will send recordings to the cloud.

There's also a feature that allows people to choose to share recordings
publicly. To most users these things are _features_ , not _bugs_.

------
dhd415
I have a Ring doorbell which works great, but I put in a fake street address
when registering it for this reason. So far as I've seen, it loses none of its
utility from that. The only user-visible feature based on the address is the
"neighborhood crime alerts" feature which I don't want since I live in a dense
enough city that petty crime "near" me isn't really a concern.

------
goldcd
I waded through those articles - and whilst I don't like the idea of 'cameras'
everywhere, didn't actually spot the alluded to smoking gun that was going to
blow the whole conspiracy open.

Obviously aspects like "black people getting reported as suspicious" is
unwelcome, but this isn't a problem with Ring/cameras. I presume the people
clicking the suspicious button are the same people traditionally calling in
'tips' whenever they spot somebody with a tan. (Or if you're in the middle of
Baltimore it's black residents reporting black people being suspicious). But -
I've no real idea/evidence, so I'll leave that.

What did appear to be deliberately misconstrued, was the police being directed
to reach out on social media to their residents, to improve residents opting
in to share their footage.

If "the government" asks me to provide a video-feed, my hackles would go up.
If your local cop says "I'm trying to reduce crime near you and your footage
would help me" \- well.. am I going to tell them I'm not going to help?

~~~
aaroninsf
The answer depends a lot on what your personal view of the police is and vice
versa.

Of broader interest: the neighbor agreed to "help" and your family's movements
are henceforth subject to surveillance without consent.

~~~
goldcd
Agreed.

Wouldn't want the camera in my home, or pointed at me whilst I work - but I'm
OK with "me walking by"

Basically, I've accepted the neighbour is already allowed to see me as I walk
by - this is just improving the efficiency of surveillance, not changing it. I
wouldn't have objected if they'd decided they wanted to start an old-school
"twitching curtains" neighbourhood watch scheme - I might not have joined, but
I wouldn't be feeling violates.

------
bernierocks
Many don't realize that we really only have two options for protecting
yourself and your family:

1) A weapon, like a gun 2) a camera

Sure, we have the police, but by the time they arrive, it's usually after the
fact and not easy to actually catch the person that did it.

Many countries, like Australia and England, have terrible gun rights, but
essentially have turned into a surveillance state in its place, with the
number cameras. It puts the fear into thieves because they know they will most
likely be caught.

If you reject both, it will only result in more innocent people getting hurt
or killed and crimes going unsolved.

I have ring cameras inside and outside my house. A group of 3 people broke
into my house while I was on vacation. They saw the camera inside, and ran out
of the window they broke through.

Nothing was taken, but if I didn't have the cameras, something would have been
taken. On top of everything, this all happened about 5 minutes before my
brother-in-law came back home for the night.

Cameras have also shown us all sorts of crime we would never have known:
package thieves, trespassing, and just a better general awareness we never had
before.

~~~
asdfasgasdgasdg
> If you reject both, it will only result in more innocent people getting hurt
> or killed and crimes going unsolved.

Please cite some evidence that doorbell cameras have a causal impact on crime
rates. Or guns for that matter. I doubt there's anything compelling. There's
probably a small marginal effect, but there are bigger levers we can turn. The
way to actually help people not get hurt is to make it so that fewer people
want to do crime. (Which, BTW, we've been doing a pretty bang up job of the
last thirty to forty years! Good news!)

~~~
svachalek
Anecdote here:

There were increasing reports of burglaries in my neighborhood and one night
my home was broken into while we were there sleeping. I installed a Ring
camera the next weekend and was awakened to the world of my little cul-de-sac
on an average night. There were generally multiple cars coming in, looping
around, and leaving in the early-a.m. hours. But it lights up bright and
immediately whenever someone comes back there, and in a matter of about two
weeks, this dwindled down to absolutely no traffic. Now if I see an entry at
2:00am in my log, it's almost certainly an opossum video.

------
proc0
I actually don't see a problem with this. There would definitely be a need for
products that facilitate police response. Now hopefully there are also
products that have all the tech and also respect your data, however connecting
to local law enforcement is at least very useful for businesses. They often
need to monitor sidewalk activity and such, and even indoors businesses have
no problem being transparent to law enforcement. Obviously if you want to
monitor your baby don't buy this, or any third party cloud solution for that
matter.

------
jabedude
Are there any other products as convenient as Ring/Blink?

~~~
Spooky23
Eufy. Battery powered wifi camera, with encrypted storage on an SD card in
your home.

~~~
jesalg
Eufy also offers a wired doorbell with local storage. It was also on sale for
$99 over Thanksgiving weekend so I got one to try it out.

------
shadowgovt
Wasn't Ring always a surveillance network, just one that changed who has
access to the surveillance data?

A "smart doorbell" with a camera is a surveillance device.

------
just_steve_h
"Went from?" No. Has always been.

~~~
0xCMP
Yep, always been their goal. Get them on every door in a neighborhood so you
can have eyes everywhere and crowdsource constant surveillance.

Listen to older podcast episodes on Twist:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puP_D3k7vVI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puP_D3k7vVI)

------
ve55
Anything that is prefixed with 'smart' generally already is a surveillance
network

------
heavyset_go
Amazon is giving deals to local governments to roll out Ring doorbells, but
part of the deal is that they can't imply that what Ring does is
"surveillance"

Kudos on the title for that reason alone.

------
ausjke
You simply can not find a camera without clouding service attached these days.

As long as this camera is networked, it can call-home via wireless or wired
network, even though you disabled its cloud service.

------
sys_64738
My wife says we'd never ever let any hardware from Amazon inside the house.
Now that's outside too.

------
josteink
Ring is made by Amazon? I had no idea, and I have one.

Should I be embarrassed?

~~~
arthurgibson
not at all, amazon acquired them. its a little different from the start,
similar path to Nest and Dropcam for google.

------
PHGamer
err it was always supposed to be for surveillance. people wanna know whos
walking by their house and stealing their amazon packages. Everyone acts like
this is new but that is the entire point of ring.

------
egdod
I assume that’s what most IoT devices ultimately are.

~~~
shadowgovt
IoT is susceptible to the same "cloud / personal" tradeoff as most computing
these days.

You can roll your own home server and home network, but then you're
responsible for maintaining and upgrading (and, most importantly, _securing_ )
it.

------
justicezyx
Maybe blockchain can help with this:
[https://www.iotex.io/securehardware](https://www.iotex.io/securehardware)

~~~
vorpalhex
A blockchain would help about as much as changing the endianness or
translating it to Cantonese, which is to say it has literally no bearing on
the problem whatsoever.

~~~
comunekate
this is great in that you could apply it to like 75% of blockchain projects I
read about and it would work just as well.

Still a cool data structure though

