EFFecting Digital Freedom

by Jason Kelley

Amazon Ring Is Turning Our Front Doors Into Vast, Unaccountable Surveillance Networks

Before it became a corporate-sponsored police mass-surveillance tool that's contributing to irrational panic in neighborhoods across the country, Ring began in 2013 as a "smart" doorbell.  The company's camera-enabled product allowed you to remotely see who was at your front step, right from your phone.  But with its rapidly growing partnerships with law enforcement, and its "crime prevention" social networking app, Ring has quickly mutated into a tool for police to spy on neighborhoods, and neighbors to spy on one another.

Ring doorbells record video of visitors, deliveries, residents walking nearby, and anything else that triggers the motion sensor, plus the vicinity across from the user's device, often including other neighbors and their homes.  This video is transmitted straight to users' phones.  After Amazon's purchase of the company in 2018, that video also goes to the cloud, where it's available for members subscribed to Ring's "Protect" plan for up to 60 days.  Users can quickly share the footage to the "Neighbors" app, the company's community-watch focused local social network.

Intrepid reporting has revealed that the footage also often available to local law enforcement - and that police are working in tandem with the company to promote their products.  Together, Ring and law enforcement are creating a vast network of cameras linked together whose recordings are centralized and available to police directly from the company.

There are significant privacy concerns with this - and they are multiplying quickly.  First, the majority of alerts from motion-sensitive smart doorbells are simply not indicative of crimes, though constant push-notifications will create the illusion of a house that's under constant threat.  Add in the ability to share "crime and safety notifications" with neighbors at the touch of a button, and you've created a vicious cycle that convinces users and non-users alike that they must protect themselves from "suspicious activity" - despite the fact that crime in the United States has been steadily decreasing for decades.  The cameras have inflamed tensions in communities across the country, as residents post videos of people who they don't recognize or who they believe are up to no good, with no evidence of actual criminal activity.  Ring and its partner app, Neighbors, supercharge a community's ability to spy on itself.

Second, law enforcement is partnering directly with Ring in a symbiotic relationship that's beneficial to both Amazon's bottom line and the law enforcement panopticon.  As of this writing, over 400 police jurisdictions were working directly with the company, which gives talking points, special incentives, and promotional materials to agencies who at law enforcement press releases and messaging in advance, crossing out words like "surveillance" because it might "confuse residents."  Sometimes, as in the case of Ewing, New Jersey, the city itself pays Ring directly, which then gives discounts on the devices to Ewing residents.

What do police get out of it?  A massive network of 24/7 surveillance footage that's available without the usual paperwork - or the scrutiny of residents who would undoubtedly balk if required to add police-accessible cameras to their front doors.  Once the devices are installed, Ring makes it easy for police to request videos - what the company calls the ability to "solve more cases with one click."  Law enforcement can log on to a specialized web portal and request video from a specific time and geographic area.  Then Ring automatically sends all the users in that area an email asking them to "take direct action to make [their] neighborhood safer" by sharing their videos with the police.  Users can decline.  But in an environment where neighbors, local government, law enforcement - and a company you pay to protect your home - are all teaming up to demand your video footage, the pressure to comply is enormous.  And even if you say no, the company will still present the recorded videos to police if required by a warrant.

Yet another privacy concern lies over the horizon.  Ring isn't Amazon's only disturbing surveillance system.  Amazon also sells police a face surveillance system called Rekognition.  It might not be difficult for Amazon to merge these two systems, allowing police to apply Rekognition face surveillance to everyone who happens to walk down the street past a Ring camera.  Amazon has even filed patents indicating their interest in creating a real-time alert system that recognizes suspicious individuals.  It's easy to imagine the draw this sort of surveillance tech might have for law enforcement, despite growing public objections to government use of face recognition.

Do our communities really need Ring, and its expanding assault on our civil liberties?  Or have Amazon and the police stoked fear and anxiety about criminal activity to convince people to pay for a massive new surveillance system?  It's time for city councils and community residents to decide whether to shut down police access to these vast video surveillance networks.  Even better, it's time for cities to adopt laws forbidding police from unilaterally acquiring access to such surveillance tech, and instead empowering community residents and city councils to decide.  The safety of our communities matters, but it should not come at the expense of our privacy.