Opinion Why We Don’t Recommend Ring Cameras - They’re affordable and ubiquitous, but homeowners shouldn’t be able to act as vigilantes.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
ADRIENNE SO
JUL 9, 2023 7:00 AM

1689110914923.png

MOST OF THE time, product testing is pretty simple. If a router is better and more feature-full than another with a similar price, then you give it a better score and move on with your day. However, we occasionally end up with products that can be dangerous to you, or to society in general, which we believe to be the case with Amazon-owned Ring and its relationship with law enforcement.

When you set up a Ring camera, you are automatically enrolled in the Neighbors service. (You can go into the Ring app's settings and toggle off the Neighbors feed integration and notifications, but the onus is on you.) Neighbors, which is also a stand-alone app, shows you an activity feed from all nearby Ring camera owners, with posts about found dogs, stolen hoses, and a Safety Report that shows how many calls for service—violent or nonviolent—were made in the past week. It also provides an outlet for public safety agencies, like local police and fire departments, to broadcast information widely.

But it also allows Ring owners to send videos they've captured with their Ring video doorbell cameras and outdoor security cameras to law enforcement. This is a feature unique to Ring—even Nextdoor removed its Forward to Police feature in 2020, which allowed Nextdoor users to forward their own safety posts to local law enforcement agencies. If a crime has been committed, law enforcement should obtain a warrant to access civilian video footage.

Wait a Minute​

Multiple members of WIRED's Gear team have spoken to Ring over the years about this feature. The company has been clear it's what customers want, even though there’s no evidence that more video surveillance footage keeps communities safer. Instead, Neighbors increases the possibility of racial profiling. It makes it easier for both private citizens and law enforcement agencies to target certain groups for suspicion of crime based on skin color, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin.

We have been concerned about this issue since Ring started partnering with police departments to hand out free video cameras. Via the Neighbors Public Safety Service (NPSS) within the app, law enforcement can create Requests for Assistance, and Neighbors can contact camera owners directly for footage.

We believe this feature should not exist. When we interviewed Nextdoor CEO Sarah Friar on steps the company was taking to reduce racial profiling, Friar cited the work of Jennifer Eberhardt, a Stanford professor whose work on the psychological associations between race and crime won her a MacArthur Genius grant.

Much of Eberhardt’s work revolves around decision points—the more you make people stop and think before they act, the less likely they are to engage in unconscious racial bias. Putting a frictionless feature directly into Neighbors makes it that much easier for Ring owners to bombard law enforcement with unsubstantiated and possibly biased alarms.

It's important to note here that law enforcement is legally not allowed to access your personal videos or information without your permission. Law enforcement agencies must cite an active investigation within a time and geographic range, and cannot solicit information on lawful activities like protesting. Ring is not allowed to access your video data either, though that hasn't stopped it before. When the company improperly allowed employees and contractors to survey customers illegally, the Federal Trade Commission slapped the company with a proposed order earlier this year to delete data from videos that employees viewed unlawfully, issue $5.8 million in consumer refunds, and implement a stringent privacy and security program.

That’s Not All​

Ring has taken steps to address the concerns about its relationship with law enforcement. In 2021, the company released the results of a nearly two-year-long audit with the Policing Project at New York University’s School of Law. Ring made changes to policies, including making Requests for Assistance public, making NPSS a local service, and introducing new community guidelines when it comes to posting. For example, you're now only allowed to report facts, not feelings. You're no longer allowed to post footage of people just because you feel squirmy about them.

If you've logged into Neighbors recently, you might have noticed these effects. When I first tested a Ring camera, Neighbors showed me a weekly crime report of two dozen “police incidents” that had occurred on my street,, which spiked my heart rate and convinced me that we live among criminals in a degenerate society. A recent peek showed me that my Neighbors feed is now 50 percent missing cats and only 50 percent terrified people posting about gunshots or thieves. It's an improvement.

Yes, there’s nothing stopping law enforcement from physically canvassing streets near a suspected crime scene and asking camera owners, Ring or otherwise, for video footage. However, this process has its own friction points, including walking to find relevant homeowners and going through the process of subpoenaing footage. Other security camera makers also provide video footage to law enforcement as well. Google's Nest says it reserves the right to share information with law enforcement through a pretty opaque process. However, Google does not retain a specific app to make the process easier, and we like using Nest cameras otherwise.

That ties into my last point: We also have problems with Ring's hardware. The security cameras have a low frame rate, are slow loading, and have bulky designs; the Ring Car Cam doesn’t prevent break-ins when the car is off. Like other companies, including Wyze and Eufy, the company tends to only address security loopholes when they are discovered by outside parties. If you’re buying a video camera, you need to consider where it’s placed, because no camera is 100 percent safe.

If you're looking for a home security camera, whether it's a video doorbell or an outdoor camera, we would like to remind you that there are many, many alternatives. Ring cameras are cheap and ubiquitous, but contributing to a just society is also a factor in keeping your family safe.

Correction July 9, 2023: We incorrectly spelled Nextdoor CEO Sarah Friar's name. We regret the error.

Adrienne So is a senior associate reviews editor for WIRED, where she reviews consumer technology. She graduated from the University of Virginia with bachelor’s degrees in English and Spanish, and she previously worked as a freelance writer for Cool Hunting, Paste, Slate, and other publications. She lives in Portland, Oregon.

Source (Archive)
 
Oh here I thought it was going to be because Amazon shuts all your stuff off if a darkie reports you said something mean. People should rig AI recordings of people with Ring cameras near their homes calling Amazon drivers niggers.
I want proprietary non cloud based cameras. Anyone got a recommendation? I want security but that I control and isn't going to be used to capture me wrong thinking.
Ubiquiti maybe? I know they sell cameras and NVRs and they're either not cloud based or I'm too retarded to see it if they are. If you wanted to go the autist route you could buy any shitty power over ethernet Chinese shit and air gap it, then feed those into something like Linux: Bluecherry, ZoneMinder, Shinobi, Frigate or Windows: Blue Iris. I was doing that with a Raspberry Pi for a while, just use its shitty camera and then load the camera into ZoneMinder or Shinobi.
 
If a crime has been committed, law enforcement should obtain a warrant to access civilian video footage.
Unless you give them permission to access certain footage by sending it directly to them. Which is what that feature does.
This part actively got me mad. I agree 100% that police should need warrants to seize content. But the idea that the police should require a warrant to be presented evidence by the victim or bystanders is pants on head retarded.

Like other companies, including Wyze and Eufy, the company tends to only address security loopholes when they are discovered by outside parties.
This sort of thinking always bothers me too - Its just survivorship bias, you have no idea how many flaws and issues were found and solved before anything ever went live. At the end of the day, shits made by humans and humans make mistakes.

Still, any camera service is fucking stupid. If you want home video security, why the ever loving fuck would you trust it to some random company who's all for fucking you over when its convenient to them or their PR campaigns. You'll pay slightly more to set up your own service and easily make that back in saved subscription fees over the life of the system. You don't even need to be that autistic these days, the existing autists have created piles of guides, documents and tools. If you can follow instructions and ignore bio pronouns on software forums, your set.
 
Honestly, it seems crazy to me that people rely on these third party cloud storage companies. Even more so when you consider the neighbor option, this is absolutely nuts.

You know who is most likely to kill you? It's not a random burglar. They mostly just want to be in and out. They don't actually want anything to do with you, and they don't give a fuck about your ring camera.

The people the most likely to kill you, or use this for nefarious purposes are the people closest to you. The people you entrusted with a second by second account of your activities around your house, at any given time. This is not safer.

I strongly advised relatives not to go with the offer they got from security company to install cameras inside their own home few years back. Showed them how many just don't give a fuck, and how easily they have been hacked, but they did not care.

I am not against cameras themselves, I just think that this should be a closed circuit you have direct control over.
 
She lives in Portland, Oregon.
Every. Fucking. Time.
I know a couple of guys who use ZOSI. Cameras can be normal wired or ethernet, to a box you own and control. If you want to be able to access it via internet/phone you can, if you don't, you can do that too.
I've had good experiences with ZOSI stuff, and the best part is that it doesn't rely on the cloud. You can get a decent 1080p CCTV and NVR setup for not a lot of money, and you don't have to connect it to the internet if you won't want to.

The worst part is that - in my experience at least - ZOSI's app is dogshit. I could never get it to work. But it's completely optional and only needed if you want to access your NVR over the internet.

Hikvision stuff is supposed to be better, particularly with image quality and their app actually works. But the rumours of Hikvision putting CCP spyware in their gear puts me off (although this is a moot point if the CCTV/NVR setup is local only).

As for Ring cameras... I wouldn't touch them for the same reason I wouldn't touch any cloud-dependent tech. I like my privacy too much, and I don't like the idea of a faceless corporation bricking any device that I paid for just because they feel like it.
 
Last edited:
casinohackedfishtank.jpg

IOT and cloud is and always will be faggotry.
 
No mention of the guy who got his entire setup disabled because of an false allegation that his doorbell said something rayciss? Garbage article. Then again, it's already simping for criminals and niggers, so it wouldn't be prudent to criticise Amazon for disabling a customer's devices for alleged wrongthink.
good to see the left are literal rape enablers now
Always have been. At least for several years now. If it's not simping for niggers, it's simping for men in dresses wanting to break through the "cotton ceiling" ie the literal fabric of a lesbian's panties who isn't attracted to men and doesn't want to fuck trannies.
 
Without even bothering to read it, I know the gist of this article is "Niggers commit crime and Ring videos don't suit our narrative."
 
Ring cameras are racist because they capture reality without racial quotas like police - more at 11.
 
I made sure to put ring cameras directly above our bed and in all our toilets....for safety. I also taped three Alexa Echos to my face in order to make sure I get the full convenience experience. Sure beats living in a shack, doesn't it Dr K?
 
Ring cameras are racist because they capture reality without racial quotas like police - more at 11.
 
So Ring is bad because the users have the possibility to witness crime through it and report it to the police, which is a danger to niggers.
Interesting approach. I wouldn't use a Ring because I don't like cloud stuff, but keeping niggers out of legal trouble isn't a good argument.
 
Adrienne So is a senior associate reviews editor for WIRED, where she reviews consumer technology. She graduated from the University of Virginia with bachelor’s degrees in English and Spanish,
The only job she is qualified for is walking dogs, but would you trust your dog to her?
 
The company has been clear it's what customers want, even though there’s no evidence that more video surveillance footage keeps communities safer.
What the fuck does evidence or safety have to do with anything?

This is a product. The business asked its customers what features they want and are willing to pay for, and the customers told them. Then the business implemented those features. That's how trade works.

quaawaa said:
That ties into my last point: We also have problems with Ring's hardware. The security cameras have a low frame rate, are slow loading, and have bulky designs; the Ring Car Cam doesn’t prevent break-ins when the car is off. Like other companies, including Wyze and Eufy, the company tends to only address security loopholes when they are discovered by outside parties. If you’re buying a video camera, you need to consider where it’s placed, because no camera is 100 percent safe.

Why is this your last point? You get all uppity and declare that people should have to walk over nails to report suspected crimes to the police because police have to walk over nails to get evidence normally, and then you finally get to the actual technical features and problems with the device itself? Why is the morality of owning the product more important in a review than whether the product actually works or not?
 
If a crime has been committed, law enforcement should obtain a warrant to access civilian video footage.
If this is the average nigger's understanding of warrants, no wonder they're always getting shot for having one at traffic stops.
When I first tested a Ring camera, Neighbors showed me a weekly crime report of two dozen “police incidents” that had occurred on my street,, which spiked my heart rate and convinced me that we live among criminals in a degenerate society. A recent peek showed me that my Neighbors feed is now 50 percent missing cats and only 50 percent terrified people posting about gunshots or thieves. It's an improvement.
For the life of me, I will never understand the journalist-liberal response of "if you don't keep track, the problem disappears". It's the same reason they haven't done a racial IQ study since the 80s. It's basically Schrodinger's Crime Stats.
 
Instead, Neighbors increases the possibility of racial profiling. It makes it easier for both private citizens and law enforcement agencies to target certain groups for suspicion of crime based on skin color, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin.
They're fine with other means of abrasive technology and lack of privacy, now for security cameras is a no-no because of "racism."
 
Back
Top Bottom