Amazon's Ring Will Stop Giving Police Your Doorbell Footage Without a Warrant
While not perfect, the move is a step in the right direction for civil liberties.

In a victory for privacy rights, the country's leading video doorbell company announced this week that it would no longer give law enforcement agencies direct access to customers' footage.
Ring, which is owned by Amazon, offers a companion app called Neighbors, which lets users upload and share footage captured by their Ring video doorbells and surveillance cameras. The company touts that Neighbors improves safety and fosters a sense of community.
Ring debuted the Request for Assistance tool in 2021, a Neighbors feature through which law enforcement agencies could "request information or video" from users. Ring noted at the time that "you always have total control over your experience. Request for Assistance posts are opt-in, nothing is shared with any agency unless you actively go through the steps of choosing to do so." Requests would also be publicly accessible.
Eric Kuhn, who runs Neighbors, wrote on the site's blog this week that Ring would be "sunsetting the Request for Assistance (RFA) tool." Kuhn noted that "public safety agencies like fire and police departments can still use the Neighbors app to share helpful safety tips, updates, and community events," but "they will no longer be able to use the RFA tool to request and receive video in the app."
Kuhn didn't specify why Ring was choosing to shutter the RFA tool, but it was a potential civil liberties nightmare. As Reason noted in July 2022, police departments could access users' Ring footage without a warrant. While Ring insisted that users had control over who had access to their footage, the Law Enforcement Request page on Amazon's website included a bright red "Submit Emergency Request" button, and Amazon's Law Enforcement Guidelines noted that the company "reserves the right to respond immediately to urgent law enforcement requests for information in cases involving a threat to public safety or risk of harm to any person."
In response to a letter from Sen. Ed Markey (D–Mass.), Amazon admitted in July 2022 that "so far this year, Ring has provided videos to law enforcement in response to an emergency request only 11 times." While Amazon was apparently proud of its restraint, that it had only granted 11 requests in six months, Jason Kelley and Matthew Guariglia of the Electronic Frontier Foundation noted that "there is no process for a judge or the device owner to determine whether there actually was an emergency. This could easily lead to police abuse: there will always be temptation for police to use it for increasingly less urgent situations."
This was especially concerning given how closely the company aligned itself with law enforcement: In major cities like Akron, Ohio, and El Monte, California, Ring donated doorbell cameras for police departments to give out for free. Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, started a cloud-based doorbell camera registry in which citizens could make their recordings easily available to police.
Notably, the RFA program being discontinued is separate from Amazon's Law Enforcement Request tool; as Ring's parent company, Amazon may still be able to exert authority over Ring's disclosure decisions. But it still signals a step in the right direction that police departments will increasingly need to rely on warrants if they want access to your private footage.
Cmdr. Joe Garrett with Illinois's Merrionette Park Police Department told CBS 2 that he was "a little disappointed" with the change, but added, "We'll learn to adjust to it. If we have to get search warrants, we'll have to learn to be a little quicker about it."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I think we should make a distinction between the "potential" for abuse by law enforcement and the actual abuse by law enforcement! It would have been nice to know whether those eleven emergencies had been abuses or not.
I don't understand. Users opted in to public sharing of video?
And police could access this video? As could the entire neighborhood?
And only did it 11 times?
What's the issue?
Users opted in, but the cameras don't merely show what's happening on the users' property. They also show what's going on on the street and in their neighbor's yards. Those others whose activities might be captured on their neighbors' Ring cameras did not "opt in" to being surveilled in this way.
Bruh, that is one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read on the Reason site (and that's saying something). In the US people have no expectation of privacy in what happens in a public place like street or sidewalk, or what they make available to the public to view like an unfenced lawn or an open window. If the cops come to me and ask to set up surveillance through one of my windows on my neighbor across the street, there is nothing wrong with that from a constitutional or moral sense. Same if I give them access to my Ring camera. If my local cops ever asked me for my Ring footage, I'd give it without hesitation (not that it would help them much as I live in a forest and all they would see is wildlife and my dogs).
If the cops come to me and ask to set up surveillance through one of my windows on my neighbor across the street, there is nothing wrong with that from a constitutional or moral sense.
If they don't have a warrant, that's a problem.
...it would no longer give law enforcement agencies direct access to customers' footage.
Uh-huh.
Local law enforcement, maybe, but the NSA sees all.
Well, if they ask Amazon first, that is actually indirect access, right?
"stop giving police your doorbell footage"? Why did it start?
I've been an officer for a small social club for years. We have video and audio surveillance in the Club and video outside. It has come in handy over the years. A few months ago we had the LCB try to send in an underage person to buy alcohol. Our bartender didn't serve him and demanded that he leave because he wasn't a member. About an hour later LCB comes in and puts the bartender in handcuffs. We pulled up the video of their "plant" lying to them about being served. Several times the local Police have offered to monitor our video if we gave them the IP Address. We've turned them down. We go as far as to change the IP Address every so often. Why in the hell would you want to give the Police the ability to monitor when YOU come and go at your house or WHO comes to your house?
Too many people believe, "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide."
Man that “plant” must have gotten in big trouble over that….
At first I was going to ask why police were using minors in their operations. Then I remember that I live in a country where adults between 18 and 21 aren't allowed to drink, gamble, or use cannabis.
Gosh, they'll just have to find one of the many judges that rubber stamp warrants.
Soon those judges will be replaced by AI.
https://twitter.com/TheWorthyHouse/status/1750614241264988649?t=y7NAMXYoCALx3kFnMlLtHg&s=19
You can tell that the Texas affair is crushingly bad for the Regime because a search for “Texas” on the NYT’s front page returns–nothing.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Good. This always bothered me.
Bank of America will still happily monitor and share account holder data with the Feds without warrants. Unless that client is named Biden, of course.
Twitter had to pay a fine for merely delaying giving Trump engagement information to Jack Smith. Let's see how this plays out.
As a private company, they're free to give away all your ring camera footage that you agreed to handing over to Amazon when you clicked "accept" on the terms of service.
If the police have to ask the footage owner, and the footage owner consents - what's the issue?
Sounds to me all they needed to do was phase out the bypass option, that Submit Emergency Request thing.
As I posted above, the videos do not show only the owners’ property. People on the street and in neighboring yards and houses did not consent to this surveillance.
And? I don't think there is a strict right to privacy on someone else's property or in public places.
But if the police point a surveillance camera at your front window, they're supposed to have a warrant. The government is not supposed to be allowed to contract out rights violations to private operators.
I can’t find any actual articles or law to back your assertion. Can you point me to some?
I like that the ACLU has kind of dueling articles on the subject of filming from public places: https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/if-stopped-photographing-public https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/warrantless-pole-camera-surveillance-by-police-is-dangerous-the-supreme-court-can-stop-it
So, you're with the Chicom's on this subject then?
(Reference:
https://twitter.com/PicturesFoIder/status/1749216871000264998
)If a dad is recording his kid's little league game at the local park, and it just happens to capture a guy in a van abducting a kid in the background - that shouldn't be available to help locate the kid?
That's not "contracting out rights violations." That's citizens with evidence of criminals who are also in the streets and neighboring areas, that they fortuitously caught by chance and happenstance.
Apples and oranges. If a man, without proof, suspects a neighbor is molesting kids, and follows him around with a movie camera recording his actions, but captures no crimes, is it OK with you for him to turn over that video to the cops or other government officials, who might have nefarious motives for surveilling that person? It shouldn't be. That's what warrants are for—to prohibit such spying in the absence of justifiable suspicion.
It's apples and apples. You're advocating for the privacy rights of people in the background of recorded imagery NOT to be recorded against their consent, correct?
And if you DO capture something, you shouldn't be able to turn it over to the police unless the police request it of you and only with a warrant.
Bet you hated Jimmy Stewart in "Rear Window," didn't you.
"If we have to get search warrants" ... As-if that wasn't in the very Supreme Law of the land. The more dismissive of the people's law over their government the government ignores the more rogue it becomes.
i guess it is indirect access if they ask Amazon first