Ring Drops Controversial Partner After Super Bowl Ad Backlash
The move is a rare win for privacy, both for users and their neighbors.
Ring, the Amazon-owned company that makes video doorbells and other home security devices, aired its first Super Bowl ad this year. As Reason reported, the commercial's intent was to advertise a new feature, but it caused a backlash given the company's track record of privacy violations.
Within days, Ring announced it would terminate its partnership with Flock Safety, which makes products like automated license plate readers that are used by law enforcement. The move is a rare win for data privacy.
The commercial advertised Search Party, a feature that allows users to upload a picture of a lost dog, which Ring cameras will then monitor for using AI. While the sales pitch is perfectly wholesome and heartwarming, there are serious privacy implications.
"In the ad, disguised as a heartfelt effort to reunite the lost dogs of the country with their innocent owners, the company previewed future surveillance of our streets: a world where biometric identification could be unleashed from consumer devices to identify, track, and locate anything—human, pet, and otherwise," writes Beryl Lipton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "People need to reject this kind of disingenuous framing and recognize the potential end result: a scary overreach of the surveillance state designed to catch us all in its net."
Part of the controversy stemmed from Ring's history of partnering with law enforcement and security companies. For years, Ring supplied police departments with free or discounted Ring video doorbells to give away. Some agreements required police to conduct "outreach efforts…to encourage adoption" of Ring products and software.
Police in these communities could then easily request footage from Ring users, who could approve or deny the request. But Ring also regularly furnished police with footage in response to "emergency" requests through its website—bypassing not only the user but the need for a warrant. The company ended this feature in 2024, but less than two years later, it partnered with Flock Safety, which CNBC noted at the time "works with an estimated 6,000 communities and 5,000 law enforcement agencies." The partnership would allow Ring users in those communities to more easily share footage requested by their local police department.
Like Ring, Flock has a poor history of privacy. Police in California repeatedly shared data from Flock license plate readers with federal agents, in violation of state privacy law.
In response to accusations that the company would share footage with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), both Ring and Flock denied working with any federal agencies and said they only work with local police. But local police departments throughout the country have routinely searched Flock's database on ICE's behalf.
This week, amid backlash, Ring terminated its partnership with Flock.
"Following a comprehensive review, we determined the planned Flock Safety integration would require significantly more time and resources than anticipated," Ring announced Thursday. "As a result, we have made the joint decision to cancel the planned integration. The integration never launched, so no Ring customer videos were ever sent to Flock Safety."
Of course, Ring's explanation is almost certainly an excuse made in an attempt to save face. After all, note the announcement's timing, just four days after the company aired an ad that over 120 million people saw and that many voiced their concerns about. But regardless of the motivation, Ring users and their neighbors can breathe a sigh of relief, as it may have just gotten a little more difficult for police to access their data without a warrant.
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
Faintly, in the far distance, I hear the howling of thousands of lost dogs, slowly starving to death.
This cracked me up. Well done.
I'm glad this was stopped. Should've been. It is amusing how BAD A.I ads backfired in the SB. They could not have made the public trust A.I less if they tried.
But, we should be realistic: Ring cameras already end your privacy quick. I have zero reason to believe Ring does not have instant access to any of them at any time.
I felt a great disturbance in the force as if millions of butts suddenly clenched in horror...
So now they will only sell access to law enforcement. Not the win it sounds like.
Libertarians against consumer choice.
I am not aware of anyone installing a ring at the point of a gun.
Bad example, Long. This was a private company responding to customers' preferences over the service they purchased from the company. No government agency was involved in the decision by Ring to backtrack here. The problem of enforcing contractual obligations by companies made with their customers concerning demands by law enforcement with or without a warrant for private recordings, however, remains.
"Continued use of the service implies that you agree to whatever random changes we make whenever we randomly decide to change them." - paraphrase of every single service agreement you click yes to.
Truth!
And as shown in the Nancy Guthrie case where the service had either lapsed or was cancelled (the family claims there was no subscription) they will still record as they please raising the questions of who owns the footage, is there any contractual obligation to maintain the T&Cs without a subscription, and do cops need a warrant for that footage?
They still seem to follow the 3rd party doctrine. If a company will sell it to them without a warrant - they won't bother getting one.
But regardless of the motivation, Ring users and their neighbors can breathe a sigh of relief, as it may have just gotten a little more difficult for police to access their data without a warrant.
Yeah, no. Your cloud-based camera company, whether they're AI matching lost dogs or not is, can and will be subject to privacy breaches. Getting a pinkie promise that your data won't be turned over to a government agency, whether its at the behest of an administration ran by an amiable old man with dementia who's just "jawboning" or literally Hitler disappearing innocent Scottish family men with pending marriage paperwork off the street, I can tell you, once your data is in the cloud and controlled by a third party, your privacy relies on a dead man's switch... the second he falls asleep, your shit has been leaked.
So in the above case, due to public outcry the man with the switch was 'nudged' by the public keeping him awake for another week or so. But trust me, he'll be nodding off soon enough.
In an oddly related story:
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mercy_2026
Sounds more like a documentary than fiction.