In one ad for Amazon’s Ring surveillance system, a pair of bumbling crooks is frightened off by the mere sight of the Ring doorbell — as the homeowner smirks while monitoring the scene from the gym on his phone.
Another shows a montage of oddly persistent prepubescent boys ringing the doorbell and running away at various times of day and night, followed by a man hollering, “I KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE!” and the words, “Ding Dong Ditch RIP.”
Ring was invented in 2012 as DoorBot and rebranded as Ring in 2014. Amazon bought the company in 2018 and has marketed it as a home security system that’s both inexpensive — Ring doorbells start at $99, and the service is $100 annually — and touted as easy to use.
Amazon has sold the Ring not just as a deterrent to would-be burglars or to foil Dennis the Menaces, but as a way to record and therefore catch package thieves.
And thanks to partnership agreements between Amazon and more than 400 local law enforcement agencies, sheriffs’ offices and municipal police forces have followed suit. The partnership agreements let police request video from a specific time and area — that is, not just footage from individual victims of crimes, but from anyone who might be able to provide evidence of suspects traveling down a particular street at a particular time.
This summer, Vice reported extensively on Ring’s history and on the agreements the company has made with four law enforcement agencies in the Portland metropolitan area, and The Oregonian drilled down on an agreement between the Beaverton Police Department and Ring.
According to a map published by The Washington Post with data the paper obtained from Ring, the Beaverton Police Department, the Washington County Sheriff’s Department, the Oregon City Police Department and the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office have all signed agreements with Ring.
Two — Beaverton police and the Washington County Sheriff’s Office — confirmed with Street Roots that they are still participating in the Ring partnership. The other two listed had not replied to inquiries by press time.
The partnership allows officers to log into Ring’s app, Neighbors — which has been described as both an “online neighborhood watch” or a version of the neighborhood-based social network Nextdoor, if the latter functioned solely as a way to gather and share information about activity they found suspicious. The latter site itself has been criticized as a hotbed of racism and vicious sentiments about houseless people.
Civil liberties advocates have voiced concern about privacy and profiling issues connected with Ring. They’ve also said Ring and Neighbors are helping normalize a culture that increasingly encourages people to fear and surveil their neighbors rather than talk to them directly.
And some — concerned about the security risks of Ring — are suing. A federal class-action lawsuit filed at the end of December alleges the company failed to properly secure the system against hackers.
Street Roots spoke with Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, which has emerged as one of Ring’s sharpest critics. The organization formed in 2011 and has also fought for net neutrality and against facial recognition software and other intrusive forms of technology — and also runs consumer awareness campaigns to help individuals better secure their own phones and computers.
Christen McCurdy: For someone who hasn’t heard of Ring or maybe who has heard of it but isn’t completely sure what it is, how would you explain it in brief? How was the technology developed?
Evan Greer: Ring, owned by Amazon, produces and sells home surveillance devices. These devices include doorbell cameras, motion sensors, indoor/outdoor cameras and an alarm system. Amazon along with over 700 police partners promote these devices as crime-fighting tools despite their ongoing security breaches and data leaks. Coupled with privacy, civil liberty and racial profiling concerns, Ring devices aren’t safe for people’s homes or their communities.
McCurdy: How does Ring differ from another, older security system — like a store surveillance camera or a webcam I set up on my porch? I mean for both good and bad: What’s more attractive about it, and what are the drawbacks people might not think about?
Greer: Amazon Ring devices are not secure. People should not buy them. Drawbacks that people should be aware of:
Ring devices connect to the internet, which makes people vulnerable to hacking, Amazon accessing data for their own agenda, and sharing private, sensitive footage with the government.
As cloud-connected devices, Ring centralizes storage owned, maintained and controlled by Amazon. (There are) reports of Amazon employees accessing and sharing live.
Amazon Ring’s Neighbor app allows for the proliferation of racial profiling, increasing the targeting and surveillance of brown and black people in the community.
In the absence of clear civil liberties and rights-protective policies to govern the technologies and the use of surveillance footage, once collected, stored footage can be used by law enforcement to conduct facial recognition searches, target protesters exercising their First Amendment rights, or shared with other agencies like ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
In light of recent security breaches, Fight for the Future and other groups issued a product warning to inform the public that Amazon Ring cameras are not safe. RingSafetyWarning.com outline dangers associated with Ring devices and encouraging members of the public NOT to buy Ring camera devices. The following concerns are highlighted on the site:
• Devices are not secure. Recently, someone hacked into a Ring camera to watch and have conversations with young girls in their bedroom. The hacker introduced himself as “Santa, your best friend.”
• Personal information is exposed. The Neighbors app shares the location of Ring devices, while the Ring device itself has leaked users’ Wi-Fi passwords to the public.
• Hacking Ring devices is easier than ever. Reports indicate there is a growing black market for software to hack Ring devices, likely being purchased by stalkers, cybercriminals, and those wishing to do harm to children.
• Video footage can be shared without your permission. Representatives for Ring told U.S. lawmakers that police are free to keep videos forever and share them with whomever they’d like. Local police departments currently share camera footage with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to assist in deportations.
• Amazon’s technology encourages racial profiling. Reports document a disproportionate targeting of brown and black communities on Amazon’s Ring Neighbors App and with Amazon’s Rekognition software.
McCurdy: When and how did Ring get on activists’ radar as a civil rights issue? What’s being done to push back against Ring’s agreements with law enforcement?
Greer: We found out about Ring from media reports. In September, Fight for the Future launched a campaign calling on elected officials to end Amazon-police partnerships. As the popularity of the campaign grew, we and over 30 other organizations penned an open letter calling on elected officials to address the partnerships with investigation and legislation. Recently, we along with 15 other organizations escalated this call to focus on Congress investigating Amazon’s surveillance empire, technology and practices.
McCurdy: Talk about the big picture of digital surveillance beyond Ring. It seems like it’s almost impossible to have a full sense of the extent to which we’re being surveilled in various ways by tech companies. Is there any meaningful way to avoid it — or at least reduce it — and still participate in society?
Greer: Big Tech companies want us to think that a dystopian surveillance state is inevitable. And worse, they’re convincing us that it’s actually a good thing for us, selling it as a form of convenience and sense of safety. But we don’t have to live in a world where we are constantly being monitored by governments and corporations.
BIG TECH: Author Franklin Foer warns against domination of Facebook, Google, Amazon
While surveillance technology is spreading quickly, resistance to it is spreading as well. Dozens of cities across the U.S. have taken steps to limit surveillance technology and corporate data harvesting. There’s growing cross-partisan support for policies to restrict facial recognition surveillance and other forms of invasive biometric spying.
We’re at a turning point as a society. We can’t sit back and let our rights slip away. We have to fight to ensure that technology is a force for liberty, not tyranny.