Ring Ring, This Camera Isn’t What You Think It Is!
A Look Into What Ring Camera Really Does, and Why It’s Harmful
In an era marked by technological advancements and the proliferation of smart home devices, Ring cameras have transformed the landscape of home security. Offering convenience, connectivity, and peace of mind, Ring cameras have gained widespread popularity among consumers seeking to enhance their surveillance capabilities and protect their homes. However, behind the sleek design and innovative features lie complex ethical considerations that warrant careful examination.
I argue that Ring cameras are unethical due to the company’s inadequate protection of data security and controversial practices of sharing user footage with law enforcement agencies.
How did Ring come to be?
Ring, originally called Doorbot, was first conceived in inventor Jamie Siminoff’s garage in Santa Monica in 2011 after continually missing deliveries due to being out of earshot of the doorbell. Fed up with the fact that there was no way to notify him of the deliveries, he scoured the internet to find a product he could order as a solution. He wanted to find a doorbell that would connect to his smartphone.
With no luck, he decided to invent his own. Siminoff wanted to add a camera feature to a traditional doorbell that would detect motion and alert homeowners that a package was being delivered. He quickly realized that his invention would do much more than just help with deliveries. His wife called his first prototype a “caller ID for the front door” because it would allow her to see who was at the door before opening it. At this point, Siminoff realized he was entering the home security system market.
In 2013, two years after Siminoff invented Doorbot, he took the product on Shark Tank, and even with no investment, the publicity was enough to skyrocket the product into success, driving more than 1 million dollars in sales in the month following the airing. In 2018, Amazon acquired Ring for 1 billion dollars.
With a powerhouse like Amazon backing Ring, the company produced more iterations of the product, and millions of people got their hands on a version of the camera.
People seem to love it!
Before diving into the ethical criticisms of the product, it is important to understand the benefits of the product and why the company has been so successful. The product provides a sense of safety and security to many of its users. Because of the ability to monitor your home while you are away with Ring camera, users feel more comfortable leaving their homes for more extended periods. According to Deloitte, when surveyed 68% of US households say that some form of smart home product makes them feel safer when they are home and away.
Because of the compatibility with other smart home products, users can control their home environments from afar, through features such as controlling the timing of their lights with other Amazon products.
The combination of this control with the ability to see and speak through a Ring camera creates a feeling of security for users.
During the pandemic, users reported that Ring cameras allowed for connection where physical interaction was lacking.
As a result, Ring cameras improve accessibility for those who struggle to monitor their home. For people with disabilities, Ring camera allows users to monitor visitors and deliveries to their homes without physically going to the door. They can use the speaking tool to communicate with whoever is at the door. One user in a wheelchair has a flight of stairs in between where they work at home and the front door. They stated, “some of us need more time to get from point A to point B. A smart doorbell can give you a little more time.” Therefore, the product is inclusive and even improves the lives of those with physical disabilities.
So where’s the disconnect?
However, there is a clear knowledge gap in consumers. When surveyed, “93% of Americans say they wouldn’t buy a doorbell camera if it collected and sold data about their family.” This is a problem because 87% of Americans are unaware that smart doorbells like Ring do this. Therefore, there is a large gap in knowledge among consumers that allows users to enjoy their added surveillance without considering the consequences.
Additionally, while users may feel safer with a Ring camera installed, it might not be as effective as they would hope.
Police departments have said that the Ring camera does not do much to fight crime.
Liz O’Sullivan, the technology director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, said “there’s a deafening lack of evidence that any city has been made safer,” showing that the actual impact of Ring is different from the perceived impact.
Hackers, go away! (it’s not that hard to get in)
Ring cameras are unethical because they pose significant vulnerability to hackers, from within the company and from outside parties as well. This jeopardizes individuals’ data and privacy due to their susceptibility to unauthorized access and potential exploitation of sensitive information.
Ring cameras store footage in the cloud, where it is vulnerable to hacking and unauthorized access.
Several high-profile incidents have highlighted the security risks associated with Ring cameras, including reports of hackers gaining access to devices and using them to spy on unsuspecting users. Such breaches not only compromise individuals’ privacy but also expose them to potential harm, such as identity theft, stalking, or blackmail.
The collection and storage of vast amounts of personal data by Ring cameras raise concerns about data protection and the potential for misuse or exploitation by the company or third parties.
The Federal Trade Commission says:
“Ring’s poor privacy and lax security let employees spy on customers through their cameras, including those in their bedrooms or bathrooms, and made customers’ videos, including videos of kids, vulnerable to online attackers,”
which were then additionally exploited by hackers (Puig). Not only can Ring employees access this private footage, but external hackers can also enter a user’s Ring camera system, leading to endless dangerous possibilities. For example, these hackers
“can spy on you and your family, inspect who and when enters and leaves your house, or speak to your children through the Ring’s devices as well as can even forge footage of people you know, showing them standing in front of your door, to trick you into letting a stranger into your house” (Grigutytė).
As a result of repeated instances of privacy breaches, Ring “agreed to establish a privacy and security program and delete the videos it shouldn’t have — in addition to paying $5.8 million to affected customers.” While this demonstrates some effort towards improved safety, it is evident that Ring has already done irreparable damage to the families and individuals who have been affected by breaches of their privacy.
Law enforcement and Ring collaboration… not a fan favorite
Ring’s ethical standing becomes especially complicated when footage captured is shared with law enforcement without specific approval or consent from those in the footage and those who captured the footage.
While the intention behind this collaboration is often framed as enhancing public safety and aiding in criminal investigations, the partnership between Ring and law enforcement raises significant questions about privacy. By sharing footage captured by Ring cameras, individuals feel a sense of invasion of privacy.
Users may be unaware that their footage can be shared, as it is written in the fine print of Ring’s terms and conditions, but not advertised or publicly talked about.
This demonstrates a lack of transparency in Ring and leads to frustration in users.
It is up to the discretion of the police and Ring employees to decide when footage may be released without clear communication with users, which is ethically sticky. Because there are no standards in place for when footage is shared, each situation is up to the discretion of Ring employees and the given police department, which allows for inconsistent decision-making.
To sum it all up:
While Ring Cameras may provide a feeling of security for homeowners, there is not enough evidence to prove that these cameras make communities safer. Los Angeles was used as an experiment to test the impact of Ring, and an MIT study found “the cameras may have little to no impact on crime in Los Angeles, a city with a relatively high concentration of the devices.”
With the abundance of hacking instances by Ring employees and outside parties Ring, users are highly susceptible to breaches of their personal data and video footage. Ring has proven unable to protect its users from these threats.
Ring’s close relationship with law enforcement and their decisions to share users’ footage without informing them adds to a sense of invasion of personal information and privacy.
While Ring was originally founded with the mission statement “to reduce crime in communities,” they have not been able to prove that their product achieves this mission. Instead, the Ring has opened the door for customers to get their private data stolen and shared without their permission. Therefore, this product is unethical and cannot serve the mission it set out to achieve.
