Ring: Security vs. Privacy
By Anonymous | June 18, 2021
A little over 50 years ago, Mari Van Britten Brown invented the first home security system (timeline)– a closed circuit set of cameras and televisions with a panic button to cont act the police. In the years since, as with most household technology, advances have culminated to modern sleek and “cost effective” smart cameras such as the Amazon-owen Ring products. Ring’s mission, displayed on their website, is to “make neighborhoods safer”, proposing that connected communities lead to safer neighborhoods. Ring has also come under some scrutiny for partnering with police forces (WaPo) and, like most ‘smart’ devices and mobile apps, collects quite a bit of information from its users. While the first modern security systems of the 1960s had also relied on collaboration with the police, each individual household had its own closed circuit system, with explicit choice on when, and how much, to share with law enforcement. When Ring sets out to make neighborhoods safer, for whom are they making it safe? What is Ring’s idea of a safe neighborhood?
Ring cameras have surged in popularity over the past few years, likely in some part due to the increase in home package deliveries bringing about an increase in package theft. With convenient alerts and audio/video accessible from a mobile device, the benefits of an affordable, accessible, and stylish security system loom large.
Ring, as a company, collects each user’s name, address, geolocation of each device, and any audio/video content. Closed circuit predecessors resulted in a data environment where each household had exclusive access to its own security footage. Thus, the sum of all surveillance was scattered among the many users and separate local law enforcement groups with whom users shared footage. Under Nissenbaum’s Contextual Integrity framework, trespassers on private property expect to be surveilled, the owners of the security systems have full agency over all transmission principle, or constraints on the flow of information. Owners can choose, at any time, to share any portion of their security data with the police.
Ring, by contrast, owns all of the audio and video content of its millions of users, allowing all of the data to be centralized and accessible. About 10% of police departments in the US have been granted access, by request, to any user’s security footage. Users often purchase Ring products expecting their service to check on packages and see who is at the door, as advertised. Along with this comes with the agreement that users no longer have the authority or autonomy to prevent their data from being shared with law enforcement.
Via Ring’s privacy policy, they can also keep any deleted user data for any amount of time. As is the case with many data focused companies, Ring also reserves the right to change its terms and conditions at any time without any notice. One tenant of responsible privacy policy is to limit the secondary use of any data without express informed consent. As Ring has been aggressively partnering with police and providing LAPD officers with free equipment to market their products, it is not unreasonable that all current and former audio/video footage and other data will be accessible to law enforcement without a need for a warrant.
References
– https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/18/amazon-ring-largest-civilian-surveillance-network-us
– https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/08/28/doorbell-camera-firm-ring-has-partnered-with-police-forces-extending-surveillance-reach/
– https://timeline.com/marie-van-brittan-brown-b63b72c415f0
– https://ring.com/