"This is definitely not about dogs," senator says, urging a pause on Ring face scans:
Amazon and Flock Safety have ended a partnership that would've given law enforcement access to a vast web of Ring cameras.
The decision came after Amazon faced substantial backlash for airing a Super Bowl ad that was meant to be warm and fuzzy, but instead came across as disturbing and dystopian.
The ad begins with a young girl surprised to receive a puppy as a gift. It then warns that 10 million dogs go missing annually. Showing a series of lost dog posters, the ad introduces a new "Search Party" feature for Ring cameras that promises to revolutionize how neighbors come together to locate missing pets.
At that point, the ad takes a "creepy" turn, Sen. Ed Markey (D.-Mass.) told Amazon CEO Andy Jassy in a letter urging changes to enhance privacy at the company.
Illustrating how a single Ring post could use AI to instantly activate searchlights across an entire neighborhood, the ad shocked critics like Markey, who warned that the same technology could easily be used to "surveil and identify humans."
Markey suggested that in blasting out this one frame of the ad to Super Bowl viewers, Amazon "inadvertently revealed the serious privacy and civil liberties risks attendant to these types of Artificial Intelligence-enabled image recognition technologies."
In his letter, Markey also shared new insights from his prior correspondence with Amazon that he said exposed a wide range of privacy concerns. Ring cameras can "collect biometric information on anyone in their video range," he said, "without the individual's consent and often without their knowledge." Among privacy risks, Markey warned that Ring owners can retain swaths of biometric data, including face scans, indefinitely. And anyone wanting face scans removed from Ring cameras has no easy solution and is forced to go door to door to request deletions, Markey said.
On social media, other critics decried Amazon's ad as "awfully dystopian," declaring it was "disgusting to use dogs to normalize taking away our freedom to walk around in public spaces." Some feared the technology would be more likely to benefit police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers than families looking for lost dogs.
Amazon's partnership with Flock, announced last October as coming soon, only inflamed those fears. So did the company's recent rollout of a feature using facial recognition technology called "Familiar Faces"—which Markey considers so invasive, he has demanded that the feature be paused.
"What this ad doesn't show: Ring also rolled out facial recognition for humans," Markey posted on X. "I wrote to them months ago about this. Their answer? They won't ask for your consent. This definitely isn't about dogs—it's about mass surveillance."
[...] But while Ring may have hurt its brand, WebProNews, which reports on business strategy in the tech industry, suggested that "the fallout may prove more consequential for Flock Safety than for Ring." For Flock, the Ring partnership represented a meaningful expansion of their business and "data collection capabilities," WebProNews reported. And because this all happened around one of the most-watched TV events of the year, other tech companies may be more hesitant to partner with Flock after Amazon dropped the integration and privacy advocates witnessed the seeming power of their collective outrage.
[...] Ring's statements so far do not "acknowledge the real issue," Scott-Railton said, which is privacy risks. For Ring, it seemed like a missed opportunity to discuss or introduce privacy features to reassure concerned users, he suggested, noting the backlash showed "Americans want more control of their privacy right now" and "are savvy enough to see through sappy dog pics."
"Stop trying to build a surveillance dystopia consumers didn't ask for" and "focus on shipping good, private products," Scott-Railton said.
He also suggested that lawmakers should take note of the grassroots support that could possibly help pass laws to push back on mass surveillance. That could help block not just a potential future partnership with Flock, but possibly also stop Ring from becoming the next Flock.
« What in the World Is Going on in Our Public Schools? | Streaming Service Crunchyroll Raises Prices Weeks After Killing its Free Tier »
Related Stories
https://buttondown.com/creativegood/archive/its-time-to-get-rid-of-networked-cameras/
Amazon did us all a service recently by airing a Super Bowl commercial showing how Ring doorbell cameras spy on everyone walking past. (I discussed this on Techtonic this week with Chris Gilliard, aka hypervisible: episode page / podcast. Recommended listening.)
In the instant that that image aired, millions of Americans finally understood what I – and other tech critics – have been trying to warn about for years: networked cameras are spying on you. The blue circles show the reach of Ring cameras, and – crucially – indicate that they're all part of one network, controlled by Amazon, which can share or sell data to any number of third parties.
Previously: Ring Cancels Flock Deal After Dystopian Super Bowl Ad Prompts Mass Outrage
Privacy is prerequisite for free thought, dissent, experimentation, and innovation, which are in turn prerequisites for democracy. At NBTV, Naomi Brockwell has posted four reasons why limits on privacy are absolutely not a price worth paying for mainstream adoption.
Today I participated in a Privacy Salon in Denver where we debated a proposition that cuts to the core of the modern privacy movement:
"Limits on privacy are a price worth paying for mainstream adoption of cryptographic privacy."
I was on the "no" side alongside Matt Green, with Evin McMullen and Wei Dai arguing "yes."
It was a lively, thoughtful exchange that forced us to confront a deeper question: is weakening privacy simply the cost of scale?
Below is my opening statement from the debate.
The false argument about having nothing to hide does not hold water. As Ed Snowden observed years ago, "arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say."
Previously:
(2026) Ring Cancels Flock Deal After Dystopian Super Bowl Ad Prompts Mass Outrage
(2026) Discord Will Require a Face Scan or ID for Full Access Next Month
(2026) "ICE Out of Our Faces Act" Would Ban ICE and CBP Use of Facial Recognition
(2025) Big Tech Wants Direct Access to Our Brains
(2025) Discord Customer Service Data Breached; Government-ID Images, and User Details Stolen
(2025) A Surveillance Vendor Was Caught Exploiting a New SS7 Attack to Track People's Phone Locations
... and many more
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Barenflimski on Thursday February 19, @06:16PM (6 children)
Does anyone actually believe that Amazon won't make this data available if someone will pay for it?
While it may not go out under the "Ring" name, there is no doubt in my mind that this data will be available for purchase to any entity that will pay the price. Likely under some new stack of companies registered in Delaware.
The US Government will be first in line.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by corey on Thursday February 19, @08:07PM (4 children)
I hadn’t heard about this issue until now. Here in the southern hemisphere, I heard the Super Bowl was on and Bad Bunny played there in Spanish.
But man what a self goal this is. Heads will roll in the advertising department.
I predict that Flock are pretty badly damaged and will probably rename, rebrand like Lucky Goldstar did to become LG (and trick people into thinking that meant Life’s Good). Then they’ll continue on as before. But there’ll also be competitors in this space waiting for the same contract. No doubt Amazon will outsource this, it’s defensible then (“we didn’t know what they were doing behind the scenes”).
It’s funny because the whole Flock thing has been swirling around on the net, in a negative way. People know it’s dystopian already, Amazon just managed to let a few more people know in the most hilarious way.
(Score: 3, Touché) by owl on Thursday February 19, @08:42PM
You missed another big 'rebrand'. Comcast (the vile hated cable company) rebranding themselves as Xfinity.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Thursday February 19, @08:43PM (2 children)
So, that's what happened to Goldstar. I had an LG phone, well 5 of them, they kept dying and I kept getting them replaced under the service contract. I don't think I had a single one that lasted 3 months. So, perhaps it's time for a rebrand.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Thursday February 19, @11:55PM
No lucky.
No goldstar.
Only LG.
(Score: 2) by corey on Friday February 20, @11:01PM
Yeah. I used to have mediocre opinions of their products but they have gotten a lot better since the 90s. They are innovators and leaders in multiple markets but especially LCD tech, most monitors use their panels. I think the other big player is Toshiba, but my memory might be wrong. Also Samsung.
> LG Corporation (or LG Group), formerly known as Lucky-Goldstar, is a South Korean multinational conglomerate founded by Koo In-hwoi in 1947 and managed by successive generations of his family. It is the fourth-largest company in South Korea. Its headquarters are in the LG Twin Towers building in Yeouido-dong, Yeongdeungpo District, Seoul. LG makes electronics, chemicals, household appliances, and…+
(Score: 5, Interesting) by owl on Thursday February 19, @08:44PM
Of course they will... No question about that.
But, they (Amazon) have already been conditioning folks to install an Amazon spy device in their home (Alexa) so a whole herd of sheep are already ripe for shearing already.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday February 19, @06:43PM
New dog needs a little space and wants to check out the neighborhood, and Ring wants to start a doghunt? Markey trying to shut Ring down shows that he's clearly in the pocket of big dog.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday February 19, @08:44PM (11 children)
Shouldav gone with the classical think of the children.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aafcac on Thursday February 19, @08:45PM (1 child)
Maybe, but do they have numbers for that which would have been any better? I wouldn't be surprised if the reason for choosing the dogs is that they had found 0 children. The number for dogs was already about as low as possible.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday February 19, @09:39PM
Number, shnumbers... it will happen anyway, because the oligarchy need to optimize the processes of fleecing and milking their stock.
In other words, that wasn't an ad, that was a public service announcement.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday February 19, @09:25PM (8 children)
Shouldav gone
Should of went. Get with it, granddad!
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 19, @09:43PM (7 children)
Huh? Couldn't hear it, son. You said "Should of wind" instead of "Should have gone"?
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by turgid on Thursday February 19, @10:05PM (6 children)
Wind? Pull my finger.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday February 19, @10:55PM (5 children)
I really don't get what you were objecting in the first place.
I mean, has the use of past perfect subjunctive mood been deprecated in English? Like when one expresses regret for an alternative not being chosen at the time?
Or is the case that "shouldav" is not the usually understood as a short form for "should have"?
English-as-a-second-language minds want to know.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by turgid on Friday February 20, @09:01AM (4 children)
I'm not Stephen Fry, but here goes.
In the UK, in the last however many decades, vernacular diaglogue has developed some new idioms. The root cause is that people don't read anymore. Mrs Turgid should know, she's a qualified secondary school English Teacher with over two decades experience at the coal face.
It goes like this. "Should have" contracts to "should've" but since people don't read they don't know that. When they come to write it, and even to repeat it in speech, they say "should of." It has almost become pervasive.
The latest change this decade is the use of "went" instead of "gone." It's particularly Scottish, from the Central Belt. Instead of saying "I have gone" they say "I have went." It has spread to England in recent years. You now hear people saying "You should of went" instead of "You should have gone."
To be completely down with the kids, as they say, "Should of went to school, innit?"
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Friday February 20, @09:27AM
Thanks for that, grateful
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by janrinok on Friday February 20, @09:37AM
Well done!
[nostyle RIP 06 May 2025]
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Friday February 20, @05:12PM
This is the bit of vernacular I like.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 20, @09:11PM
Your diaglogue has not gone unnoticed. Good one.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Subsentient on Friday February 20, @03:28AM (1 child)
Amazon slightly reduces the speed at which the pot increases in temperature so the frog doesn't notice as easily.
This is still happening. You might have slightly delayed its rollout, but it's still going to happen and there's nothing any of us can do that will actually halt it -- perhaps only delay it for a short time.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday February 20, @07:01PM
I recently learned how to use the Video4Linux2 API (in C without any C++ libraries). If I had the time I would develop a FOSS doorbell camera thing that wasn't on the Cloud or AI or any of that rubbish. The trouble is I don't have any time.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday February 20, @01:44PM (6 children)
I understand that some homes are still social. I have never lived in such a home. My mother was neurotic about trying to give a good impression and found being a hostess such a strain that we rarely entertained. Now I live with a very messy family that is too embarrassed to invite anyone over. Just once in the past 5 years has a neighbor come for a nice reason. All the other times, it was one of the neighborhood karens at the door with a complaint.
Further, communities and apartment complexes that aren't gated have become hard to find in this area. I don't know of an apartment complex anywhere in this area that isn't gated (and fenced, of course-- no point having a gate without a fence!). Gates make everything less sociable. The neighbors think the gates increase the security. They also have cameras at the gates. I wonder how many of them spend their days hiding under their beds.
Another anti-social item everyone in this part of the country has is the privacy fence. One reason for the fences is to keep city code compliance off your back. One time when I complained to them about their zeal (they had declared some sticks I had gathered into a pile "debris" and demanded its removal), I asked if people without fences have fewer rights, and their answer was "yes"! The privacy fence would have prevented them from seeing the stack of sticks that they seemed to feel was so unsightly it couldn't be allowed. Lot of people in these parts are so superficial that way. An actual inoperable vehicle doesn't bother them as long as it looks okay. The engine can be missing, but as long as the hood is present and closed, it's okay. If it has a flat tire, watch out, that's too visible! At least one apartment complex I lived in had a rule against repairing your car in the parking lot. How are you to deal with a flat tire without breaking that rule? Surely swapping the flat with the spare is considered "repair". I ended up ignoring that rule.
"The City ... believes that junked, nuisance, abandoned, and/or legally unusable vehicles in public view are a detriment to the quality of life of residents and inhibit commerce. The presence of these vehicles erodes the integrity of the neighborhoods where they exist and undermines the safety, atmosphere and environment where family life and commerce takes place."
"Inhibit commerce", huh? It sure seems the real purpose of many of these rules is to squeeze residents for more money, drive us to local businesses. Privacy fences are all wood planks, and take some work and money to maintain. Lawn care is another area ripe with silly expectations. The neighbors have gone mad for artificial turf, and I wonder if that's because lawn care has been made so onerous.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 20, @05:15PM
(Score: 4, Interesting) by owl on Saturday February 21, @04:13PM (2 children)
If you press the apt. mgr. for an answer to that, you'll likely get the answer that you are supposed to call for a "fix it company".
Whereupon you learn that the rule "no repairing your car in the parking lot" is actually "you, the owner, may not repair the car, but we are fine if you hire Bubba from down the street to bring his tow truck up and fix your flat for you". I.e., that the only person for whom the rule applies is you the owner of the car.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Sunday February 22, @03:07AM (1 child)
Yes. And a further possibility is that the apartment complex is overreaching their authority. There are many activities they actually don't have any authority to forbid, and they know it but try to trick residents into believing they do have such authority. It's like shrink wrap EULAs that insist you agree not to reverse engineer or in any way compete with the providers, and that you have no right of first sale and cannot resell the product. It's unconscionable.
(Score: 2) by owl on Monday February 23, @04:57AM
This is also very possible. They know they can't legally ban car repairs, but if they put a "no car repairs" in the lease text, most of the sheep will comply and not even try.
Then, for the few that do car repair anyway, knowing the apt. can't legally ban it, well, they find their lease not renewed at the end of the term (or they find the new lease they are being offered includes a 50% rent hike) and so they move out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23, @02:12PM (1 child)
All this empowering of the neighborhood Karen is the main reason I am so anti-tax. It really irritates me to be compelled to fund even more City Functionaries.
Every functionary they hire is another authority figure I must keep satisfied lest it stir up more problems for me. They keep saying the city is broke, yet they always find the money to retain ordinance nitpickers.
It irked me to be compelled to financially support those who have never worked a day in their life to earn a dollar from those who are not compelled to remit.
They have not been compelled to earn. They don't earn, they assess. The fruit of their existence is often compelling someone else into unwanted expenditures.
You don't know how bad I would like to see government types be compelled to fiduciary accountability for the public purse with the same fervency shown as compliance to parking tickets.
In the private sector, we get laid off if we don't do our job. I get the impression the Government Leadership has no idea what others have to do, as their pay is guaranteed by assessments on others, enforced by city attorney, badge, and gun.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday February 24, @12:51AM
No one likes taxes, but I believe being anti-tax is usually too broad a brush. It's the corrupt cozy deals with the special interests that I oppose. Special interests bribe politicians to pass laws and fund projects that benefit them. Traffic enforcement has long been one of the more visibly corrupt areas where government and their special interest collaborators mulct the public. Red light cameras are among the most recent of such schemes, thankfully in decline, now widely recognized as being about the money, with safety just the excuse. Lot of rules aimed at homeowners. The Prison Industrial Complex is a particularly dirty collusion. In America, medicine is another area burdened with a great deal of corrupt price gouging.
America is still very fixated on the almighty automobile. Shopkeepers conspire to make strip malls more difficult to access on foot, believing that pedestrians don't have money to spend at their shops. If you own a car, you have money to spend. If you're on foot, that can only mean you're poor, because no one would choose to go on foot if they could drive! Many also do not much like teens.
The thinking around home ownership is the same. If you own a home, you have money, and these special interests want a piece of it. If you live in an apartment, you're low class, impoverished trash. Home construction techniques seem calculated to drive home prices and energy costs sky high, which is to the benefit of all but the aspirant to the American Dream. For instance, a brick wall would be far better and cheaper if it was made of large slabs of concrete with a brick pattern than built with actual bricks. Also, why is the fireplace not optional? You can't opt out of having a fireplace. You ever wonder that the sheer quantity of commercial buildings seems inexplicably high if they cost the same per square foot as a house? That's because they don't. They're far less costly. But woe unto the home builder that tries to apply commercial building techniques to the residential. The individual who wants to build a custom home, such as one of those passive solar heated homes espoused by the Department of Energy, in order to get those efficiencies that traditional building techniques deny the traditional home buyer, runs smack into a thicket of rules on every aspect of construction that makes such a project nigh impossible. The first thing that has to be done to realize such a plan is get a property in the countryside, outside city limits.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 20, @09:15PM
If you have the money, you can use this tech to stalk whoever. A political opponent, a business rival, beautiful women or men, little boys, little girls, even sports rivals or enemy gang members. Whatever blows your skirt up, if you're into stalking, and you can pay for access, you can stalk whoever and whatever you like.
Nancy Guthrie is in the news right now. Do we have any idea whether Ring or other technology played a role in her abduction? It wouldn't surprise me at all. And, of course, the tech companies will try hard to cover it up, if so.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 1, Troll) by ChrisMaple on Saturday February 21, @08:38AM (2 children)
Ed Markey calling anything creepy is the pot calling the kettle black.
If you're close enough to a door cam to be recognized, then you're either there by invitation, by implicit permission (delivery man, neighbor), by legal authority (police, tax assessor), or you're a trespasser.
(Score: 3, Informative) by owl on Saturday February 21, @04:17PM
Don't be so sure about that. The number of cell phones with cameras not bigger than a ring camera opening, with significant zoom capability means that a ring camera could have a zoom lens, and when it does not detect anyone near the door it zooms out so it gets a better view of passers by on the sidewalk. Then, if someone approaches, it could zoom back to wide angle for when they press the doorbell button.
And with a zoom lens, you could be imaged with sufficient res. to be sent though facial rec. just by walking by.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 23, @01:26AM
Close miss with that one. Random people passing by your home have 'implied consent' to approach your door, and knock on it. Exceptions would be, if you have a locked gate at the end of the drive, with prominent warnings against trespassing. Any random stranger - maybe they want to talk about the color of paint on your house, or they are asking for a drink of water, or they want you to call an ambulance. There is implied consent for people to be at your front door, unless you barricade them from approaching the front door. The back door is something different, especially if the back yard is fenced in.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.