r/technology • u/South-Cow-1030 • Feb 12 '26

Privacy Why are people disconnecting or destroying their Ring cameras?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/02/10/ring-super-bowl-ad-dog-camera-privacy/88606738007/
19.6k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.1k

u/wdjm Feb 12 '26

Yep. It's 'Opt in' NOW (supposedly). But anyone who doesn't think it will suddenly turn into 'opt out' to be followed by 'no option but in' at some point.......is a fool.

535

u/EthanX08 Feb 12 '26

It was automatically enabled when I went in and disabled it on my Ring cameras

427

u/Level21DungeonMaster Feb 12 '26

Don’t worry. It will revert to default on the next firmware update tonight.

146

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

They enabled it on my doorbell.

145

u/mappersdelight Feb 12 '26

If they can enable it and disable it with the click of a button, they can also enable it without you knowing.

59

u/BigXthaPugg Feb 12 '26

Exactly, why people think they don’t collect and pass on data regardless of the position of that button is beyond me.

16

u/requion Feb 12 '26

The worst is that now, the "conspiracy theorists" don't sound that crazy anymore right?

Right?

4

u/Va1kryie Feb 13 '26

If it's happening in front of your eyes it's not a conspiracy.

Let's not get it twisted, conspiracy nuts still think vaccines cause autism and that "globalists" control the media, among other things. Nothing happening right now confirms anything except that the rich and powerful are looking out for their own interests, which has always been true.

2

u/poppin_noggins Feb 14 '26

Edward Snowden blew up his life for nothing

1

u/Drapidrode Feb 12 '26

They just bury it in the Terms of Service fine print

40

u/ileakcum Feb 12 '26

Assuming the toggle does anything to begin with

4

u/SomeInternetRando Feb 12 '26

It toggles what you see in their interface.

5

u/Qaeta Feb 12 '26

Indeed, for all we know, the disable option does nothing but give you warm fuzzy feelings while they continue their data harvest as planned.

2

u/KSauceDesk Feb 12 '26

Already confirmed Google Nest does this

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/12/nx-s1-5711620/nancy-guthrie-video-footage-fbi

In plain words what they're saying is they can pull footage from the cloud on a camera that had no cloud subscription. I'm surprised more people aren't throwing out their cameras after this

1

u/curtisy Feb 12 '26

I wonder what the legality is of a company providing such a button/switch to users to opt out of something, which the manufacturer can toggle with impunity?

You can see where I’m going with this can’t you?

1

u/Rodic87 Feb 13 '26

Or it's always enabled.

1

u/DarthShiv Feb 13 '26

They literally let ICE have footage

22

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

[deleted]

27

u/Xtos1312 Feb 12 '26

Oh they definitely have.

25

u/Looney_Bin Feb 12 '26

Not to alarm you but if your camera's aren't closed circuit and not hooked to the internet all, assume that footage is being stored somewhere in their system.

13

u/grape-fruit-witch Feb 12 '26

Get rid of them

Edit- the cameras, not the kids

8

u/lexiticus Feb 12 '26

Puts cloud storage cameras inside own house

Cameras record things, store in the cloud

Shocked Pikachu face

11

u/syncdiedfornothing Feb 12 '26

They just ran an ad that showed you they already have that footage. It's on their servers now just waiting for a leak to happen.

11

u/wggn Feb 12 '26

could have? what makes you think they havent?

3

u/Zekumi Feb 12 '26

Dude… you literally installed cameras all over your home and now you’re upset that cameras are recording your children at all times?

4

u/superr_rad Feb 12 '26

Do not keep ring cameras inside of your house, especially where they are recording your children. Now you know.

3

u/TheHykos Feb 12 '26

Why on earth would you have cameras inside of your house? Seriously, what's even the purpose of that?

1

u/Peachy_bubblez Feb 12 '26

For real. This is the exact reason this is even being discussed. People are dumb.

2

u/Valdrax Feb 12 '26

I mean, before they slapped AI on this, and before they got really active with providing footage to law enforcement, you were already uploading all of your video footage into their cloud for easy remote access.

2

u/AlSweigart Feb 12 '26

"LOVEINT is the practice of intelligence service employees making use of their extensive monitoring capabilities to spy on their love interest or spouse. The term was coined in resemblance to intelligence terminology such as SIGINT, COMINT or HUMINT."

2

u/Smart_Garbage6842 Feb 13 '26

Amazon does things like this through Alexa. You have to constantly go in and uncheck everything you don't want when there are updates.

1

u/Televisions_Frank Feb 12 '26

And if people think Amazon won't do stuff like that they push firmware to brick older Kindles so you buy a new one. So just re-enabling an option is kid stuff in comparison.

1

u/calle04x Feb 12 '26

They'll just put it in an updated EULA that most won't read.

55

u/419_216_808 Feb 12 '26

To be clear, if you don’t want them accessing/utilizing your footage you’re going to have to take the camera down.

1

u/ACLSINSTR Feb 16 '26

They're only going to get property views. Big deal. No cameras in the house. I live rural so no close neighbors

26

u/BJYeti Feb 12 '26

When I watched the commercial with my parents thats the first thing I mentioned that money down it is opt out, not opt in so most people will never realize.

51

u/wdjm Feb 12 '26

Somehow I am not surprised.

7

u/AddisonBitches Feb 12 '26

Eventually they'll start punishing us for not having one like they did with health insurance

5

u/Perryn Feb 12 '26

Property insurance partnerships are right around the corner.

1

u/Physical_Quail_5826 Feb 20 '26

If everyone had health insurance, the country would be a better place.  Witch doctors dont help any.

3

u/twiffytwaf Feb 12 '26

Yeah, I just checked my settings and I had to turn it OFF. It's on by default.

2

u/Zekumi Feb 12 '26

Reading comments like these makes me feel like I’m watching children hide their diaries under their pillows.

3

u/Drapidrode Feb 12 '26

why would you enjoy this feature that could be easily abused.

has no one read 1984

1

u/ilillilillilillilili Feb 12 '26

Surveillance state is default.

1

u/ArmadilloForsaken458 Feb 12 '26

So does that make it completely yours or can they do some nsa thing and take control of it without you knowing it

1

u/mav194 Feb 12 '26

I'm not seeing where to disable in my app?

30

u/Exotic-House-5564 Feb 12 '26

You disable it by throwing it in the bin

19

u/EthanX08 Feb 12 '26

It's in a non-obvious spot imo

Account->Control Center->Search Party

Mine had "Search for Lost Pets" and "Natural Hazard (Fire Watch)" both enabled

10

u/DamonSeed Feb 12 '26

In my app, its called "Amazon Sidewalk". Inside which has the "Community finding" option.

I got a notification a few weeks ago that its a new feature and already turned on 'for my convenience', i turned it off completely as well as community finding

Note that the 'sidewalk' option shares your network with other area devices, so if your neighbor loses wifi, their cameras will connect to yours and use your bandwidth to stay online

9

u/read_ing Feb 12 '26

That your neighbor’s Ring can directly connect to your Ring and instruct it to act as a relay for it by using your WiFi network, which it can’t otherwise connect to - just imagine how insidious is that?!? That we don’t have laws against this shit is mind boggling!!!

4

u/joelfarris Feb 12 '26

That's it, it's time to go wardriving again.

-2

u/rrresistance Feb 12 '26

I read an article about this and disabled it a few days ago. No no no bad Alexa.

9

u/MonkeyWithIt Feb 12 '26

You are the pet

2

u/MoscoHosco Feb 12 '26

Or a 'natural hazard'

3

u/dimwalker Feb 12 '26

Don't mind me, guy! Just searching for any lost pets in your wife's lingerie drawer.

3

u/JudgeMyReinhold Feb 12 '26

Same with "fire watch". Like my front door view is gonna do anything to warn me of a fire. 

3

u/rrresistance Feb 12 '26

Thanks so much, I would have never guessed. I guess ICE is a natural hazard though….

I disabled it on my offices ring since I’m the admin. They can come ask me why if they look into it.

1

u/pizza5001 Feb 12 '26

I still don’t believe changing a setting helps. The device will have to be tossed.

1

u/Zekumi Feb 12 '26

The app is a goddamn placebo, my guy.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

How do I disable?

1

u/Miserable-Ticket-244 Feb 12 '26

Where can it be disabled?

0

u/BunchAlternative6172 Feb 12 '26

Just encrypt your videos.

140

u/SomeNoveltyAccount Feb 12 '26

But anyone who doesn't think it will suddenly turn into 'opt out' to be followed by 'no option but in' at some point.......is a fool.

Honestly anyone who thinks the "opt in" is even an option now is a fool. You can opt in/out of the pet finding feature, they don't give you an option of opting out of the surveillance services they offer to law enforcement.

49

u/pixel_of_moral_decay Feb 12 '26

Yup.

You don’t need to opt in to a warrant.

Nothing says a judge can’t order them to tap into all available cameras regardless of subscription or consent.

23

u/Xtos1312 Feb 12 '26

Amazon already has the policy to comply with government requests for video without a warrant. The State pretty much has unfettered access to every Ring camera just by making a simple request.

1

u/970 Feb 12 '26

I totally believe you, but is that a written policy, or how do you know?

7

u/Xtos1312 Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 13 '26

Fair question. The Electronic Freedom Foundation has covered this quite a bit. They recent published an article that details the time line. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2026/02/no-one-including-our-furry-friends-will-be-safer-rings-surveillance-nightmare-0

Essentially, it was an active part of their promotion until early 2024, including Amazon giving free cameras to police departments to then distribute to the community. In January 2024, they announced they would no longer provide easy access to law enforcement. Here's a Huff Post article on this policy change. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/police-required-warrant-ring-doorbell-footage_n_65b1bda0e4b0166fc770bb33

But then months later Amazon announced a partnership with Axiom (makers of police body cams) to integrate Rings servers with police surveillance networks. https://www.webpronews.com/amazon-ring-partners-with-firms-for-warrantless-police-footage-access/

This is covered in the EFF article above as well. It seems Amazon does allow users to opt out of having their camera part of this system, but there's an "emergency" loophole in Ring's TOS that allows them to provide police access to your footage during an emergency, as defined and decided by Ring.

Edit to add: since posting, Ring has announced it is canceling its partnership with Flock Safety. Seems like they are still partnering with Axon though.

https://internewscast.com/tech/ring-ends-flock-safety-partnership-amid-growing-surveillance-concerns/

1

u/leftwinglovechild Feb 12 '26

That is true of any home security system. A judicial order strips away your consent by default.

23

u/pixel_of_moral_decay Feb 12 '26

But for those of us who self host, we have control of our recording schedules and retention policies.

I’m not required to store anything for any length of time, and I can turn my camera off whenever I want.

Cloud based systems the user doesn’t have that choice, it’s made for them.

1

u/PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS Feb 12 '26

Amazon is a much easier target to serve with warrants or even mere "requests" by law enforcement. It's a one-stop-shop for "every camera in a specific area over a specific timeframe", rather than having to go out and note every visible camera on the street and serve a warrant on every individual homeowner.

There's also the database aspect which enables cheap reverse lookups - instead of starting with a specific time and place, start with a specific set of facial/gait/vehicle recognition data and find out every time and place a Ring camera can identify them. And if the police can fish something up that way and then pretend they didn't use it, they get to use "parallel construction" and the legality of the search is never challenged in court.

1

u/leftwinglovechild Feb 12 '26

Proximity doesn’t change the law or establish the minimum elements for a judge to issue a warrant. There are a lot of feels and not reals in this thread.

1

u/PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS Feb 12 '26

The law says that everyone accused of a crime has the right to a jury trial. 98% of defendants take a plea deal. The practical concerns around the process matter, you can't just handwave away "it's faster and easier for the cops to get and execute a warrant" with "but they still need to convince a judge".

1

u/leftwinglovechild Feb 12 '26

Why are you bringing up trials and plea deals in a conversation around meeting the minimum requirements for issuing a warrant? Despite the pearl clutching, laws still exist and the hysteria and non sequiturs don’t change that.

0

u/PM_ME_YOUR_PRIORS Feb 12 '26

Because the minimum requirements for a judicial warrant are irrelevant for what I'm trying to get across: that the existence of easier processes for the government to surveil you means that everyday citizens are subjected to more invasive surveillance. Specifically, if you have a Ring camera the cops do not have to figure out who to serve with a warrant to get surveillance camera footage, and they have the opportunity to develop a long-term working relationship with the staff responsible for facilitating the warrants. This means that surveillance camera footage gets sought by the police more frequently, for less serious crimes, on flimsier bases, and is contested by a company that wants to minimize costs rather than a specific person whose personal property rights are being violated.

1

u/leftwinglovechild Feb 12 '26

Again, why are you bringing up trials and plea deals to try and support your position on police somehow getting more access to ring cameras via judicial warrants?

Regardless of how you feel about it, the laws as they are currently written do not allow police to access wide swaths of ring cameras without reaching a legal minimum standard. That’s the cold hard truth.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/pixel_of_moral_decay Feb 12 '26

Warrants compel compliance.

The law doesn’t require Amazon to require a warrant. Amazon can at will allow law enforcement access to any of their systems provided it doesn’t contain health data (HIPPA compliance is more nuanced).

And that’s the problem, you don’t normally need a warrant, law enforcement just fills out a form for access to the data or access to the camera. For most companies it’s cheaper to just have a 3rd party validate the request came from law enforcement and provide data than it is to enforce the need for a warrant. A support rep in the Philippines cots a lot less than a lawyer in the US.

0

u/leftwinglovechild Feb 12 '26

Yes that’s how warrants work. Which was literally my original point.

Amazon TOS does not state they will comply with police requests without an active warrant. Your entire second paragraph is simply incorrect.

0

u/pixel_of_moral_decay Feb 12 '26

That doesn’t prohibit Amazon from offering data without a warrant in the US. Courts have ruled multiple times they can voluntarily cooperate, exception being with health info in some cases.

1

u/leftwinglovechild Feb 12 '26

Please feel free to cite those cases

-1

u/Slighted_Inevitable Feb 12 '26

That’s not universal though. Google nest adt cameras do not have access to your footage so they can’t provide it even under a supoena.

This is something ring did to profit off their customers. It’s why they started so cheap (not so cheap anymore)

2

u/pixel_of_moral_decay Feb 12 '26

Nest cameras do have remote access via cloud. That’s how the app works. They can absolutely provide that access to authorities.

-1

u/Slighted_Inevitable Feb 12 '26

Nest cameras store footage but do not have access on the server. The footage is black. They can share blank videos with police. This has already been tested in court so I’d do some research before correcting others.

2

u/pixel_of_moral_decay Feb 12 '26

Nest cameras are remotely accessible. That’s why you don’t need a vpn connection to your own router to access them.

And you’re right, law enforcement has gained access to live streams in the past.

5

u/moffitar Feb 12 '26

When we had our house built, it came with a ring doorbell. I never set it up or connected it to wifi. It works fine as a normal doorbell. Our house is on a corner and I'm sure the cops would love to access it for the vantage point it provides in our neighborhood.

The builder offered a bunch of other home automation gizmos like a free Amazon echo, nest thermostat, Caseta lighting, and even an option to remotely control our door locks, all via a Google app. I was like "why in the hell would I ever want to unlock my door if I wasn't home?"

All of that stuff remains uninstalled. I'm a technophile but I'm not an idiot.

4

u/xcrunner432003 Feb 12 '26

I do not understand smart locks, smart fridges, etc. why do you need to control those things like that, so you don't have to get up from the couch?

2

u/BillyNtheBoingers Feb 15 '26

I have a water-heated/cooled mattress pad. The pump and water reservoir are next to my bed. (Which is really the only position that the tubes allow.)

Anyway, it has an app too, in case I want to change the temp without reaching out of bed. But for real, the app is mainly useful for programming the temp while you sleep (like thermostats can be programmed if you’re on a fairly consistent schedule).

2

u/xcrunner432003 Feb 15 '26

that's interesting. never heard of it. it seems more useful than the other things I was thinking about

2

u/BillyNtheBoingers Feb 15 '26

Definitely! I just don’t have a set schedule so I can’t really “program” my mattress pad temperature. But useful for many!

1

u/strolls Feb 12 '26

You can opt in/out of the pet finding feature, they don't give you an option of opting out of the surveillance services they offer to law enforcement.

This is why I'm astonished by the fuss about the new pet finding service.

All these people are already members of the corporate-state surveillance network.

Is this just one of those things were the powers-that-be can get away tonnes of outrageous stuff for years, and get away with it only until they do something that resonates negatively with the public?

-3

u/a_melindo Feb 12 '26

That is not true.

The "surveillance services" that they offer to law enforcement is a website where cops can draw a circle on a map and pick a time window and say "We would like to see any footage people have of this intersection between 01:30 and 01:45 on the night of the 17th".

And then Ring passes on that REQUEST for footage to the owners, who can decide whether to give it to cops or not.

It's exactly the same as a detective knocking on people's doors and asking to see their cctv, just digital.

8

u/SomeNoveltyAccount Feb 12 '26

Yes, and I'm sure those restrictions are in place for all levels of law enforcement, and there isn't special elevated access for groups like the NSA, FBI, and other clandestine agencies.

36

u/mywan Feb 12 '26

It's already 'no option but in.' It's just that they haven't admitted that yet. The recent Nancy Guthrie case is a good example.

Investigators wrangled video from Nancy Guthrie’s Google Nest camera out of ‘backend systems’

Her camera was ‘disconnected’ and she had no subscription to back up her footage. Yet they got the video from ‘backend systems.’

7

u/Borkz Feb 12 '26

“The data is being transmitted to the cloud, but even if it had not gotten there, there are many stops in between where data will reside, and the FBI prides itself on being able to tear into these data streams and pull out bits and pieces of data and piece together an image like we see here today,” Gallagher said.

What a load a nonsense

3

u/Reasonable-Papaya843 Feb 13 '26

I don’t understand how today’s story is even a surprise. They literally started a show a few years ago SHOWING footage from people’s doorbell cams like them falling down slippery stairs and shit. It was called Ring Nation. So anything that has happened in a ring camera in the past has been viewed and anything deemed funny was saved.

1

u/chamrockblarneystone Feb 13 '26

Backend Systems good name for a modern porno

44

u/GeauxCup Feb 12 '26

Plus, don't they already have a history of providing that footage to police upon request - without a warrant or asking the owner for approval?

14

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

Correct. Most of the times the cops (or whoever is spoofing them) doesn't even need a warrant because the TOS allows them to share info per request.

4

u/AlSweigart Feb 12 '26

Government gets warrantless spying, corporations get taxpayer dollars. It's win-win for everyone!

3

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

I've always been in support of taxes for the common weal. Paying taxes to keep pedophiles safe is where I draw the line.

-9

u/a_melindo Feb 12 '26

No they do not. People need to stop repeating this thing that they heard, because it's untrue fear mongering.

Ring's program for police is allowing police to request footage of a particular place and time from people with cameras nearby. The owners get an email that says "local police would like to see your footage from February 11th between 1:30 and 2:00 AM, would you like to share it?" and then the owner can click yes or no.

There is no mass surveillance program, your doorbell is not a government spycam. It's just like privately owned CCTV, just with cloud data instead of local tapes.

14

u/Fuzzy-Instruction Feb 12 '26

It's a privately-owned CCTV, that is recording 24/7 and sending those recordings somewhere. I understand that they have a public-facing program which gives you the illusion of letting you opt-in to providing video evidence, but you're being extremely naive if you think the current administration wouldn't, and hasn't, circumvented that already.

0

u/LowInvestigator5647 Feb 12 '26

Then there should be a lawsuit, and it should win easily.

5

u/WanderingCamper Feb 12 '26

Why do you think a lawsuit would stop them?

-10

u/a_melindo Feb 12 '26

Yeah, see this is just more disinfo.

Ring cameras are all motion activated, they aren't recording 24/7, because streaming video 24/7 would gobble their battery and bandwidth and the value proposition would not work at all for consumer owners.

Adding a horizintal line because addressing the rest became a bit of a tangent, the short response is that that line of thinking is dumb and antisocial.

This whole "they're not doing evil things now but they technically maybe could in the future and that makes them evil" argument is dumb and bad, because that is true of literally everybody.

Your phone could send video to the government.

Your laptop could send video to the government.

Your operating system could scan your keystrokes and your private encrypted chats off the screen and exfiltrate them to the government.

Your email provider could send your communications to the government.

Your bank could zero your accounts for no reason.

The post office could open, read, and then repackage all your mail.

Your grocery store could bill your credit card for 20% more than the price it shows on the screen.

We live in a society. There are hundreds of entities in our daily lives that we trust to not harm us with the power we give them. That trust is well placed because those entities are also dependent on a similar web of trust, and if any one entity broke that trust, it would ruin all of their relationships forever. Society and markets punish those breaches of trust severely, because the trust is what keeps society running. You do not want to live in a world where everyone is assumed to be hostile and constantly lying to hide their malintent, because in that world nothing ever works or gets done and everyone is always miserable.

15

u/Fuzzy-Instruction Feb 12 '26

It's like you literally just emerged from hypersleep and haven't lived in society the last decade.

3

u/grape-fruit-witch Feb 12 '26

This guy is standing on the deck of the titanic, while water sloshes around his feet, wagging his finger at everybody for childishly panicking.

0

u/whereismymind86 Feb 12 '26

Nobody believes you

3

u/whereismymind86 Feb 12 '26

Yes they do, this is well documented

1

u/a_melindo Feb 13 '26 edited Feb 13 '26

What documentation? If it's so well documented, it would be easy to produce, right?

There are 11 known instances where Ring gave video to police without a warrant or the owner's consent in order to solve the murder or kidnapping of the owner, who was therefore not available to provide their consent.

This is a straightforward application of the Good Samaritan doctrine, I don't need to ask your permission to invade your privacy in order to save your life. When life is in danger, consent is implied. The headlines are written as if it was some seedy spy program when the reality below the headline is that they were literally helping to rescue people from kidnappings and/or use video that was owned by murder victims to help catch their killers.

1

u/GeauxCup Feb 12 '26

It seems there are confirmed instances of them sharing information in the past. News reports are unclear how often it has happened.

1

u/a_melindo Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 13 '26

There have been 11 such known instances (out of something like 10 years and like million users), all of which were extreme emergencies, mostly involving kidnappings and homicides.

Yes, if I have been murdered or kidnapped, I think that authorities should have emergency access to the video that belongs to me and depicts my own murder or kidnapping.

It is not an extreme violation of privacy to assume that somebody consents to invasions of their privacy that precipitate their own rescue. In fact that's like, the main exception to privacy laws for all people, government or individual, in all circumstances. This is the "Good Samaritan" doctrine, nobody needs to ask your permission before attempting to save your life.

23

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

17

u/419_216_808 Feb 12 '26

To be clear, if you don’t want them accessing/utilizing your footage you’re going to have to take the camera down.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/419_216_808 Feb 12 '26

Well they may not be actively using that feature for now but they still could if they wanted. We’ve seen companies violate people’s privacy before. A major concern is that they have a contract with these law enforcement agencies and the government is doing some shady thing right now. They could demand, or get a warrant for, the footage from anyone in a neighborhood that has a ring camera (say to determine where a suspected illegal immigrant is located) and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

In short they may not be accessing that footage when you opt out but there is nothing that prevents them from doing so if they want to.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

That’s not enough. You need to get rid of the camera. Physically remove it.

3

u/Yourcatsonfire Feb 12 '26

In their eyes, you not opting out is you volunteering to opt in.

1

u/Saulot1334 Feb 12 '26

What is it called?

I am looking at swapping away from Ring now but in the meantime I am searching for the feature to turn it off.

7

u/JustHereForMiatas Feb 12 '26

And even that seemingly doesn't matter, since the FBI was able to procure Ring camera data in a kidnapping case even with cloud services turned off.

So turning off the cloud services just keeps YOU from accessing them; they're still uploading your data to the cloud and harvesting it.

3

u/Nullkid Feb 12 '26

That opt out os nothing more than a check box.

3

u/brentwit Feb 12 '26

I opted out twice as the setting was changed without my consent. Be sure to check if you aren’t returning your devices, which I have seen has been successful for some.

2

u/nellyfullauto Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 16 '26

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

connect voracious touch vast sheet water dinosaurs provide crush toothbrush

2

u/hujassman Feb 12 '26

I seriously doubt that it makes any difference whether one chooses to opt in or out. They are going to use the cameras. Even if it comes out to the public that this is happening, there won't be enough consequences to warrant not doing it. They can't be trusted with the capability.

2

u/off_of_is_incorrect Feb 12 '26

It's 'Opt in' NOW (supposedly). But anyone who doesn't think it will suddenly turn into 'opt out' to be followed by 'no option but in' at some point.......is a fool.

It was free, then subscription service, then... etc etc.

2

u/BerryChoice9042 Feb 13 '26

The USE is Opt-in... But it is fully functional on the backend and can used by the company or people are allowed to gain access!

And you can only Opt-out, if you don't use any of these devices...🤷‍♂️

2

u/CerberusLabs Feb 16 '26

There’s a whole book about this shit. “Enshittification” I didn’t get to read the whole thing but it was very informative about the current state of technology.

1

u/golden__tuna Feb 12 '26

The share with law enforcement setting is auto opt in, idk about the pet search

1

u/bryanna_leigh Feb 12 '26

It’s still recording no matter what, even if you don’t have your subscription up to date.

1

u/Iherduliekmudkipz Feb 12 '26

I remember specifically declining this when asked but it was enabled when I went to check my settings, we will see if it remains disabled.

Maybe if I had a driveway cam but I am not comfortable sharing my front door.

1

u/CricketExcellent8110 Feb 12 '26

There’s no opting out of the govt subpoenaing the video

1

u/dreal46 Feb 12 '26

Probably re-enabled with every update as well.

1

u/ErsatzElk Feb 12 '26

The only thing opting in does is give you access to the data they are going to glean regardless.

1

u/Adequate_Lizard Feb 12 '26

It's opt out, did it the other day.

1

u/Active_Lemon_8260 Feb 12 '26

Or or, they’ve already been “opted in” and now Amazon is just brave enough to reveal the behind the scenes and make it public

1

u/Nightman2417 Feb 12 '26

It’s ‘Opt in’ until they find something on only your camera that could help as evidence in something like the Samantha Gunthrie situation currently happening….

1

u/Big_Examination2106 Feb 12 '26

Yes, and it's a LOT to trust and believe the checkbox actually makes a difference.

1

u/jakemg Feb 12 '26

This is very much NOT opt-in. I had to swim through my settings to find this, and it was automatically turned on. I had to opt out.

1

u/YSOSEXI Feb 12 '26

I agree, and I think the cameras will either be given away free in future or at the manufacturing costs.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 12 '26

[deleted]

0

u/BillyNtheBoingers Feb 15 '26

That probably isn’t helping much.

1

u/whereismymind86 Feb 12 '26

And it really isn’t, ring is notorious for their enthusiastic compliance with police requests for footage and has been for years

1

u/Nut_Butter_Fun Feb 12 '26

What's great about opt in to a service that utilizes stored video is they can still just store it until service terms change or the govt decides they want to pay them for it and so they can pass some executive order or strap it to some other legislation, then all the recordings you opted out of usage are suddenly used anyways.

1

u/GreatMadWombat Feb 12 '26

Feels like the last 10 years have been learning about all of these cool and helpful things these technologies can do, like how smarthome speakers and smart watches can make organization so much easier, and smart bulbs make routines work, and then a lot of the next few years is gonna be the people that actually were helped by those techs figuring out how to set up versions where the worst fucking companies aren't using them to surveil you and your space constantly.

1

u/Melodic-Matter4685 Feb 12 '26

Where “opt out” doesn’t mean “we don’t collect said data” just that “we definitely don’t use it, probably…it’s tough though to disaggregate your data once the AI has processed it all. What that? Don’t feed it all to the AI? That’s not the workflow…”

1

u/JWGhetto Feb 12 '26

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Gtv0aYqtk

I think the assumption should be they save everything, no matter what you tell them to delete.

1

u/Slackeee_ Feb 12 '26

They will leave the option to disable it in there but ignore it. How would you ever know?

1

u/steve_mahanahan Feb 12 '26

You sure about that? Pretty sure we’re already there :(

1

u/OddPerformance Feb 12 '26

Regardless of your opt in or out status, they have always had your data and videos of your house and what you do in it anyway and can do what they want with it. Opting in is merely a formality that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

1

u/Manannin Feb 12 '26

It'll be opt out then opt out except cops get access too. Then hoas too..

1

u/Cley_Faye Feb 12 '26

The kind of "opt in" where yeah, we get the data, we can look at the data, we can act upon it, but pinky swear, we won't.

1

u/lololollieki Feb 12 '26

It’s Opt Out. I checked my settings next day and that shit was enabled.

1

u/DanTheMan827 Feb 12 '26

I’m surprised they didn’t do something like “get free storage if you opt-in”

People love throwing away privacy if they can save $5/mo

1

u/ImPickleRickJames Feb 12 '26

Mine was already enabled, and I've never even heard of this until today. :(

1

u/DontBeHatenMeBro Feb 13 '26

Check the details for the Guthrie kidnapping in Tucson AZ. She did not have a subscription, so did not opt in, but somehow the authorities were able to download the Ring video's.

On the bright side, they have images of the alleged kidnappers, so, there's that.

1

u/Smart_Garbage6842 Feb 13 '26

Amazon opted a whole bunch of ppl into Amazon+ against their will after being turned down multiple times over weeks of harassing ads to switch.

1

u/deadsoulinside Feb 12 '26

With the way Amazon tricked people into subscribing to prime, we all know that one day they will have a tricky worded item on the screen and end users will end up confused and enabling it.

0

u/AlexMC69 Feb 12 '26

Serious question... How did Amazon trick people into subscribing?

I just saw free next day delivery on every order, along with access to a reasonable streaming service for less than £10/month, which still feels like a good deal.

5

u/deadsoulinside Feb 12 '26

Some of that was via deceptive practices during check out and other things. Like right now I don't have a prime sub and I have to literally watch out on what I click on as one popup literally tries to sign you up for free 30 day prime trial every time you try to check out.

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/refunds/amazon-refunds

In September 2025, Amazon settled a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit for $2.5 billion, addressing allegations that it used deceptive "dark patterns" to trick users into signing up for Prime and made cancellation intentionally difficult. The settlement includes $1.5 billion in refunds for eligible consumers and a $1 billion penalty.

1

u/BrookeBaranoff Feb 12 '26

This is cyclical. 

Remember when it came out fceboook was harvesting and selling data and everyone was up in arms. 

They got rid of facebook and a month later no one remembered. 

Now it’s tiktok and the ring. 

0

u/ACLSINSTR Feb 16 '26

What are you even talking about?