How Your Doorbell Camera Maybe Spreading Suspicion, Fear, and Racial Bias

The Rise of Ring and the Ethics of Surveillance

Ring video doorbells and similar home surveillance cameras have seamlessly integrated into our daily lives, promising safety and security. But what happens when these tools marketed as neutral crime prevention devices actually reinforce racial bias and erode civil liberties? As partnerships between Ring and law enforcement agencies expand, it's time to ask whether these systems serve us all equally or if they disproportionately harm marginalized communities.

Racial Profiling in the Digital Age

One of the biggest concerns with Ring’s Neighbors app and similar digital neighborhood watch platforms is the role they play in amplifying racial bias. Studies have shown that people of color are disproportionately flagged as "suspicious" in these forums. A review of over 100 user posts in New York City found that the majority of those reported as threats were Black or brown individuals. This echoes patterns seen on other platforms, like Nextdoor, which previously faced backlash for similar racial profiling issues.

A particularly striking case involved an African American real estate agent who was reported to the police simply for doing his job knocking on doors in a predominantly white neighborhood. This is a clear example of how home surveillance tools can become extensions of racialized suspicion, leading to unnecessary and even dangerous law enforcement encounters.

While Ring claims to moderate content and reduce profiling, subtle biases persist. The constant flood of "suspicious activity" alerts can create an exaggerated sense of crime and fear, particularly targeting communities of color.

Law Enforcement Partnerships and Mass Surveillance

Since 2018, Ring has aggressively pursued partnerships with law enforcement agencies, providing them with a portal to request and access users' footage. As of 2022, over 2,000 police departments had joined this program. The result? A privately owned, publicly accessible surveillance network that effectively turns neighbourhoods into monitored zones, often without residents fully grasping the extent of their participation.

Law enforcement’s cozy relationship with Ring has raised ethical red flags. Police departments have been incentivized to promote Ring products in exchange for free or discounted cameras, blurring the line between public safety initiatives and corporate marketing. In some cases, police have even required residents to provide footage in exchange for receiving a free camera, further entrenching surveillance culture without robust public discussion or consent.

For communities with histories of over-policing, this expansion of surveillance has fueled distrust. Can residents ever truly feel safe if they feel they are constantly watched, especially by neighbours who may hold biases?

Privacy, Consent, and the Law

Ring cameras don't just record video; they often capture audio as well, raising legal concerns about consent. In states requiring two-party consent for audio recordings, these devices may already violate wiretap laws by capturing conversations without permission.

Beyond individual consent, there's the broader issue of data control. Ring stores footage on Amazon’s cloud, and while users technically "own" their videos, the company has disclosed that it shared footage with law enforcement at least 11 times in 2022 without user consent—citing emergency circumstances. This reveals a troubling gap between corporate assurances and real-world practices, leaving users uncertain about who truly controls their data.

The Impact on Protesters and Public Spaces

Beyond racial profiling, home surveillance cameras have also been used to monitor political activity. During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, the LAPD requested Ring footage to identify individuals in protest areas, effectively turning private home security devices into tools for government surveillance. The chilling effect is real: if you know your every movement is being recorded and could be handed over to the police, would you feel free to protest? Would you feel safe simply walking through a neighborhood where you don’t "belong" in the eyes of a camera owner?

Key Data Insights & Visualizations

Insight #1: Explosive Increase in Geofence Warrants (2018–2020):

Key Insights:

• In 2018, Google received 982 geofence warrants
• By 2019, this number jumped dramatically to 8,396 warrants (755% increase)
• In 2020, warrants increased further to 12,716 (51% increase from 2019)
• Over the entire period (2018-2020), geofence warrants increased by 1,195%

Note: Geofence warrants request data about all devices in a specific geographic area during a particular time period.

Insight #2 Rapid Expansion of Police-Ring Partnerships (2019–2022)

Key Insights:

• In 2019, Ring had 900 police partnerships
• By 2020, partnerships increased to 1,400 (56% increase in one year)
• By 2022, partnerships reached 2,000 (43% increase from 2020)
• Over the entire period (2019-2022), police partnerships increased by 122%
• Note: Data for 2021 is not available in this dataset

Note: Ring partnerships allow law enforcement to request doorbell camera footage from Ring users.

Insight #3 Ring Footage Requests (2022): Consent vs. Emergency

Key Insights:

• 89% of Ring footage requests to law enforcement required user consent
• 11% were disclosed without user consent under emergency circumstances
• Based on estimated total requests, approximately 8,900 requests were made with user consent
• Approximately 1,100 requests were disclosed without consent as emergency exceptions

Note: Ring doorbells allow law enforcement to request footage from users' cameras, but generally require user consent except in emergency situations.

Steps Toward Accountability and Fairer Surveillance

In response to mounting criticism, Ring has implemented policy changes, including requiring a warrant for law enforcement to request footage and offering end-to-end encryption as an option. But these steps, while important, remain incomplete solutions.

To create a truly fair and accountable surveillance system, we need:

1. Stronger Privacy Protections – Encryption should be the default, not an opt-in feature. Audio recording should be explicitly limited to prevent unintentional wiretap violations.
2. Bias Mitigation in Neighborhood Apps – Ring and similar platforms should implement stricter content moderation to prevent racial profiling, including automated checks that flag and filter posts based solely on race.
3. Community Oversight – Any police partnerships with surveillance companies should require public hearings and local government approval to ensure democratic oversight.
4. Transparency Reports – Companies like Ring should regularly disclose how often law enforcement accesses user data, under what circumstances, and what safeguards are in place.
5. A Cultural Shift – We need to rethink our reliance on surveillance as the primary method for achieving safety. True security comes from strong communities built on trust, not just from cameras at every doorstep.

Conclusion: Rethinking the Role of Home Surveillance

Ring and similar systems may provide peace of mind for some, but they pose real risks for others, especially communities that have long been over-policed. If we are to embrace smart home security, we must do so with full awareness of its ethical implications. Surveillance shouldn’t come at the cost of fairness, privacy, or civil rights. Instead, we should work toward solutions that keep us all safe without reinforcing the biases and inequalities that already exist in society.

It’s time to ask: Is our security making everyone safer, or just making some of us more suspicious?

Sources:

• Sources list with URLs:

1. Baek, Grace. "Are video doorbells and neighborhood watch apps generating more fear than security?" CBS News (Feb. 24, 2020) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/are-video-doorbells-and-neighborhood-watch-apps-generating-more-fear-than-security/
2. Guariglia, Matthew. "Amazon's Ring Is a Perfect Storm of Privacy Threats." EFF Deeplinks (Aug. 8, 2019) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/amazons-ring-perfect-storm-privacy-threats
3. MediaJustice. "MediaJustice responds to report on Amazon Ring's racist culture and police partnerships." (Dec. 9, 2019) https://mediajustice.org/news/mediajustice-responds-to-report-on-amazon-rings-racist-culture-and-police-partnerships/
4. Newser (AP). "Amazon Defends Giving Police Ring Footage" (Jul. 14, 2022) https://www.newser.com/story/322655/amazon-defends-giving-police-ring-footage.html
5. ACLU. "Should You Buy a Ring Doorbell Camera?" (Oct. 2019) https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/should-you-buy-ring-doorbell-camera
6. Morning Brew. "Law enforcement will no longer get Ring videos without a warrant." (Jan. 25, 2024) https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2024/01/25/law-enforcement-will-no-longer-get-ring-videos-without-a-warrant
7. Time (Bloomberg). "Google Will Stop Providing Law Enforcement Data on Which Users Were Near a Crime." (Dec. 14, 2023) https://time.com/6345585/google-geofence-warrants-law-enforcement/
8. CNET. "Is Recording Audio or Video on a Security Camera Illegal? Facts You Should Know." (2022) https://www.cnet.com/home/security/is-recording-audio-or-video-on-a-security-camera-illegal-facts-you-should-know/
9. CNET: Google received more than 20,000 geofence warrants from 2018 to 2020
10. Blueforce Learning: Google Geofence Warrant
11. Criminal Legal News: Geofence Warrants