Ring’s Super Bowl Ad Generates So Much Backlash It Has Ended Its Partnership With Flock Safety
from the millions-well-spent dept
According to AdWeek, the price for a 30-second commercial during Super Bowl LX has soared to $8 million, after NBC opened in the summer by offering spots for $7 million. As AdWeek notes, “due to demand, the company has already reached its cap for the number of spots that were available for advertisers to buy during the upfront season.”
$8 million for 30 seconds sometimes means turning a niche product into a national phenomena. The 30 seconds purchased by Ring went the other way. If you want to see how $8 million can be used to promote mass surveillance enabled by consumer products, here you go:
Sure, it looks pretty innocuous. And what could be better than turning Ring and Flock Safety’s network of cameras into a digital proxy for posting “LOST DOG” signs all over the neighborhood? Well, as it turns out, pretty much everyone saw how problematic this offering was, especially considering what’s already known about Ring, Flock Safety, and both companies’ rather cavalier attitude towards privacy and other aspects of the Fourth Amendment.
To begin with, the “Search Party” feature that allows people to access recordings and images captured by other people’s cameras is already on, which likely comes as a surprise to owners of these devices. Here’s what The Verge’s Jennifer Tuohy discovered last October, shortly after Ring announced its partnership with Flock Safety — a company best known for allowing cops to hunt down people seeking abortions and/or allowing federal officers to perform nationwide searches for whoever they might be looking for (which, of course, would be anyone looking kinda like an immigrant).
[I]t turns out that Search Party is enabled by default. In an email to customers this week, Siminoff wrote that the feature is rolling out to Ring outdoor cameras in November and noted, “You can always turn off Search Party.”
I checked my cameras this morning, and they were all automatically set to enable Search Party. And I’m not alone; Ring users on Reddit have also reported that their cameras have been enabled for Search Party.
This under-reported “feature” was exposed by Ring’s Super Bowl ad, which resulted in enough backlash that Flock Safety no longer has a Ring to wear. Back to Jennifer Tuohy and The Verge:
In a statement published on Ring’s blog and provided to The Verge ahead of publication, the company said: “Following a comprehensive review, we determined the planned Flock Safety integration would require significantly more time and resources than anticipated. We therefore made the joint decision to cancel the integration and continue with our current partners … The integration never launched, so no Ring customer videos were ever sent to Flock Safety.”
While that last sentence may be true, it appears sharing was on by default when it came to Ring’s own cameras. That Flock Safety never got a chance to participate is good to know, but “Search Party” has apparently been active since its implementation last year, even if it was limited to Ring devices.
And while Ring claims the Search Party feature can’t be used to search for “human biometrics,” that’s hardly comforting when it appears Ring definitely wants to add more of this kind of thing to its existing cameras.
On top of this, the company recently launched a new facial recognition feature, Familiar Faces. Combined with Search Party, the technological leap to using neighborhood cameras to search for people through a mass-surveillance network suddenly seems very small.
Ring insists this is not another mass surveillance tool, but rather something that attempts to recognize who’s at any user’s door when sending alerts, in order to differentiate friends and family members from strangers who might be within camera range. Again, there’s some utility to this offering, but the tech lends itself to surveillance abuses, especially when law enforcement may only be a subpoena away from accessing images and recordings captured by privately-owned devices.
Finally, the statement given by Ring only states that this won’t be happening right now, which is a wise choice considering its unpopularity at the moment. But that doesn’t mean Ring and Flock won’t seek to consummate this marriage of surveillance tech, albeit in a more private fashion that doesn’t involve alarming hundreds of millions of sports viewers simultaneously.
Filed Under: alpr, doorbell cameras, law enforcement, mass surveillance, surveillance abuse
Companies: flock safety, ring


Comments on “Ring’s Super Bowl Ad Generates So Much Backlash It Has Ended Its Partnership With Flock Safety”
Ring’s doorbells have ALWAYS been about mass surveillance. That’s why when I moved in to my current home, the first thing I did was disconnect the doorbell from the Internet, and the fourth thing I did was rip out the Ring doorbell and replace it with something I control myself (pulling out the Internet-connected door locks and whole home monitoring system took a higher priority).
Fuck Ring
Exactly why I would never own a cloud based camera system.
Re:
Sometimes it’s hard, though, to even find out whether some product has pre-requisites like internet access. Like, am I gonna need to agree to some additional terms to use this product? Maybe make an account, give it wi-fi access, whatever?
For example, it seems that some Macbooks require the user to first boot into MacOS to install an alternate operating system. But can I just boot into it and change a setting, do I need to make an Apple account online, or what? Nobody seems to say. There are also rumors that some (non-Apple) internet routers can’t be configured without an app—or not easily, anyway (someone who knows how to run a TFTP server might be able to get it working).
So, is there a wireless camera that’s known to not need apps, accounts, or internet access? Wired might be a safer option, for those who can drill holes in or near their doors—but even that’s something I haven’t worked with for 20-plus years, so who knows.
Re: Re:
Reolink and Tapo cameras/doorbells both have the option to be totally local.
Reolink doorbells can be fully wired via Ethernet from the doorbell to an RTSP server, or connect via local WiFi, or save to their cloud service and/or save to MicroSD.
Tapo cameras are a bit more bare bones but can be set to RTSP mode as well (and also locally save to MicroSD).
And if you buy a product and it requires remote connection/configuration to function, any sane country should allow the product to be returned at no cost to the customer, or at least shipping costs only. If the product doesn’t advertise it requires cloud services, then the sale is deceptive.
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for those notes.
Sure, but it’s likely to be a bit of a battle. The low-level employee at your local shop will probably balk that it’s been opened already. The internet was once full of stories about people who tried to return Windows when it prompted them to agree to unfavorable terms, the terms explicitly saying to return it if you don’t agree. I think some ended up winning in small claims court, but they had to prepare a case and take a day off from work.
Re:
I would strongly discourage you from doing so, priapism is really painful.
“More than a dog a day” have been found since app launch.
There is 68 millions dogs in the US, about 1% have been lost. It would need about 2000 years to find them all. 100% would be dead by then.
Better ask ICE to find them, it would only take 8 months (at 3k a day). But maybe that’s the whole point, give ICE better tools to find lost dogs?
Re:
Why, so ICE goons can kick them? (true story)
Re:
I’m pretty sure that strategy would also end with 100% of the dogs being dead
The only way this could have come off worse for them is if they sprang to hire the remaining members of Queen to sing ‘We will, we will, track you! Track you!’
Re:
I dunnow, “I always feel like somebody’s watching me” would have been works.
Sing!
Ring around the rosie…
….what’s the last line?
The people who actually believed it was about finding dogs are the same people who are still sending their DNA to the ancestry websites.
recordings captured by privately-owned devices.
Amazon own ring devices, not the people who’s property they are mounted on.
at least for now
It ended the partnership for now. They might make an unacknowledged partnership later after the heat dies down. Both companies originally came together because they both saw the potential for dollar signs.
Familiar Faces...
…has been illegal in Illinois since 2008