While new laws in cities like Oakland and Seattle restrict police surveillance tech, Ring video doorbells remain unhindered despite serving similar purposes
Sidney Fussell / The Atlantic : Tweets: @privacyproject , @sidneyfussell , @theatlantic , @cmsandefur , @evanselinger , and @eff Tweets: @privacyproject : “There's a tension inherent to any fight about Ring, or products like it: How can you regulate police use of camera footage without controlling the private citizens who generate that footage?” @sidneyfussell writes for @TheAtlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/ ... @sidneyfussell : Consent in 2019: police ask for footage from your smart home device. You ignore the request. Cops *show up at your door* and ask in person. https://www.theatlantic.com/ ...? @theatlantic : Despite reported plans to augment drones and baby monitors with cameras, Amazon is still poised to avoid much of the backlash against surveillance technology. The reason: Suspicion is currency, @sidneyfussell writes. https://www.theatlantic.com/ ... Christina Sandefur / @cmsandefur : Police are offering discounted or free Ring doorbells in exchange for a pledge to register the devices with law enforcement and submit all requested footage. WHO WOULD DO THIS?! https://www.theatlantic.com/ ... Evan Selinger / @evanselinger : “Sharing a video clip to one person means sharing it to millions. Empowering yourself through surveillance means profit share for tech companies. Agreeing to hand over video footage means sharpening police eyes, not just your own.” -@sidneyfussell https://www.theatlantic.com/ ... @eff : Police departments should resist the lure of Internet of Things-based community surveillance. Public safety shouldn't be tied to the whims of tech companies. https://www.theatlantic.com/ ...
Context & Ripple Effects
Oakland and Seattle are passing laws that force police to win approval before deploying surveillance technology — but those ordinances only govern what departments own. As Sidney Fussell reports, they leave untouched the camera network Amazon has built through consumers, even as Ring has partnered with more than 200 local police departments that can solicit footage directly from device owners.
The gap is structural, not accidental: reporting on how Ring required Lakeland, FL police to advertise its cameras in exchange for free products and a footage-request portal shows the company recruiting citizens as the surveillance layer cities cannot regulate. Fussell's core tension — how to regulate police use of footage without controlling the private people who generate it — is exactly the hole these municipal laws don't close.
First-order effects
- Police in Ring-partnered cities can keep acquiring residential footage through voluntary requests — including in-person visits to homeowners who ignore app-based asks — entirely outside the approval processes Oakland and Seattle just imposed on department-owned tech.
Second-order effects
- Cities that restrict their own cameras push departments further toward the Ring model, making Amazon's discount-and-portal deals the path of least resistance and giving the company leverage over how local police publicize and justify the partnership.
Third-order effects
- The pattern points toward surveillance governance keyed to who owns the sensor rather than who consumes the feed — a loophole that persists until either regulators extend oversight to privately generated footage or platforms self-limit, as Ring eventually did by sunsetting the Neighbors-app request tool in favor of warrants.
The trend: Municipal surveillance law is being outflanked by consumer-camera ecosystems, leaving platform policy rather than city ordinance as the real constraint on police access to home footage.