Ring: Cops Can Still Obtain Recordings Without Warrants Or User Consent
Welcome back to the negative news cycle, Ring! It's been awhile.
Ring has spent years cultivating so-close-they're-incestuous relationships with law enforcement agencies. Ring hands out free/cheap cameras to cop shops, asking in return that they hand them out to the townsfolk and nudge them towards sharing footage via Ring's own highly problematic social media platform, Neighbors. The better cops do at this, the more cameras they can obtain to hand out.
The end goal is twofold: the cops get a bunch more cameras whose recordings they might be able to access and Ring gets its foot in the (often literal) door to secure profitable brand lock-in. After all, if people are happy with the free doorbell/camera, they might purchase more Ring devices for their garage, backyard, home interiors, places of business, etc. And cops get a bunch of homeowners who might feel obligated to hand over footage because they owe the local boys in blue for hooking them up with a free security device.
Ring's stance on law enforcement access to recordings created by privately owned devices has changed in response to criticism. But it hasn't changed much. For a while, Ring provided tips and tricks to cops to help them bypass warrant requirements when seeking recordings. Then Ring, facing scrutiny from federal lawmakers, reined things in a bit. Cops could still attempt to bypass warrant requirements. But if they did, they had to do so through Ring's law enforcement portal, which would make these requests public information.
But this still doesn't stop Ring from handing over footage to cops who don't have a warrant. And this option completely removes Ring's end users from the equation, giving them no notification their recordings may now be in the possession of investigators. All cops have to do is copy-paste some exigent circumstances" boilerplate into Ring's emergency request template to obtain recordings that customers probably assume they shouldn't have access to without warrants or consent.
Sam Biddle reports on Amazon's (Ring's owner) responses to Senator Ed Markey, who asked several questions (and requested several concessions) from Ring in response to a few years of critical reporting on the company's cavalier take on community relationships and established constitutional rights.
Ring, Amazon's perenially controversial and police-friendly surveillance subsidiary, has long defended its cozy relationship with law enforcement by pointing out that cops can only get access to a camera owner's recordings with their express permission or a court order. But in response to recent questions from Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., the company stated that it has provided police with user footage 11 times this year alone without either.
Ring admits this much in the FAQ for its law enforcement portal. As long as cops say something is an emergency, the non-law enforcement professionals handling law enforcement requests will make judgment calls on warrantless access to customers' recordings.
Emergencies. Ring reserves the right to respond immediately to urgent law enforcement requests for information in cases involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to any person. Emergency disclosure requests must be submitted to emergency-le-requests@ring.com. Such requests must include EMERGENCY" in the subject line and be accompanied by a completed emergency request form.
Amazon did not provide any information on how often these requests are rejected. It also refused to make any of Sen. Markey's requested changes.
Last month, Markey wrote to Amazon asking it to both clarify Ring's ever-expanding relationship with American police, who've increasingly come to rely on the company's growing residential surveillance dragnet, and to commit to a raft of policy reforms. In a July 1 response from Brian Huseman, Amazon vice president of public policy, the company declined to permanently agree to any of them, including Never accept financial contributions from policing agencies," Never allow immigration enforcement agencies to request Ring recordings," and Never participate in police sting operations."
It's exceedingly generous to call Amazon's letter [PDF] a response." Most of it simply ducks direct questions and straightforward requests. I mean, what even is this?
Will Ring commit to never incorporating voice recognition technology into its products? If no, why not?
Ring does not currently offer voice recognition.
As we say in America, que? That addresses neither part of Sen. Markey's two-part question. It's so far away from an answer it's pretty much a non sequitur. It's like responding to the do you" parts of wedding vows by simply stating you haven't broken any wedding vows yet.
On the less nonsensical side, the letter informs the senator that Ring does allow users to make their recordings inaccessible by Ring or requesting law enforcement agencies. The company offers end-to-end encryption that makes recordings only accessible to users. But it says it does not offer this feature by default because it believes most users would rather have convenience than control.
With video End-to-End Encryption, customers can view their encrypted videos only on their enrolled mobile devices. This means some features will be disabled when customers choose to enable End-to End Encryption. User control is foundational at Ring, and we recognize this advanced feature may not be right for all customers. We are committed to giving customers options so they can choose the Ring experience that is right for them.
Ring makes no mention of this feature on its doorbell camera product page. Chances are, it doesn't highlight it during setup and installation either. To do so would risk alienating the part of the market it really would rather cater to: US law enforcement agencies. If Ring can't access recordings, it can't help cops who show up at its virtual door with nothing more than emergency" boilerplate in hand. Ring has spent years courting cops. It's not going to risk that relationship by offering encryption by default.