1117
Why are people disconnecting or destroying their Ring cameras? (www.usatoday.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
222 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A Super Bowl ad for Ring security cameras boasting how the company can scan neighborhoods for missing dogs has prompted some customers to remove or even destroy their cameras.

Online, videos of people removing or destroying their Ring cameras have gone viral. One video posted by Seattle-based artist Maggie Butler shows her pulling off her porch-facing camera and flipping it the middle finger.

Butler explained that she originally bought the camera to protect against package thefts, but decided the pet-tracking system raised too many concerns about government access to data.

"They aren't just tracking lost dogs, they're tracking you and your neighbors," Butler said in the video that has more than 3.2 million views.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 48 points 8 months ago* (10 children)

I honestly didn't know what they were thinking with that commercial. Why would you proudly advertise that you've built a massive surveillance network, during one of the most-watched yearly televised events too for that matter? Did they seriously believe that there wouldn't be a major backlash? I mean I appreciate the blunt honesty in that commercial so I'll give them credit for that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I honestly didn't know what they were thinking with that commercial. Why would you proudly advertise that you've built a massive surveillance network

    Presumably because most end users are in deep with the "if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" crowd ... and besides it can find a lost dog /s.

    They brought these sorts of intrusive cameras in the first place so privacy was not top of mind, or even in 2nd or 3rd place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago*

    Presumably because most end users are in deep with the "if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" crowd

    I agree with other comments that this is probably an Executive issue. Decision-makers operating with missing information can make misinformed decisions. Whether or not end users actually are in that crowd is less relevant than whether the people making such decisions think the users are in that crowd.

    In a game-theory framing, it's a game with incomplete information. What you assume about others, including what you assume about their assumptions, influences your decisions. The sheer amount of players makes it a lot harder to model or predict.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 8 months ago

    Tbh I think the people at the top still haven't caught up with the rapid changing sentiments among the population. My zero-tech-savy retired mother in-law was talking to me about Palantir the other day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago

    My guess is that since Ring has a history of well-known collaborations with police and ICE, they wanted to re-frame their evil surveillance network as a way to save a puppy. Instead, lots of uninformed normies suddenly realized what those cameras are capable of, and had a huge negative reaction given the state of things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent