“Smile! You’re on Camera”: Privacy Implications of Private, Public Surveillance

-- By TheodoraOh - 09 May 2024

The plight of delivery drivers draws attention to privacy concerns with doorbell cameras.

Internal surveillance of delivery drivers has already been, and continues to be, scrutinized and litigated. See e.g. Chartwell summary of NLRB decision regarding inward-facing cameras in delivery trucks. But often, delivery drivers may also be recorded by home security doorbell cameras that homeowners can install and set to record anyone who approaches their door (or even their driveway) without consent or the ability to opt-out. See Ring capabilities. An industry leader, Amazon’s Ring cameras have a uniquely public presence due to partnerships with police departments, controversy over privacy, and rising concerns about data sharing. See Ring popularity; agreements with police department; consumer privacy; warrantless video requests. Public surveillance isn’t new—these days, it’s almost impossible to go from home to work without being captured by multiple cameras: parking lots, highways, schools, subways, and storefronts all have outward-facing cameras that capture indiscriminately. What is new is an increase in privately owned, operated, and monitored surveillance cameras. See Ring sales. A privacy-minded individual might be able to avoid some of these cameras—but delivery drivers don’t have a choice.

Unfortunately, delivery drivers might not have much recourse when it comes to being recorded by private parties (especially when they are having such little success even when it comes to being recorded by their employer). See Reuters. But the exceptionally visible, familiar situation of delivery drivers invites bigger questions about privacy policy. Viral recordings of delivery dancers being asked to dance in front of the camera have sparked debate about when it's okay to film an employee just trying to do their job—or, relatedly, someone innocently walking past a front door when a generation ago, no one would’ve ever known they were there. See Teen Vogue; NYT; Vice.

Ring cameras contribute to a “civilian surveillance network.”

For years, police were able to request doorbell camera footage from users without a warrant, implicating private citizens in a “citizen surveillance network”—while evolving social attitudes have led Ring to announce it will end this type of partnership, that doesn’t change the fundamental nature of these cameras or the company’s relationship with the police. See The Guardian; Wired; Vox. Footage is still recorded, shared online, and with police if they have a warrant (and still sometimes even without one). See NPR; Vox. Sometimes, the police don’t even need to be involved. Putting a camera on every front door turns each house into a cop at its arguable best, and a vigilante at its worst. The Ring Neighbors app (similar to other popular apps like NextDoor? and Citizen) lets Ring owners in the same neighborhood upload video straight from their doorbell cameras to a social-network-type feed, where others can comment and “like” posts. See Neighbors. Ring advertises this as “neighborhood security”—perhaps a rebranding after its previous tagline of “the new neighborhood watch” which has troubling connotations. See Neighbors on Amazon (still showing the “neighborhood watch” tagline which has been removed from the main Ring website); Vice: Liberation News; Trayvon Martin’s murder by George Zimmerman, a member of the neighborhood watch.

Even when the police aren’t watching, and your neighbors aren’t watching, the mere existence of Ring cameras leaves open the possibility that any one of them could be watching, which is troubling, to say the least. See The Spy Next Door. To say more: Ring cameras turn ordinary neighborhoods into a modern-day panopticon, sacrificing privacy and dignity for so-called safety. In reality, the system reinforces racial and socioeconomic homogeneity in neighborhoods, perpetuates a culture of fear for capitalism’s sake, encourages “boss behavior,” and invites the police into the private sphere—leading to the question: safety for who? See The Cop in Your Neighbor’s Doorbell; At the Digital Doorstep; Infrastructural Obfuscation.

Attitudes towards video doorbells are changing, but not fast enough.

Technology review website Wired.com has slowly evolved over the years since Ring’s release from generally positive reviews of the doorbell camera to a more critical and privacy-focused viewpoint. See Wired’s 2015 review, notably praising the camera’s ability to record UPS and FedEx? deliveries; Wired’s 2019 piece that appears conflicted about the “Ringification of suburban life;” Wired’s 2023 article against Ring cameras on the basis that “homeowners shouldn’t be allowed to act as vigilantes;” and Wired’s 2024 reporting on warrantless video requests for Ring data. As delivery drivers and the general public become more aware of the constant, inescapable surveillance of the Ring camera (and, by extension, Amazon—or even the police), some homeowners remain staunchly pro-Ring. See letter from Amazon to Senator Ed Markey regarding police access to Ring data; but see recent changes to Ring’s policy in the New York Times. Ironically for them, homeowners too are seeing their privacy rights eroded by Ring; Amazon’s policy of disclosing Ring footage to the police may violate Ring users’ own Fourth Amendment rights. See Washington Law Review.

Public sentiment around Ring cameras specifically, and privacy more generally, is changing, but it needs to change faster before we all live under Jeff Bezos’s watchful eye. I realize that sounds dramatic, but some would argue we’re already there. And as a personal note, there was nothing I could do to stop my dad from buying a Ring camera, so every visit home puts me on camera in front of his, and all four of his neighbors’ Rings.

Bonus pic: (to be clear, this is not my dad's house) “SMILE! YOU’RE ON CAMERA” sign next to Ring doorbell camera in customer review for the $65 sign purchased on Etsy which also features the Punisher logo. The logo, associated with the idea of vigilante justice, also has a controversial association with the Thin Blue Line movement and police officers.