Ring: Difference between revisions
added some links that lead to other articles |
specified which departments are mostly using ring questionably Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual edit |
||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
===Flock Safety ''(2025-2026)''=== | ===Flock Safety ''(2025-2026)''=== | ||
Flock and Ring have had a partnership since October 2025 and states how the Flock integration into Ring "makes it easier for neighbors to support one another while keeping control of their own information" and "helps officers save valuable time that would otherwise be spent knocking on doors".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-and-ring-partner-to-help-neighborhoods-work-together-for-safer-communities|title=Flock Safety and Ring Partner to Help Neighborhoods Work Together for Safer Communities|date=2025-10-31|website=Flock Safety}}</ref> Before this commercial, there have been many examples of the state and federal departments in the United States utilizing the Flock Safety network questionably, despite Amazon stating Ring "does not give ICE videos, feeds, or back-end access".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/news/866003/ring-ice-camera-access-flock|title=Ring says it’s not giving ICE access to its cameras|first=Jennifer|last=Touhy|work=The Verge|date=2026-01-22}}</ref> Laws such as the Third-Party Doctrine imply that information a user voluntarily shares with a third party is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, such as footage uploaded to Amazon's cloud.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-130/if-these-walls-could-talk-the-smart-home-and-the-fourth-amendment-limits-of-the-third-party-doctrine/|title=If These Walls Could Talk: The Smart Home and the Fourth Amendment Limits of the Third Party Doctrine|date=2017-05-09|work=Harvard Law Review|quote=In doing so, it held that there could not have been a reasonable expectation of privacy here due to the voluntary sharing of the information with a third party and the fact that Smith could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in something as nominally informative as the numbers he dialed}}</ref> | Flock and Ring have had a partnership since October 2025 and states how the Flock integration into Ring "makes it easier for neighbors to support one another while keeping control of their own information" and "helps officers save valuable time that would otherwise be spent knocking on doors".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-and-ring-partner-to-help-neighborhoods-work-together-for-safer-communities|title=Flock Safety and Ring Partner to Help Neighborhoods Work Together for Safer Communities|date=2025-10-31|website=Flock Safety}}</ref> Before this commercial, there have been many examples of the state and federal departments (namely DHS) in the United States utilizing the Flock Safety network questionably, despite Amazon stating Ring "does not give ICE videos, feeds, or back-end access".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/news/866003/ring-ice-camera-access-flock|title=Ring says it’s not giving ICE access to its cameras|first=Jennifer|last=Touhy|work=The Verge|date=2026-01-22}}</ref> Laws such as the Third-Party Doctrine imply that information a user voluntarily shares with a third party is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, such as footage uploaded to Amazon's cloud.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-130/if-these-walls-could-talk-the-smart-home-and-the-fourth-amendment-limits-of-the-third-party-doctrine/|title=If These Walls Could Talk: The Smart Home and the Fourth Amendment Limits of the Third Party Doctrine|date=2017-05-09|work=Harvard Law Review|quote=In doing so, it held that there could not have been a reasonable expectation of privacy here due to the voluntary sharing of the information with a third party and the fact that Smith could not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in something as nominally informative as the numbers he dialed}}</ref> | ||
On February 12, Ring terminated its contract with [[Flock Safety]] over the integration requiring "significantly more time and resources than anticipated".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://blog.ring.com/about-ring/ring-and-flock-cancel-partnership/|title=Ring and Flock Cancel Partnership|date=2026-02-12|author=Ring|work=Ring Blog}}</ref> On Flock's part, they state "the integration never launched, so no Ring customer videos were ever sent to Flock".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/an-update-on-ring-partnership|title=Flock and Ring Cancel Announced Community Requests Integration|date=2026-02-12|work=Flock Safety|access-date=2026-02-13}}</ref> | On February 12, Ring terminated its contract with [[Flock Safety]] over the integration requiring "significantly more time and resources than anticipated".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://blog.ring.com/about-ring/ring-and-flock-cancel-partnership/|title=Ring and Flock Cancel Partnership|date=2026-02-12|author=Ring|work=Ring Blog}}</ref> On Flock's part, they state "the integration never launched, so no Ring customer videos were ever sent to Flock".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/an-update-on-ring-partnership|title=Flock and Ring Cancel Announced Community Requests Integration|date=2026-02-12|work=Flock Safety|access-date=2026-02-13}}</ref> | ||