After Search Party backlash, Ring is still avoiding the bigger questions

Ring's CEO is still missing the point

Ring founder Jamie Siminoff is on an "explanation tour" after backlash to its Super Bowl ad and new Search Party feature, but he's focusing on the wrong issues. In an interview with The New York Times, Siminoff suggested people were "triggered" by maps in the ad and promised fewer graphics in the future.

Graphics are not the problem. The core issue is the potential for Ring's vast, AI-powered camera network to become a mass surveillance tool accessible to law enforcement.

The surveillance concerns are real

Ring maintains its cameras are not a surveillance tool and that user privacy is robust. The company says users are in full control of their videos, including whether to share them with police.

But these statements haven't fully addressed user fears. Siminoff continues to push a narrative that more cameras solve crime, telling The Times that "most people feel this way, even if they say otherwise."

He argues Ring's work is "not just like unfettered mass surveillance," citing cases where video provided crucial evidence. However, he has not clarified the limits of this technology.

Where does Ring draw the line?

Siminoff needs to explain where Ring will draw the line with its powerful technology. The company is still building out Search Party, with plans to add searching for cats to its capabilities.

This raises a critical question: will Search Party stop at tracking pets and lost items? The company has not committed to a limit on what its AI can be used to search for, leaving the door open for tracking humans.

The argument that camera owners have complete control is undermined by Ring's own actions. The company turned Search Party on by default for everyone, demonstrating it holds significant control over features and settings.

• Users can choose to share footage, but the people recorded by the cameras have no choice.
• There is no guarantee current privacy defaults will remain in place.
• Once video is shared with police, Ring has little control over its subsequent use.

Problematic partnerships persist

Ring canceled its controversial partnership with Flock Safety, a law enforcement tech company linked to sharing footage with ICE. But other problematic alliances continue.

The company's Community Requests tool, which lets users share footage directly with local police, is still active. Ring remains the only major home security company with such a system.

Its partnership with Axon, another law enforcement technology company known for Tasers, also continues. Axon's digital evidence management system is widely used by agencies including Customs and Border Protection.

Technology is outpacing the conversation

All this technology is advancing at lightning speed without sufficient public debate on its societal impact. For many, it feels dangerously close to a dystopian surveillance system.

Siminoff and Ring have a responsibility to lead that conversation, not dismiss concerns as being about ad graphics. The company created this technology and must ensure it is used responsibly.

Until Ring directly addresses the bigger questions about AI surveillance, law enforcement access, and ethical boundaries, the backlash will continue. The maps were never the problem.