Amazon-owned Ring should pay Americans for scanning their faces, lawsuit says

Lawsuit: Ring cameras scan guests and passersby and use AI to identify faces.

See full article...

 

[CatNamedHugs]

Not only that, but other countries have introduced legislation that explicitly grants copyright (or trademark) protection to one's likeness by default. That way these disgusting fucking companies need to get permission and/or pay if those images are being used for anything.

 

[matthewmspace]

And it's this (along with the Search Party feature) that made me switch to a Unifi camera doorbell instead.

 

[Voxera]

And in Sweden its generally illegal to have any static camera filming a public space, like the stairs in an apartment block or a camera facing the street outside if its close enough to capture any faces or number plates, if your on site manning the camera its not problem but anything that records without your presence generally require special permission, so ring door bells are only legal if they only cover your own property, or a common area not open to the public if there also is information about the camera.

 

[Cutlack]

Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you!*





*This photo was taken a few days ago in Nanjing. It says: "New community surveillance: your civilised behaviour demonstrated by every gesture"

 

[chaos215bar2]

And in Sweden its generally illegal to have any static camera filming a public space, like the stairs in an apartment block or a camera facing the street outside if its close enough to capture any faces or number plates, if your on site manning the camera its not problem but anything that records without your presence generally require special permission, so ring door bells are only legal if they only cover your own property, or a common area not open to the public if there also is information about the camera.

I was walking by a house recently that had internet connected doorbells on the front door, side gate, and all three corners of the house facing the public street. (Forget the brand; don't think they were Ring.) All perfectly aimed to capture every face and car that goes by, with bright blue lights staring out at night.

Then there's the houses popping up that yell "Attention! You are bing recorded!", again when you just walk by on the public sidewalk. Seems this one is actually a Ring feature.

For this second case, I usually march straight up to the camera that just yelled at me and rearrange something in the yard in full view, just to make a point. (What, you think police are going to chase down the person who moved a couple plant pots or rocks around, or touched your car, without actually damaging anything? The least you could do is not program your cameras to yell at people on a public right of way.) And funny thing, the message usually disappears shortly after.

This stuff is beyond creepy. Makes me really tempted sometimes to buy a high power near-UV laser and have some fun with the CCDs.

 

[CatNamedHugs]

This stuff is beyond creepy. Makes me really tempted sometimes to buy a high power near-UV laser and have some fun with the CCDs.

Get the flocks while you're at it.

 

[vought1221]

I didn’t sign any agreements with Amazon or Ring. I’d like to be paid for my appearance and training data.

Thanks!

 

[chaos215bar2]

Get the flocks while you're at it.

Oh, absolutely.

When I'm forced to visit the Lowes, I take the one route that lets me skip having my license scanned on the way in and out. And if I'm in a really bad mood, I might relocate a price tag or two onto the cameras they've recently started installing in the isles, right at eye level, with a 7" or so screen, just to make sure you know there's recording going on.

I don't go to Home Depot at all any more, because all the entrances are covered.

Is it really too much to ask to simply exist in society without constantly being tracked and data mined? I find the constant surveillance so much more disturbing than the minuscule chance someone will take advantage of lack of surveillance to do me harm.

(And then there's the whole thing where, you know, if we actually treated people like humans and made sure they had clothing, food, shelter, and access to resources to educate themselves and find a job that actually pays well enough to live off of, then petty crime like car break-ins and retail theft wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.)

 

[House of Propane]

And it's this (along with the Search Party feature) that made me switch to a Unifi camera doorbell instead.

Are you aware that Ubiquiti's AI features are significantly stronger than the ring camera features described in the article: https://help.ui.com/hc/en-us/articl...-Cameras-AI-Detections-and-Facial-Recognition

Being able to do plain language search at scale and tracking people/vehicles from camera to camera is basically why I invested in Unifi cameras instead of weaksauce consumer ones. You can even do voice to text on what people say near your cameras and search the text!

 

[rochefort]

And in Sweden its generally illegal to have any static camera filming a public space, like the stairs in an apartment block or a camera facing the street outside if its close enough to capture any faces or number plates, if your on site manning the camera its not problem but anything that records without your presence generally require special permission, so ring door bells are only legal if they only cover your own property, or a common area not open to the public if there also is information about the camera.

That sounds like an exaggeration. See:
https://setterwalls.se/en/article/n...-effective-in-sweden-from-the-first-of-april/

Key points:

• Balancing of interests: The new legislation place additional emphasis on the necessity for actors that conduct camera surveillance to perform and document the legitimate interest assessment, including the balancing of interests between the interest of surveillance with the protection of personal integrity. This involves a thorough assessment and documentation of the necessity and proportionality of the camera surveillance activities.
• Accountability: Proper documentation of the legitimate interest assessment is essential for demonstrating accountability under the GDPR. This ensures that businesses can justify their surveillance practices.

 

[CarrerCrytharis]

There can be only one Lord of the Rings -- and he does not share power.

 

[swrobel]

Ring’s collection, retention, and use of biometric information without adequate consent demonstrates that Ring violates Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act—which protects against deceptive and unfair trade practices

I hope im wrong about this, because I really loathe Ring, and this feature, but this case does sound incredibly weak. Deceptive & unfair trade practices is the best they could do?

I imagine they’re up against the unfortunate fact that in most of the US, you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces (ex: walking down the street) that will make this a seriously uphill battle.

It would be great to see a more thorough legal analysis of this case as it’s making the rounds, since I’m not a lawyer and can only speculate based on my passing familiarity with privacy law.

 

[Basil Wrathbone]

“Violates basic notions of consumer privacy”

Name some major corporations whose core business models are the invasion of privacy. Go ahead, I'll wait…

How many did you get? 10? 100?

Amazon is just one symptom of a disease so vast it's hard to wrap one's head around. Just as slapping band-aids on the chancres has zero chance of curing syphilis, core human rights can't be assured by class action suits. Only national regulation, monitoring, enforcement, and strict punishments can do that.

Americans have none of those and are taking no significant action to acquire them. And so long as we allow the U.S. Congress to operate itself as a legal bordello, we never will. In the meantime, we have the leaders, government, and law we deserve: the worst we're willing to tolerate.

 

[akamat]

(And then there's the whole thing where, you know, if we actually treated people like humans and made sure they had clothing, food, shelter, and access to resources to educate themselves and find a job that actually pays well enough to live off of, then petty crime like car break-ins and retail theft wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue.)

You know that shitty corps & politicians exist, but you seem to have a fantasy that shitty people don't?

I doubt that car break-ins and retail theft are primarily done by poor needy people who didn't have a choice. They're basically organized crime that knows very well, law enforcement is overwhelmed and the penalties are peanuts anyway.

 

[chaos215bar2]

You know that shitty corps & politicians exist, but you seem to have a fantasy that shitty people don't?

I doubt that car break-ins and retail theft are primarily done by poor needy people who didn't have a choice. They're basically organized crime that knows very well, law enforcement is overwhelmed and the penalties are peanuts anyway.

Organized crime of some sort will pretty much always exist, but the low level people committing petty crime on the street don't generally turn to that path by choice. It's high risk and relatively low reward, vs. a decently paying job that actually contributes to society.

Corporations and politicians (and CEOs, etc.) hurting society are in it for the money and power. Street level criminals, by and large, are trying to survive in a society that never bothered to figure out how to actually help them integrate, either due to socioeconomic status or mental health / developmental disorders which killed any chance they might have had at getting a decent education — which we then treat as a prerequisite even for jobs that literally don't pay enough to live on.

If we want to solve these problems, at some point we're going to have to admit that the role of society is to work for all people, and not the reverse.

 

[Hypatia]

I’ve been in communities that become enraged at the mention of Flock’s name but enthusiastically embrace Ring.

I understand there is a distinction between the two, but when so many Ring devices are placed in a way that captures so much public space, it becomes a distinction without a difference (at least from my perspective).

It’s actually okay to not digitize every inch of everything. I would like to see fewer people trying to Minority Report us into a future we don’t want.

“Have I Been Flocked?”

 

[Granadico]

And in Sweden its generally illegal to have any static camera filming a public space, like the stairs in an apartment block or a camera facing the street outside if its close enough to capture any faces or number plates, if your on site manning the camera its not problem but anything that records without your presence generally require special permission, so ring door bells are only legal if they only cover your own property, or a common area not open to the public if there also is information about the camera.

I ride my bike to work in Southern California (i don't have a death wish but I'm stubborn) and every once in a while I'll try to take note of all the doors i see with some kind of doorbell camera. I've never done a legit analysis or anything but i swear it's gotta be close to 70% of houses have one, usually Ring. So I imagine it's easy to stitch together footage of me just passing numerous houses every day. It's absolutely crazy how normalized it is for people to just record public facing stuff from their own property.

My own home cameras record to an sd card for seconds at a time and i angled deliberately to not see anything past my area, and even then I feel dirty them being there.

 

[Zenrock]

"retail theft wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue."

I work in-line with retail logistics, still. Most retail theft is done outside the store. Think warehouse-to-warehouse. That's where most theft is done. In the 90's, corporate said we lost 900 trailers worth of product every year.

(it's funny that the auto-correct keeps trying to change "warehouse" to "Whorehouse"... but that's capitalism I guess)

 

[qwertyqwertz]

I wish them luck in their lawsuit. A few years ago I started paying attention in my walks around my neighborhood. From my casual observations I’ve determined that, thanks to the ubiquity of ring cameras, within a quarter mile of my house there is almost no sidewalk out of view of a ring camera. I generally don’t like being under 24/7 surveillance by anyone, especially not Amazon…

 

[bugabuga]

I understand they're throwing everything in hopes of something will stick (and that Amazon will just say "eh, we'll settle for a few millions" and lawyers will get some money), but I am a bit dubious about expectation of seclusion while roaming about some third party housing. And demanding said seclusion to be uninterrupted. In the middle of the street or apartment complex? How exactly would that work?

For the purposes of trade clause is probably kinda vague to almost fit this case, but then until Ring starts selling arbitrary "find such and such person" services will also probably won't work. There's a difference between "I want to know when people walk around my property or on public property close enough to my house" (no expectation of privacy unless someone points ring with binoculars at private area) and "Ring records random citizen, makes him into AI movie model, sells t-shirt with their likeness"

But again, will probably get settled for a bit of money with "no admission of any guilt"

 

[TRWilson]

I was walking by a house recently that had internet connected doorbells on the front door, side gate, and all three corners of the house facing the public street. (Forget the brand; don't think they were Ring.) All perfectly aimed to capture every face and car that goes by, with bright blue lights staring out at night.

Then there's the houses popping up that yell "Attention! You are bing recorded!", again when you just walk by on the public sidewalk. Seems this one is actually a Ring feature.

For this second case, I usually march straight up to the camera that just yelled at me and rearrange something in the yard in full view, just to make a point. (What, you think police are going to chase down the person who moved a couple plant pots or rocks around, or touched your car, without actually damaging anything? The least you could do is not program your cameras to yell at people on a public right of way.) And funny thing, the message usually disappears shortly after.

This stuff is beyond creepy. Makes me really tempted sometimes to buy a high power near-UV laser and have some fun with the CCDs.

Just walk up and stick a piece of electrical tape over the camera lens ........ end of problem. For awhile, anyway.

 

[RGMBill]

As a Snowbird, I live in Virginia and Florida. So, does that mean I'm a potential member of both subclasses in the lawsuit? If it helps, my neighbor across the street in Virginia has a Ring Doorbell. Coincidentally, so does the assisted living facility across the street in Florida. Both would be enough to catch my face (in Florida, my mailbox is even across the street in the front yard of the as88sitedliving facility, which is a home in a neighborhood).

 

[chaos215bar2]

I work in-line with retail logistics, still. Most retail theft is done outside the store. Think warehouse-to-warehouse. That's where most theft is done. In the 90's, corporate said we lost 900 trailers worth of product every year.

(it's funny that the auto-correct keeps trying to change "warehouse" to "Whorehouse"... but that's capitalism I guess)

I had meant from stores. I would imagine supply chain theft trends more towards organized crime, since it would tend to be higher risk and higher value per incident, but perhaps that's wrong.

 

[aurelius rex]

I imagine they’re up against the unfortunate fact that in most of the US, you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces (ex: walking down the street) that will make this a seriously uphill battle.

That’s my concern as well. From a case law perspective, the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter vs. United States (2018) ruled that searching historical cell site location information requires a warrant. I hope that the courts develop a doctrine requiring warrants to search any type of historic mass surveillance records.

It would be nice if the courts just banned the long-term collection of surveillance data, but I’m OK with baby steps.

 

[Ars Hole]

Let me be as cynical and pessimistic as possible.

The billionaires and their companies can do whatever they want and everyone is too much of a pussy to piss them off because they're stupid enough to think it will win them favor with the overloads. They'll be tossed into the pile of burning corpses like everyone else.

Their digital Panopticon is complete. They'll get a slap on the wrist, and in a few years you'll get your $2.75 check in the mail shortly before you're put in the concentration camp and you'll like it until you're executed.

There is no escape from trillions of cameras, microphones, biometric examination, and LAWs as LLMs parse the surveillance system in real time to eliminate dissent instantaneously. Everything you love and cherished will be raped, murdered, and the earth turned to ash.

 

[chaos215bar2]

The billionaires and their companies can do whatever they want and everyone is too much of a pussy to piss them off because they're stupid enough to think it will win them favor with the overloads.

Have you been watching the Bricks & Minifigs saga?

The response the collection owner, original store owners, and Ben got there is why people are afraid to go up against the wealthy.

Or how about this case?

https://petapixel.com/2026/05/13/ma...she-mistakenly-posted-his-photo-on-instagram/

Sure, you could argue perhaps the guy didn't deserve to win the case. But to have the case dismissed and a regular guy forced to pay Kim Kardashian's exorbitant legal fees? Well, who else is ever going to file a similar suit in the future, even if it's entirely legitimate?

The entire system is stacked against you, and will easily destroy the financial future of someone with even reasonable middle class level wealth before they get anywhere in court.

 

[nickfromdc]

Sounds like everyone’s getting a coupon for $5 off their next Ring camera purchase.

 

[Lecutter]

What consumer privacy? If you're in public you have zero expectation of privacy. That's always been the law. Don't want to be filmed in public? Wear a mask. Personally I'm all for CCTV cameras everywhere like weeds. Especially speed/tailgate cameras.

 

[Epke]

I didn’t sign any agreements with Amazon or Ring. I’d like to be paid for my appearance and training data.

Thanks!

I hope you don't have a prime account

 

[lancemartini]

in most of the US, you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces

I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with the fact that my neighbor’s ring doorbell looks directly at my house and possibly into my front windows. It’s really fucking creepy knowing that they can be notified every time I walk out my front door.

 

[maxoakland]

They should have to pay billions

 

[maxoakland]

I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with the fact that my neighbor’s ring doorbell looks directly at my house and possibly into my front windows. It’s really fucking creepy knowing that they can be notified every time I walk out my front door.

If they're filming inside your house, that's illegal and you could sue them or worse

 

[DougF]

I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with the fact that my neighbor’s ring doorbell looks directly at my house and possibly into my front windows. It’s really fucking creepy knowing that they can be notified every time I walk out my front door.

On the one hand, my neighbor’s Ring camera also see my front door and living room/den picture windows. On the other hand, it’s not powerful enough to see inside, let alone make out any details. And on the gripping hand, it was a useful tool to prove to the delivery company that their vehicle was, in fact, not at my house when they say the package was dropped off, so I could get a replacement item for free; and to give a partial description to the deputies of the guys who ransacked my truck (looking for guns but all they got was some quarters).

 

[Bannerdog]

I don't understand some of the objections to these cameras, provided that they're not tied to a central database.

I don't want the government, or a private company, to be able to "look up" where anyone has been at any time.

However, I'm not opposed to an individual being able to determine who has been on or near their premises.