Andrew Bridenstine, Associate Member 2025-2026
Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal
I. Introduction
Super Bowl commercials are among the most sought-after advertising vehicles for companies. They carry a high price tag, and with that comes high expectations. This year, Ring aired a commercial that backfired, prompting recent interest and speculation about data privacy issues surrounding home security cameras.
This blog discusses the invention and rise of home security systems and their capabilities. Part II examines the current landscape of home security systems and how companies are using the data they collect from their users. Part III of this blog argues that strict policies must be implemented to prevent companies from using consumers’ data absent exigent circumstances.
II. Background
Evolution of Home Security Systems
Home security has evolved significantly with advances in technology. What began with locks and keys has expanded into a broad range of digital systems, each designed to provide enhanced protection.[1] Specifically, the invention of doorbell cameras has changed the landscape of home security. These cameras are extremely popular, with 27 percent of homes within the United States having them.[2] In fact, the global doorbell camera market was estimated to be over $2 billion in 2024, with projections reaching over $6 billion in 2033.[3] The rise in digital surveillance has drastically increased the possible legal implications that come with it.
As technology has evolved, the government has gained new avenues to access these systems for surveillance purposes. The government enlists many of the biggest corporate names in technology to obtain users’ messages and data.[4] The government’s ability to use evolved technology to conduct warrantless searches has become a larger problem, and this practice is used as a backdoor into Americans’ private lives.[5] It is therefore unsurprising that individuals have begun questioning where this camera data is stored and who ultimately has access to it.
A survey found that only 13% of Americans know how smart doorbell companies use their personal data.[6] This knowledge gap poses significant risks because, without knowing how and where your data is being used, it undermines the possibility that consumers are consenting to this use. However, recent developments have led to heightened skepticism surrounding data privacy and the use of home security cameras.
The Rise of Data Privacy Concerns
Over the last few years, more consumers have started to question the tactics technology companies are using regarding their data. For example, a popular doorbell company, Ring, has made headlines for partnering with 600 police departments to share information and video footage through its “Neighbors” app with no warrant required.[7] The use of this new technology presents not only privacy concerns but also constitutional ones. The ability of companies to take their consumers’ data and give it to third parties should raise alarms for consumers and cause them to question the tactics of technological giants.
More recently, Ring received backlash over an advertisement that was released during the Super Bowl. The advertisement showed a function of Ring called the “Search Party” feature, which allows an owner of a lost pet to notify Ring, which then searches the video of their customers.[8] To prevent your video from being reviewed by Ring, a consumer must opt out of the feature.[9] After the advertisement ran, concerns were raised by millions, prompting Ring to cancel its agreement with the data-centralizing operating system, Flock.[10] Although the companies’ agreement fell through, the idea of tech giants having access to your home video footage has caused people concern.
The recent Ring Super Bowl ad is not the only development that has caused concern. Specifically, the FBI Director, Kash Patel, stated that agents who are investigating the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie were able to “excavate material that people would think would normally be deleted and no one would look for.”[11] Nancy Guthrie had a Nest doorbell camera, and it was initially thought that the camera data was inaccessible because Guthrie did not have a subscription.[12] However, the FBI stated that it was able to recover the video from data located in back-end systems.[13] The Ring Super Bowl commercial, coupled with recent developments stemming from the Nancy Guthrie case, has caused users of home security systems to begin to question where their data is being stored and who has access to it.
What Happens to Your Data?
An industry that has been rapidly growing with the rise in technological advances is the industry of companies devoted to gathering consumers’ personal data.[14] Specifically, Ring has stated that every doorbell press was logged, each motion event detected by the camera was stored, and details were saved every time someone zoomed in on footage on their phone.[15]
Although one would think that this data would only be used for Ring metrics, there is nothing stopping the company from using the data it has collected beyond internal security purposes. One example of this is Ring’s partnership with the police.[16] Ring assures its customers that they are not selling the consumers’ data, but people are not convinced.[17] For example, ethics professor Jolynn Dellinger stated that the increased surveillance of everyday life “is not consistent with either our expected views or really what’s best for society.”[18] Tech companies often say that users can simply turn their cameras off, but individuals should not have to disable their security systems to protect their privacy.[19] Companies must protect their consumers by not exploiting the information they gather and using it in ways that have not been authorized.
III. Discussion
Privacy Backlash
Given recent developments, there has been a rise in backlash surrounding home security systems. U.S. Senator Edward Markey accused Amazon of consistently failing to prioritize public privacy with its Ring doorbells. [20] Members of privacy protection groups are also voicing their opposition to the use of consumers’ data. Specifically, customers often do not realize how much data they are sharing with tech companies.[21] Many consumers were surprised to learn the extent to which technology companies can utilize the date they collect. Individuals took to social media to express their frustration, calling the practices a “quiet rollout of a national surveillance regime.”[22] As frustration increases, it is important for consumers to educate themselves and for lawmakers to hold tech companies responsible for their actions.
Consumer Education Surrounding Data
Consumer education on data privacy is as important as tech companies’ obligation to protect their customers. Education about smart device privacy is increasing as AI amplifies both public safety-enhancing and privacy-infringing capabilities.[23] Promoting education may also benefit the companies. A recent study showed that consumers are 131% more likely to buy from a brand immediately after they consume educational content.[24] With a higher likelihood that consumers will buy the product, companies have serious incentives to ensure that their privacy practices are readily available for consumers and easy to understand. This will ensure minimal confusion surrounding where consumers’ data goes.
Additionally, strong data privacy and security practices allow companies to differentiate themselves from others, which leads to higher sales and satisfied customers.[25] In comparison, if companies have poor privacy tactics, it is more likely that consumers will lose trust in the company, which could lead to lower profits.[26] Protecting consumers’ data is a two-way street, so both sides must do their part.
Consumers can also take proactive measures beyond educating themselves. One way is for users to know the different features their home security system has and turn off the ones they do not want.[27] Another step to take is controlling community requests.[28] For example, a user does not have to opt in to allow law enforcement agencies access to their video system.[29] Taking these simple steps can help keep people’s data protected. Combining this with data privacy education will allow consumers to feel more trusting of the companies and ensure their data will not be used in ways they do not want.
Although consumers can form their own opinion about how companies are policing data privacy, it is equally, if not more important, that lawmakers hold tech companies responsible for protecting data.
Lawmakers’ Role in Protecting Consumers
The responsibility for protecting data does not rest solely with consumers who educate themselves. Lawmakers have a heightened responsibility to ensure they hold companies accountable for their actions. Although the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is tasked with addressing the knowledge imbalance between consumers and technology companies, the problem persists.[30] The reason for this is that the FTC has limited privacy authority.[31] The FTC mainly focuses on privacy harms that can be quantified in terms of economic damage, so that does not cover minute privacy breaches that happen daily.[32] One way that this can be solved is by users and companies coming together to increase transparency and accountability.[33] However, this is unlikely to happen, so that leaves the issue to lawmakers to enforce.
In recent years, there has been more movement from some lawmakers to limit who has access to internet-connected security devices. A New York State Representative introduced proposed legislation that would prohibit police departments from accessing recordings without a warrant.[34] If this legislation were passed, it would create a new section of New York’s Civil Rights Law and would heavily restrict who has access to these recordings.[35] A U.S. Senator has also voiced opposition, saying that facial recognition on doorbell cameras is a privacy nightmare.[36] While it is important to use evolving technology to assist local government, such as solving crime, it is equally important to limit companies’ ability to access this data and send it out without the proper guidelines. As no new legislation has officially been passed regarding this issue, lawmakers must act quickly to ensure the data of consumers is protected.
IV. Conclusion
While smart home security systems, like Ring doorbells, have been around for some years now, the issue surrounding data privacy has seen an uptick in controversy. With the recent Ring Super Bowl ad, consumers are beginning to voice their opinions on how tech companies use the data they collect. With new concerns, lawmakers will have to weigh the benefits of the data these systems can collect against the privacy interests of the consumers. It is imperative that stricter regulatory solutions be implemented, such as warrant requirements, data retention limits, and enhanced transparency obligations.
The evidence suggests that there is not enough regulation on what tech companies can do, and without these guidelines, data will continue to be unprotected, and the risk will continue to grow. Until clearer safeguards and accountability measures are implemented, consumers will remain vulnerable to the misuse of the very data intended to protect them.
[1] The Evolution of Home Security Systems in the Digital Age, IPView Security, https://ipviewsecurityusa.com/home-security-systems/the-evolution-of-home-security-systems-in-the-digital-age/ (last visited Mar. 8, 2026), [https://perma.cc/P5QM-P87W].
[2] Leeza Garber & Gail Gottehrer, Danger on the Doorstep – Doorbell Cams and Privacy, Newsweek, (Feb. 24, 2026), https://www.newsweek.com/danger-on-the-doorstep-doorbell-cams-and-privacy-opinion-11575160 [https://perma.cc/7Z6U-74MN].
[3] Id.
[4] Patrick Toomey & Sara Robinson, Mass Surveillance Is Dangerous for American Communities: Reforming the Section 702 Spying Regime, American Bar Association, (Jun. 3, 2024), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/2024-june/mass-surveillance-dangerous-american-communities-reforming-section-702/ [https://perma.cc/P8C3-KVUZ].
[5] Id.
[6] Susan Meyer, Ring the alarm: 87% of Americans don’t know how their doorbell camera data is being used, The Zebra, (May 16, 2024), https://www.thezebra.com/resources/home/doorbell-camera-survey/ [last visited Mar. 16, 2026].
[7] Id.
[8] Jay Stanley, Ring Superbowl Ad Shows Americans How Powerful Surveillance Systems Have Become, Freaks Them Out, ACLU, (Feb. 13, 2026), https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/doorbell-camera-video-search [https://perma.cc/68PW-E7Z8].
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Sam Sabin, Doorbell cams, surveillance tech face growing backlash, Axios, (Feb. 17, 2026), https://www.axios.com/2026/02/17/doorbell-cams-and-surveillance-tech-face-growing-public-backlash [last visited, Mar. 16, 2026].
[12] Garber & Gottehrer, supra note 2.
[13] Id.
[14] Rachel Cericola et al., Yes, Your TV Is Probably Spying on You. Your Fridge Too. Here’s What They Know, N.Y. Times, (June 25, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/advice-smart-devices-data-tracking/ [https://perma.cc/MNV2-BJNU].
[15] Matt Burgess, All the Data Amazon’s Ring Cameras Collect About You, Wired, (Aug. 5, 2022), https://www.wired.com/story/ring-doorbell-camera-amazon-privacy/ [https://perma.cc/B3YT-N24Y].
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Mason Leib, Safety and privacy for home security cameras like Ring and Nest: What homeowners should know, ABC News, (Feb. 14, 2026), https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/homeowners-home-security-camera-safety-privacy/story?id=130141885 [https://perma.cc/6Y6H-X7QR].
[20] Garber & Gottehrer, supra note 2.
[21] Kevin Collier, One nation, on camera: Internet-connected doorbells promise security but raise privacy concerns, NBC News, (Feb. 12, 2026), https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-nest-amazon-ring-doorbell-cameras-super-bowl-ad-rcna258591 [https://perma.cc/AE6R-UJJQ].
[22] Id.
[23] Garber & Gottehrer, supra note 2.
[24] Kaya Ismail, The Importance of Consumer Education in Today’s Data-Driven Purchasing Journey, CMS Wire, (Feb. 11, 2020), https://www.cmswire.com/content-marketing/the-importance-of-consumer-education-in-todays-data-driven-purchasing-journey/ [https://perma.cc/WMD5-NVZX].
[25] Pat Conroy & Anupam Narula, Building consumer trust, Deloitte, (Nov. 14, 2024), https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/risk-management/consumer-data-privacy-strategies.html [https://perma.cc/BHN4-MXZR].
[26] Id.
[27] Daniel Wroclawski, Ring Privacy and Security Settings You Should Check Right Now, Consumer Reports, (Feb. 13, 2026), https://www.consumerreports.org/electronics-computers/privacy/ring-privacy-security-settings-to-check-a7189415320/ [https://perma.cc/G5QK-BU7N].
[28] Id.
[29] Id.
[30] Garber & Gottehrer, supra note 2.
[31] The FTC is currently the Primary Privacy Enforcer, but its Authority is Limited, New America, (last visited Mar. 16, 2026), https://www.newamerica.org/insights/enforcing-new-privacy-law/the-ftc-is-currently-the-primary-privacy-enforcer-but-its-authority-is-limited/ [https://perma.cc/Y44B-F5NX].
[32] Id.
[33] Garber & Gottehrer, supra note 2.
[34] John Wittaker, Lawmaker Seeks Limits On Doorbell Camera Access, The Post-Journal, (Sep. 10, 2025), https://www.post-journal.com/news/top-stories/2025/09/lawmaker-seeks-limits-on-doorbell-camera-access/ [https://perma.cc/FS27-ZJUN].
[35] Id.
[36] Suzanne Smalley, Lawmaker calls facial recognition on doorbell cameras a ‘privacy nightmare’, The Record, (Dec. 10, 2025), https://therecord.media/lawmaker-calls-facial-recognition-doorbell-cameras-privacy-nightmare [https://perma.cc/87CU-BP3M].
Leave a comment