RegnisGnaw1 hour ago
The answer is that most people don't care if it benefits them. My Tesla has 6 cameras recording full time when driving and parked, but it benefits me so I enable it. It saved me $1000+ (my deductible and possible rise in insurance rates) when someone hit my car while parked at Costco (they drove off but Sentry Mode caught them).
mv41 hour ago
fyi Tesla employees were caught accessing private videos.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sens...

apt-apt-apt-apt1 hour ago
Did that result in a hit-and-run charge for them?
RegnisGnaw16 minutes ago
The Tesla Sentry Mode only got their license plate in footage. They hit my parked car as they were backing out of their spot. I was able to go after their insurance to fix it.

Since I didn’t capture who was driving, the police didn’t charge them with hit and run.

Bratmon1 hour ago
Fun fact: Lockheed Martin advertises the F-35 during football games, because even though most of the audience isn't in the market for massive government contracts, the people who are are watching.

I suspect the Ring mass surveillance ads are the same thing.

lukev1 hour ago
It’s not just for purchasers… it’s to build consensus/approval around the concept of the US military-industrial complex.
godelski29 minutes ago
Is the same idea around why companies like Coke make ads. Does anyone seriously think Coke needs brand recognition? LOL

Car companies do this too. Frequently expensive cars are advertised to people who could never buy them. The ad makes them associate it with luxury. That helps rich people associate it with luxury because luxury is often based on a social consensus.

Maybe all ads are made to sell you things, but the thing being solid is always an idea. Sometimes that idea isn't as simple as "go buy this now"

asdff1 hour ago
These sorts of advertisements make no sense for me. Who is the buyer? Some senator on some appropriations committee? Maybe some nato equivalent? And they need a 10 second flyover during a superbowl to be reminded of the existence of the f-35 program?
wyldfire1 hour ago
> Who is the buyer?

Who do you know who is currently sitting in a seat of massive power in the US Government, watches TV and says things like, "I need to have that! Why do we not have that already? It will project strength, and all the best governments project strength at every opportunity!"

godelski26 minutes ago

  > Who is the buyer?
You are

With your tax money. With your votes.

They're there not to sell you a plane directly but to make you happy with the money spent. To make you excited about the machines.

Think of it as a political ad, not a sales ad

bigyabai1 hour ago
Again, 99.999% of the viewers aren't really in the position to finance a $120 million fighter jet. However, the ~0.001% that are in that position will probably be watching, and feel FOMO for not having the iPhone of strike fighters.

Even if it only moves the needle on 2-3 sales every decade, the ROI is probably great.

chasd001 hour ago
The Super Bowl fly over was kind of random. My son said it was f18s, f35s, and f15s. I was able to make out the two b1bs. It was like the air force forgot about the flyover and just scrambled whatever was on the closest tarmac.
gerdesj1 hour ago
Given your description, its good to see the USAAF are clearly on the ball when it comes to security. If, say, all your B1s overflew the nutjob bowl then certain planners across the world might decide to act in a certain way. A random assortment leaves everyone guessing.
alex4357820 minutes ago
You could have a 9 plane fly-by of just B2s, and you’d still have less than half our operational stock committed (disregarding maintenance/readiness issues).

Using a few planes for a fly-by, particularly of anything other than B2, wouldn’t possibly “give away” any info.

esseph1 hour ago
They had several days in advance of training together. It was all planned in advanced.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4384084/air-...

dabinat1 hour ago
Ring’s marketing is almost comically wholesome, but as soon as ICE learns that such a thing is possible they will for sure want to use it.

This interview with Forbes from a few months ago provides some extra details: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidphelan/2025/12/05/how-sear...

1. Apparently what happens is that the AI scans the videos of surrounding cameras and pings the owner to ask if they can share the footage. So no video is shared unless the owner chooses.

2. Ring is indeed working on being able to detect people.

youarentrightjr1 hour ago
> So no video is shared unless the owner chooses.

That's all fine and good until we hear "oops, turns out all the customer video feeds were streaming to our cop accessible servers 24/7!".

I don't believe Ring's claims (or flock etc etc) for one second.

randycupertino33 minutes ago
It's more that police will use it for their own personal inquiries- to track their girlfriends, potential girlfriends etc. This happens enough already with license plate readers:

- Sedgwick, Kansas (2024): Former Police Chief Lee Nygaard resigned after it was discovered he used Flock cameras to track his ex-girlfriend and her new partner 228 times over four months, according to The Wichita Eagle and KAKE.

- Menasha, Wisconsin (Jan 2026): Officer Cristian Morales was charged with misconduct in office for allegedly using the Flock system to track his ex-girlfriend, WLUK-TV reported. Morales admitted to using the system due to "desperation" and "bad judgment".

- Orange City, Florida (2025): Officer Jarmarus Brown was charged with stalking after reportedly running his girlfriend's license plate 69 times, her mother's 24 times, and her brother's 15 times over seven months, the Miami Herald reported.

- San Diego, California (2021): Sergeant Mariusz Czas was arrested for stalking his ex-girlfriend using police resources

https://fox11online.com/news/crime/menasha-police-officer-ac...

https://local12.com/news/nation-world/police-chief-gets-caug...

beart1 hour ago
More likely - a quiet update changing opt-in to opt-out. They can repeat this update as many times as they want and each time, a few more people will miss the email. They can also hold your data hostage, i.e. "All data now and historical will be included in our partner sharing unless you delete it all."
citruscomputing1 hour ago
It's already happening. Someone local to me seems to be spray-painting over ring cameras and leaving flyers about the ring-flock-ice connection. I can't say I agree with the methods, but it is sending a message.
alex4357817 minutes ago
On the flip side, trespassing and vandalism by some nut is also an excellent ad for security cameras by itself, so…
WarmWash49 minutes ago
Police still need a warrant for ring camera footage. Its just the overwhelmingly people will hand over the footage if police ask.

"A suspect criminal walkes past your house the other day, mind sharing your doorbell cam footage with us?"

"Sure officer, no problem!"

iterateoften41 minutes ago
I don’t think they need a warrant if they buy it directly from the company though. A little loophole.
observationist12 minutes ago
Some of these companies have (local) law enforcement subscriptions, and default opt-in disclaimers throughout their ToS to make it all tidy and legal.

None of them have contracts with, nor can they sell to, federal agencies. Agencies have to provide a warrant, and the processes are verified through each of the companies' respective legal teams.

Their recordings data is not generally available for sale; that's a legal minefield, but there are official channels to go through. Geofence warrants and things like that aren't conducive to real-time surveillance, and the practice of using those types of reverse-search , differential analysis uses of sensitive data is under review by the Supreme Court; it's thought that they're going to weigh in on the side of the 4th amendment and prohibit overbroad fishing expeditions, even if there's snazzy math behind it.

TLDR; They need to pay the company, either via subscription or direct charge for T&M, require warrants, and the use is limited in scope. It's burdensome and expensive enough that they're not going to be using it for arbitrary random "let's scan everyone's doorbell cams in case there's an illegal immigrant!" situations, but if there's a drug dealer, violent offender, or some specific high value target, they're going to use the broad surveillance tools wherever they can.

maxerickson34 minutes ago
They do not need a warrant if the owner of the camera voluntarily shares the evidence.
ImPostingOnHN37 minutes ago
It's more like,

"computer, search the entire flock database, which in partnership with ring also includes everybody's doorbell and security cameras[0], for this person and plot a map of their whereabouts over time[1]"

0: https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-and-ring-partn...

1: https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-nova-smarter-investig...

thinkingtoilet59 minutes ago
At this point, I don't mind the methods. Shit is far gone if you're actively enabling the surveillance state, people have a right to fight back. I'm sure this won't go over well here.
vondur2 hours ago
Most people don't care if they feel it helps solve crimes. I doubt it does 90% of the time though.
SoftTalker1 hour ago
That's the thing, it legitimately does solve some crimes. And both Flock and the police who use it will quickly trot out some high profile examples. It is one of those classic "if it saves one child it's worth any price" arguments.

Are you OK with being tracked everywhere you go in public so that some bad guys don't get away with their bad activities? Many people are.

dawnerd28 minutes ago
I don’t think many are. Most are clueless. If you ask just would you mind a camera if it stops a crime sure people would say yes but if you asked it with all the details of what that data is used for beyond solving crime they’d for sure mostly say no.
toephu256 minutes ago
> Are you OK with being tracked everywhere you go in public so that some bad guys don't get away with their bad activities? Many people are.

If it helps catch 1/10 criminals? or even 1 more out of 100 criminals than would be otherwise caught?

I am. I have nothing to hide. Also, in public, anyone can record you on video without your permission anyway.

text040441 minutes ago
> I have nothing to hide

What's your full name and current address? Where do you work? What locations do you frequent in your day-to-day life? Who do you live with and spend the most time with? Can you please list their full names and contact information? Would you mind turning on location tracking on your phone? Once you've done this, let me know and I'll email you so you can share it with me.

roughly19 minutes ago
Also, what church do you attend? Is it the right one? Who’d you vote for last time? Who do you plan to vote for this time? Is your spouse or romantic partner the right kind of person? Are you sure? What hobbies do you have? What books are you reading? What’s really going on in that head of yours?
superkuh1 hour ago
Flock cameras are probably the cause of more crime than they solve with all the abuse by employees, federal agencies, and the general insecurity.
toephu254 minutes ago
Doubt it. Any sources for that?

I am in favor of the flock cameras. Most people tend to behave if they know they are being watched. They have helped reduce crime in the cities they've been deployed in.

potatototoo9927 minutes ago
That's the good thing about police states, no crime! (except state-sanctioned crimes against humanity of course)
superkuh2 minutes ago
dawnerd27 minutes ago
Please cite your source for that. Cities are pulling out of contracts with flock because they lied about who has access to data and there’s been improper access.
Sebguer1 hour ago
It's the wage theft versus retail theft problem, no matter which one has higher 'real' costs, society has decided that one is the 'real' problem that we should prioritize.
charcircuit48 minutes ago
Having safe neighborhoods is such an important factor to people's quality of life. If Ri by cameras can help achieve that it will be a benefit for society.
dawnerd29 minutes ago
Safe neighborhoods existed before ring and connected doorbells. They only serve to track and monitor your neighbors and feed into some ai training set, especially if you’re labeling who each person is.
brendoelfrendo42 minutes ago
I feel less safe knowing that anyone's doorbell could be tracking me and sending my movements to a third party to do whatever they want with that information. A camera that lets someone see their front doorstep and can record someone stealing a package is one thing; when that camera is now part of a network that is part of a larger, society-wide surveillance apparatus, I am concerned.
ChrisArchitect2 hours ago
ThrowawayTestr1 hour ago
Unironically the most terrifying thing I've ever seen on TV. The use of dogs to convince people this is a good idea is so blatant.
roughly7 minutes ago
I’d bet money if you uploaded a person’s picture as your “dog” it’d work.
orthecreedence1 hour ago
For a while, someone in our neighborhood was going around and stabbing people's packages at our mailbox area on our street. Some of the neighbors wanted us to put a surveillance cam on our property because our place is right in front of the mailboxes. We told them all to fuck off, but promised we'd be on the lookout.

Turns out this deviant package stabber, surely a scruffy disgruntled man in his 40s who was likely on six types of meth, cloaked and operating in the shroud of darkness, was actually a mischievous raven. I'm glad we didn't expand the surveillance hell hole that has the US has absentmindedly embraced just to find the infamous package stabber was a raven. The neighbors, many of whom were screaming for blood, were incredibly let down when we shared what had actually happened.

Not super relevant, but funny. Also, fuck Ring.

yunnpp1 hour ago
That sounds like peak Nextdoor Karen paranoia, thanks for sharing. Honestly, some people are just too dumb.
dfxm121 hour ago
I don't know if it is a matter of being dumb. I think a bigger part of it is that people are conditioned by a bombardment of bad-faith ads like this, as well as news media convincing you to be wary of your neighbors & trade freedom for giving power to LEO.