Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

There are only a few days left in our critical Mid-Year Campaign and we truly might not make it without your help.
Please join us. If you rely on independent media, support Common Dreams today. This is crunch time. We need you now.

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

Spurred by journalism and grassroots action, elected officials at the local, state and federal levels have started asking questions about the dangers associated with Amazon’s surveillance-driven business model. (Photo: Stephen Brashear/Getty Images)

Spurred by journalism and grassroots action, elected officials at the local, state and federal levels have started asking questions about the dangers associated with Amazon’s surveillance-driven business model. (Photo: Stephen Brashear/Getty Images)

Google Nest or Amazon Ring? Just Reject These Corporations' Surveillance and a Dystopic Future

Purchasing devices that constantly monitor, track and record us for convenience or a sense of safety is laying the foundation for an oppressive future.

Evan Greer

 by NBC News

In his book “1984,” George Orwell imagined that Big Brother-type surveillance would be imposed on us by a violent state. But it’s becoming clear that, in fact, we are eager participants in building our own dystopia, purchasing the very devices that constantly monitor, track and record us simply for our own convenience or a sense of safety. In the process, we’re laying the foundations for a bleak and oppressive future, because corporate surveillance sold for consumer purposes can just as easily be used as a tool for tyranny—and history shows us that it will.

And our self-surveillance devices have already begun to betray us.

Take Ashley LeMay, who bought an Amazon Ring surveillance camera because she thought it would keep her family safe. Instead, a grown man hacked into the camera she had placed in the bedroom of her three young daughters. He used it to stalk the children and even spoke to 8-year-old Alyssa through the camera, saying “I’m Santa Claus. Don’t you want to be my best friend?”

A family in Florida also had their Ring camera hacked by someone who broadcast the whole thing live on a podcast. He monitored the couple before starting to harass them, shouting racist epithets and activating their alarm. A woman in Georgia who installed a Ring to monitor her dog discovered that it had been hacked four separate times after a man spoke to her through the camera, saying “I can see you in bed.” Someone threatened a couple in Texas through their Ring, demanding a ransom in bitcoin.

Amazon claims that these chilling incidents were not caused by a security lapse on the company's end. But that’s just not true. The company sells cheap, insecure, internet-connected cameras knowing full well the dangers associated with these devices. And it doesn’t even require users to protect their cameras with strong passwords or two-factor authentication—basic security measures that should be the default for devices that collect sensitive information, let alone broadcast footage from inside people's homes.

Amazon, though, simply seems interested in scaring people into buying their devices than keeping those devices safe. Investigative journalists have uncovered a pattern of lax security and privacy practices: Ring doorbells have leaked their owners' home Wi-Fi passwords, and the associated Neighbors app has exposed users' home addresses.

And Amazon’s surveillance doorbell cameras are just the start: The company is selling a multitude of other gadgets equipped with microphones, cameras and sensors, all designed to gather enormous amounts of data, which Amazon refines—like crude oil—into power and profit. Alexa, the company’s “home assistant,” is constantly listening and explosive investigations revealed that Amazon employees have also listened, via Alexa, not just to private conversations, but also to deeply intimate moments such as couples having sex or kids singing in the shower. Amazon even marketed its microphone-enabled Echo Dot Kids directly to children.

The societal implications of these private surveillance partnerships are staggering: Reports show a disturbing trend of racial profiling, with police flooded by false reports of “suspicious” individuals.

Amazon devices aren’t just giving hackers and Amazon employees an eye or an ear into our homes. The company has also partnered with more than 600 police departments across the country to tap into the surveillance network its customers are creating for them, developing a seamless process for government agents to request footage from tens of thousands of Ring cameras without warrants or any judicial oversight. In exchange for their VIP access to footage from Amazon customers, police officers act as an extension of Amazon’s marketing department by encouraging residents to buy the spy doorbells, promoting them on official city social media accounts and, in some cases, even using taxpayer dollars to subsidize private purchases of them.

The societal implications of these private surveillance partnerships are staggering: Reports show a disturbing trend of racial profiling, with police flooded by false reports of “suspicious” individuals. Ring claims to care about the safety of its customers, but the company doesn’t even pretend to care about the safety of neighbors or community members who are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement based on the color of their skin.

And many Ring cameras are placed on people’s front doors, capturing endless hours of video footage of innocent passersby, including children—most of whom are unaware that they are being surveilled and have not consented to being recorded. Amazon has openly admitted that there are no safeguards in place to prevent abuse once footage is shared with law enforcement, and that the government can store that footage indefinitely or share it with federal agencies, like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at will.

There seems to be no end to Amazon’s surveillance plans—the company also sells facial recognition software to governments, claiming that it’s powerful enough to detect human emotions such as fear, and has toyed with the idea of including the software in Ring cameras.

It’s easy to feel like a world without human privacy is inevitable, or that it’s too late to stop the end of privacy; Silicon Valley elites are, in fact, counting on us feeling that way, taking our cynicism and apathy to the bank. But there’s a difference between posting on social media or browsing the web knowing that your data is being harvested, and a world where there are devices, whether Amazon's Ring or Google's Nest, literally watching and listening to us everywhere we go.

We can’t go back in time to a world without smartphones or CCTV cameras. But we can avoid diving headlong into a nightmarish future.

Spurred by journalism and grassroots action, elected officials at the local, state and federal levels have started asking questions about the dangers associated with Amazon’s surveillance-driven business model. Tens of thousands of people have called for a congressional investigation into Amazon’s surveillance-based business model, and dozens of civil rights groups have spoken out about the ways that Amazon's partnership between Ring and local police departments exacerbates existing forms of discrimination.

This week, my organization Fight for the Future is joining other consumer privacy and civil liberties experts and issuing an official product warning encouraging people to not buy Amazon Ring cameras because of the clear threat that they pose to all of our privacy, safety, and security.

For too long, we’ve been sold a false choice between privacy and security. It’s more clear every day that more surveillance does not mean more safety, especially for the most vulnerable. Talk to your family and friends and encourage them to do their research before putting any private company's surveillance devices on your door or in your home. In the end, companies like Amazon and Google don’t care about keeping our communities safe; they care about making money.


© 2019 NBC News

Evan Greer

Evan Greer

Evan Greer is the campaign director of Fight for the Future, a digital rights nonprofit known for organizing massive online protests to defend free expression on the Internet. She's a transgender parent, organizes a monthly queer dance party and travels internationally as a political musician, speaker, and workshop facilitator. Follow her on Twitter: @evan_greer

 

Just a few days left in our crucial Mid-Year Campaign and we might not make it without your help.
Who funds our independent journalism? Readers like you who believe in our mission: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. No corporate advertisers. No billionaire founder. Our non-partisan, nonprofit media model has only one source of revenue: The people who read and value this work and our mission. That's it.
And the model is simple: If everyone just gives whatever amount they can afford and think is reasonable—$3, $9, $29, or more—we can continue. If not enough do, we go dark.

All the small gifts add up to something otherwise impossible. Please join us today. Donate to Common Dreams. This is crunch time. We need you now.

Jan. 6 Panel Subpoenas Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone

Noting his refusal to cooperate beyond an informal April interview, the committee's chair said that "we are left with no choice."

Jessica Corbett ·


Sanders Pushes Back Against AIPAC Super PAC With Endorsements of Tlaib and Levin

"Once again, these extremists are pouring millions of dollars into a congressional race to try to ensure the Democratic Party advances the agenda of powerful corporations and the billionaire class."

Brett Wilkins ·


Missouri Hospital System Resumes Providing Plan B After 'Shameful' Ban

The health network had stopped offering emergency contraception over fears of violating the state's abortion law—a "dangerous" move that critics warned could become a national trend.

Jessica Corbett ·


'An Act of Conquest': Native Americans Condemn SCOTUS Tribal Sovereignty Ruling

"Every few paragraphs of the majority opinion has another line that dismissively and casually cuts apart tribal independence that Native ancestors gave their lives for," observed one Indigenous law professor.

Brett Wilkins ·


'Lunacy': Democrats Risk Running Out of Time to Confirm Federal Judges

"Democrats aren't filling open seats right now in federal district courts because, for unfathomable reasons, they are letting red state senators block nominees," said one critic.

Julia Conley ·

Common Dreams Logo