Let's talk about Ring, lost dogs, and the surveillance state

Summary

---

Episode Overview

Podcast: Decoder with Nilay Patel
Episode: Let's talk about Ring, lost dogs, and the surveillance state
Date: February 16, 2026

This episode of Decoder dives deep into the controversy surrounding Ring’s new "Search Party" feature, which uses AI to search its vast network of home security cameras for lost pets. Nilay Patel, Editor-in-Chief at The Verge, unpacks the heated debate triggered by Ring's Super Bowl ad, the company’s long-standing ties to law enforcement, its recent scrapped partnership with Flock Safety, and the broader implications for privacy and surveillance in America. With clips and insights from Ring founder Jamie Siminoff, the episode explores the fine line between advancing public safety and sliding into a surveillance state.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Super Bowl Ad & Backlash (00:27–02:36)

• Main Idea: Ring aired a high-profile commercial for "Search Party," an AI-powered lost dog feature, during the Super Bowl, drawing massive backlash.
• Concerns Raised:
  • The same AI used to find lost pets could be repurposed for more invasive forms of surveillance.
  • Widespread discomfort about Ring's relationship with law enforcement and possible cooperation with agencies like ICE.
• Notable Reaction:
  • Senator Ed Markey called the ad "dystopian" and a proof that Amazon needed to "cease all facial recognition technology on Ring doorbells."
  • Matt Nelson of We Rate Dogs said:

    "Neither Ring's products nor business model are built around finding lost pets, but rather creating a lucrative mass surveillance network by turning private homes into surveillance outposts and well meaning neighbors into informants for ICE and other government agencies." (02:20)

2. Ring’s Law Enforcement Partnerships & the Flock Safety Twist (02:36–04:27; 13:17–14:57)

• Flock Safety Partnership:
  • Ring announced then quickly canceled a partnership with Flock Safety, a company that supplies video tech widely accessed by police and sometimes ICE.
  • The cancellation came under public scrutiny and pressure, with Ring citing logistical difficulties but also trying to assure no customer video ever reached Flock.
• Transparency and Law Enforcement:
  • Ring claims its system allows police to request footage, but user participation is voluntary and auditable.
  • Siminoff:

    "We allow agencies to ask for footage when something happens... our customers... anonomously decide whether or not they want to partake." (04:27)

• Historical Context:
  • Since Siminoff's return as CEO, cooperation with law enforcement has "intensified."

3. The Mission to Eliminate Crime — and the Dystopian Edge (06:04–11:33)

• Siminoff's Vision:
  • He frames Ring’s mission as about "eliminating crime," not just selling cameras.
  • He describes a model where the neighborhood is under total AI-enabled surveillance — likening it to every house having a personal security guard.
• Host’s Challenge:
  • Nilay Patel counters the utopian vision, noting,

    “Do you ever stop and consider that that neighborhood might suck? ... Like the idea that every house on my street would have all knowing private security guards ...” (07:52)

• Siminoff’s Justification:
  • For people in high-crime areas, such surveillance is seen as a potential positive — making crime “not profitable” and helping kids "focus on the things that matter."
• AI as Assistant:
  • AI will filter vast video data and only notify users about significant events, reducing "alert fatigue."

4. Privacy, Control, and AI’s Potential (14:57–18:07)

• Databases and Facial Recognition:
  • Patel presses on how easy it is for AI to connect video with other data stores, escalating privacy risks (“when you connect a bunch of those databases... the stakes ratchet up really high” — 13:17).
• “Familiar Faces” Feature:
  • Siminoff clarifies this is not used for broader surveillance and is only for “your” property and alerts— e.g., so you don’t get flagged every time your spouse returns.
  • Siminoff:

    “I do think there's a balance between not allowing technology to exist that should exist, that helps people and gives them more efficiency, gives them safer homes. And then also obviously not creating ... dystopian [outcomes]...” (14:57)

• How Far Would Ring Go?
  • Nilay:

    “Are you willing to go that far?” (re: facial recognition and direct, active crime notification to police — 15:53)

  • Siminoff:

    “I don't think you have to go as far as that real time stuff to like get to where we're talking about. I think it's more of like the anomaly detection and allowing people to make it so that if ... you're aware of what's happening around the neighborhood.” (17:20)

5. The Paradox of Surveillance in Society (18:33–20:52)

• Dual-Use Surveillance:
  • Regular people now use cell phones to record police abuses or ICE activity — a form of grassroots surveillance that brings accountability (“if you see these ICE agents in your neighborhood, take out that phone and hit record” — 19:45, Gov. Tim Walz).
  • But all this footage — from Ring, cellphones, Nest cams — ends up in similar legal and technical gray zones about authenticity, control, and privacy.
• Verification & Authenticity:
  • Discussing the challenge of deepfakes and ensuring video “truth.”
  • Siminoff:

    “We have built it so that you can ... keep it on the server so you can understand where it was, where it's from, where it was created. And we have that digital fingerprint on it and the audit trail of it. But I think you're going to have to do that more and more as this world is changing.” (21:46)

6. What Remains Unresolved (22:30–End)

• Aftermath:
  • The Flock partnership is dead, but Dog Search Party remains active (opt-out in settings).
  • "We're going to keep pushing the leaders of these companies on what they really mean and keep running the answer so you can listen and decide," Nilay concludes (23:22).
• Bigger Picture:
  • The episode closes reflecting on how technologies meant to make us safer may also erode civil liberties, and urges listeners to think about tech’s impact on others.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Matt Nelson, We Rate Dogs:

  "...creating a lucrative mass surveillance network by turning private homes into surveillance outposts and well meaning neighbors into informants for ICE..." (02:20)

• Sen. Ed Markey:

  "[This ad] definitely isn't about dogs, it's about mass surveillance." (02:36)

• Jamie Siminoff, on user control:

  “[Your] video is your control. Everything you're doing is in your control. Whether you sort of want to take part in anything is in your control. Like that has to be the first layer of all of it.” (11:00)

• Nilay Patel challenging Siminoff:

  "Do you ever stop and consider that that neighborhood might suck?" (07:52)

• Siminoff on AI’s future:

  "AI... it is like a co-pilot, it’s their assistant. It's helping them to figure this out." (12:49)

• Minnesota Governor Tim Walz:

  "And if you see these ICE agents in your neighborhood, take out that phone and hit record." (19:45)

• Siminoff on verification challenges:

  “We have built it so that you can ... keep it on the server so you can understand where it was, where it's from… we have that digital fingerprint on it and the audit trail of it." (21:46)

---

Timeline of Important Segments

• 00:27–02:36 — Super Bowl ad, backlash, and public figures' reactions
• 04:27–06:04 — Ring’s stance on police partnerships and user opt-in
• 06:31–11:33 — The philosophy behind AI neighborhood surveillance; utopia vs. dystopia
• 13:17–14:57 — The privacy risks of linking databases and facial recognition
• 19:45–20:52 — Broader societal surveillance (e.g., citizens recording cops), authentication challenges
• 22:30–23:45 — Episode wrap-up: unresolved issues and a call for ongoing scrutiny

---

Tone and Language

Nilay Patel maintains a probing, skeptical, yet fair tone, continually pressing Ring’s founder for specifics and calling out where utopian tech talk meets dystopian public concern. Siminoff remains candid, direct, and focused on the potential for good, sometimes not fully addressing the host’s underlying privacy worries. The conversation is lively, pointed, and registers the high stakes of neighborhood-level surveillance.

---

Conclusion

This Decoder episode lays bare the fundamental tensions at the heart of the smart home camera debate: safety versus privacy, consent versus broader social impacts, and the struggle to build systems resilient to abuse. While Ring pulls back from controversial partnerships, its AI-powered vision presses on, leaving listeners with more questions about the future of surveillance — and a clear call for continued scrutiny and personal reflection on technology’s double-edged effect in our neighborhoods.

Transcript

[A]

What does it really mean to be a neighbor? It's just everyday people, you know, it's just people who are retired. They have a couple hours in the afternoon so they're gonna do patrols. And it's people who are, you know, real estate agents, you know, driving around like trying to track how ICE is moving and alert neighbors when things are not safe.

[B]

The rise of mutual aid in times of crisis. That's this week on Explain It To.

[A]

Me new episodes Sundays, wherever you get your podc. Today, let's talk about the camera company Ring, lost Dogs and the surveillance state. Hello and welcome to Decoder. I'm Nilai Patel, editor in chief of the Verge, and Decoder is my show about big ideas and other problems. You probably saw this ad during the Super Bowl a couple weekends ago.

[B]

This is Milo. Pets are family, but every year 10 million go missing and the way we look for them hasn't changed in years. Until now. One post of a dog's photo in the Ring app starts outdoor cameras looking for a match. Search Party from Ring uses AI to help families find lost dogs. Since launch, more than a dog a day has been reunited with their family. Be a hero in your neighborhood with Search Party available to everyone for free right now. Join the [e-mail] since it aired for.

[A]

A massive audience at the Super Bowl, Rings search Party commercial has become a lightning rod for controversy. It's easy to see how the same technology that can be used to find lost dogs can also be used to find people and then used to invade our privacy in all kinds of uncomfortable ways by cops and regular people alike. And Ring in particular has always been proud of its cooperation with law enforcement, which has raised big questions about civil rights, especially because Ring had proudly announced a partnership with a company called Flock Safety whose systems have been accessed by ice. There's some complication to that. We'll come back to it. Anyway, the backlash to that Ring ad was swift, intense and effective. The data company Peak Metric says conversation about the ad on social media platforms like X actually hit a high two days after the super bowl. And the vibes as they measured them were strikingly negative. I mean, you know it's bad when Matt Nelson, who runs We Rate Dogs, is posting things like this.

[B]

Neither Ring's products nor business model are built around finding lost pets, but rather creating a lucrative mass surveillance network by turning private homes into surveillance outposts and well meaning neighbors into informants for ICE and other government agencies.

[A]

Senator Ed Markey called the ad dystopian and said it was proof that Amazon, which owns Ring, needed to cease all facial recognition technology on Ring doorbells. He said, quote, this definitely isn't about dogs, it's about mass surveillance. And then on Thursday, February 12, just four days after the Super Bowl, Ring announced that it was cancelling its partnership with Flock. In a statement first reported by the Verges Gentouhe, that statement is itself a lot Ring says, quote, following a comprehensive review, we determined the planned Flock safety integration would require significantly more time and resources than anticipated. As a result, we have made the joint decision to cancel the planned integration. The integration never launched, so no Ring customer videos were ever sent to Flock Safety. Ring in this statement also goes on to say that Ring cameras were used by police in identifying a school shooter at Brown University in December 2025. That's an odd non sequitur in a press release about a controversial partnership. That really explains a lot about Ring and how the company sees itself as it happens. Ring's founder, Jamie Simonoff, was just on decoder a few months ago talking about how and why he founded the company and in detail about why he sees Ring's mission as eliminating crime. Not selling cameras or doorbells or floodlights or anything else Ring makes, but getting rid of crime. And we actually talked about Dog Search Party and how people might feel about that kind of surveillance and how Ring works with the cops quite a bit. In fact, Jamie briefly left ring in 2023 and the company slowed down its work with law enforcement. But ever since he's come back, the emphasis on crime and the work with police has only intensified. I asked him about it. Amazon said, we're going to stop working with police. You came back, boy, Ring is going to work with police again. Right. You have a partnership with Axon, which makes the Taser that allows law enforcement to get access to Ring footage. Did that feel like a two way door? Like you just made the. They had made the wrong decision in your absence and you came back and said, we're going to do this again.

[B]

I don't know if it's wrong or right. I think different leadership does different things. I do believe that I spent a lot of time going on ride alongs. I spent a lot of times in areas that I'd say are not safe and for those people. And I've seen a lot of things where I think we can impact it in a positive way. And so we don't work with police in the way of like it's, you know, I just want to be careful is like we're not, you know, what we do Allow is that we allow agencies to ask for footage when something happens.

[A]

And.

[B]

And we allow our neighbors, which I'll say in this point, customers, just to be clear, we allow our customers to anonymously decide whether or not they want to partake in that. So if they decide they don't want to be part of this sort of network and don't want to help this public service agency that asks them, they just say no. If they decide that they do want to, which, by the way, a lot of people do want to increase the security of their neighborhoods. A lot of people do want their kids to grow up in safer neighborhoods. A lot of people want to have the tools to do that and are in places that are dangerous. We give them the ability to say yes and make that more efficient for them to communicate with those public service agencies and also do it in a very auditable digital audit. That's the other side, is that today, without these tools, if you wanted to have. If a police officer wanted to go and get footage from something, they'd have to go and knock on the door and ask you. And that's not comfortable for anyone. It's also. There's no digital audit trail of it. And with this, they can do it efficiently, but there's also an audit trail. It's very clear and it's anonymous.

[A]

Jeremy actually talked a lot about searching for dogs in this context because one of the reasons he was so excited to come back to Ring was to use AI to search through the massive amounts of video generated by Ring cameras. In fact, he told me that Ring could not have built dog search five years ago because AI systems to do it weren't available. Jamie is nothing if not direct about this, which I appreciate. The man really thinks you can use AI in cameras to reduce or even eliminate crime. But I had a lot of questions about this.

[B]

But when you put AI into it now, all of a sudden you have this, like, human element that AI gives you. I think with our products in neighborhoods. And again, this is like, you have to be a little bit specific to it. I do see a path to get where we can actually start to get to where like, yeah, we take down crime in a neighborhood to call it close to zero. And I even said there are some crimes that you can't stop.

[A]

Of course, mechanically walk people through what you mean. You put enough Ring products in a neighborhood and then AI does what to them that helps you get closer to the mission of zero crime.

[B]

The mental model, or how I look at it, is that AI allows us to have if you had a security, if you had a neighborhood where you had, call it unlimited resources. So every house had security guards. And those security guards were people that worked the same house for 10 years or 20 years. And I mean that from a knowledge perspective. So the knowledge they had of that house was extreme. Like they knew every thing about you and that sort of residence and your family, how you lived, the people that come in and out. And then if that neighborhood had an HOA with call it private security, and those private security were also sort of around and knew everything. Like what would happen? Like when a dog gets lost, you know, you'd be like, oh my gosh, my dog is lost. Well, they would call each other and one of them would find the dog very quickly. So like, that's kind of like. So how do we sort of change that and bring that into the digital world?

[A]

Can I just ask you a question about that neighborhood specifically? Do you ever stop and consider that that neighborhood might suck? Right. Like, I've just like the idea that every house on my street would have all knowing private security guards and I would have an HOA and that HOA would have a private security force. You can easily paint that to dystopia. Right. Like, everyone's so afraid that we have private cops in every corner and I'm paying HOA fees, which is just a nightmare of its own.

[B]

I would assume you live in a safe neighborhood.

[A]

I hope so. Yeah.

[B]

No, I mean today I assume. I mean, so like I go to. I mean, if you want, I'll take you to a place where people live that they have to, when they get home from school, lock their doors and, you know, stay in their house and they can't go out.

[A]

And the model is, everybody is so afraid that they have private cops is.

[B]

I think the model is that doing crime in a neighborhood like that is not profitable. And I think that, that, that you want people to move into another job. Like, I don't think that crime is a good thing. I think safer neighborhoods allow for kids to grow up in a. And I think that that allows them to be able to focus on the things that matter. And so that's kind of what we're going for.

[A]

I just want to. I just wanted to challenge the premise that, like, no, I think it's a theory. There's cops everywhere.

[B]

Right?

[A]

Like that level of private security.

[B]

Yeah, it's not cops. I think it's more that you have the ability to understand what's happening. It's not, it's not like. But I mean Yeah, I think, listen, it's a fair statement, I guess. I think our. I want to live in a safe place.

[A]

So there's a lot of intelligence in your neighborhood. Maybe it's private security, maybe it's not. What does the AI do? Does it just make the camera smarter? It lets you do more intelligent assessment of what the cameras are seeing right now.

[B]

We just say, like, motion detection. Motion detection. Motion. I mean, it's funny, when I started Ring Go Back, the book was fun because I get to go back and actually go through this whole story of how this thing came is motion detection was an amazing invention. You're in the airport, and there's a motion at your front door, and you look at it like, wow, this is crazy. Now, it's like, with AI, we shouldn't be telling you about motion detection. We should be telling you what's there. Like, when should you look at it? Like, when does it matter? And we shouldn't be bothering you all the time. That's what I mean about this, like, idea of these. Sort of like a security guard at your house, security guard in the neighborhood is like, there should be this intelligence in your neighborhood that can tell you when you should be trying to be part of something but not always telling you. So it's not just like, car, car, dog, you know, person, person. It's like, hey, look at this. Like, you. You want to pay attention to this right now.

[A]

As you can see, I really pressed Jamie on this because I still don't think it's entirely clear how Ring accomplishes the elimination of crime through AI alone. And all of that is why people don't trust Ring when it says it won't use systems that can find a dog to do things that would otherwise violate our rights. After all, if your goal is to use AI to stop crime and you've built a system that uses AI to find dogs, well, it's pretty obvious what you're gonna do next, right? Do you think when you talk about 0outryme in a neighborhood, the idea that everyone in a neighborhood has a, you know, one of those illuminated ring signs in their front yard, like, is that enough?

[B]

That's a part of it?

[A]

Is that just enough of a deterrent? Like, the bad guys will know, like, my face is gonna get captured on video and that will be analyzed by an AI and something will happen? Do you have to do more outbound deterrence?

[B]

I think that's a. I think that's a. That's a part of it. I mean, awareness is a big part of It. I think there's ways with lights also, like lighting to do stuff. That's a big part of it, I think having just, you know, if all of a sudden someone comes outside because something's an anomaly, that's a big part of it. Like, it doesn't have to be. It doesn't have to be some sort of like, crazy thing. Like, I think a lot of these, it's. That's what I was saying is it's a lot of these little things add up to make that work.

[A]

So when you think about, okay, we can bring it down, we can bring crime down a neighborhood to close to zero in a neighborhood, what are the sort of ratcheting steps? Right? Is it everyone just gets the ring camera and your platform does all the work? Is it someone gets caught and they tell all their friends in jail that they got caught. Don't go to like, what are the steps?

[B]

I think it's really about bringing neighbors together for this particular thing. So it's about how you individually. And we've always thought about how like each house is its own node controlled by the neighbor, so controlled by the person. And that's like we. That. That we kill. I'll keep going back to that. Which is 100%. Is that your. Your video is your control. Everything you're doing is in your control. Whether you sort of want to take part in anything is in your control. Like that. That has to be the first layer of all of it. But then when something happens, do you want to take part in it? So if, if it get. You get an alert that like this dog looks like this dog that's in front of your house, can you contact your neighbor, you can decide not to take part in it, and then no one will ever know. And it's fine. It's just like basically deleted and. Or you can take part in it. And so I think that's how we can do things that can make a neighborhood into this, like, node where individual neighbors are all sort of on their own. But when things happen, they can work together as they want to.

[A]

And you think that AI will just sort of accelerate the process of working?

[B]

I think AI, it is like, it is like a co pilot, it's their assistant. It's like it's helping them to figure this out. Because again, if you're just getting every motion alert and if you have, you know, if you have eight cameras and you're just getting motion alerts all day, you can't. No human being can parse all this data. And so that's kind of what I was talking to Jen about, is that I do think I see now a way to use AI to help feed better data to us, which allows us to make better decisions and work together better.

[A]

We'll be right back. This is where we get to Flock Safety, which Ring announced a partnership with last October. Flock primarily makes cameras and systems to search video for the cops. You've probably seen Flock's devices where you live. They're those little solar powered cameras and tracking devices affixed to street lights or placed in the center of parking lots. They vacuum up huge amounts of data that the company claims is anonymized before it's made available to partners, which in most cases is local law enforcement. However, according to In Depth reporting from the excellent 404 Media, Flock State has often found its way to ICE, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other law enforcement agencies without the use of a warrant because that data is willingly provided by local police. Last month, under intense scrutiny about what working with Flock would mean, Ring said its Flock partnership was not yet live, and that quote, ring has no partnership with ice, does not give ICE videos, feeds or backend access, and does not share video with them. For its part, Flock says the same thing, that it doesn't actually work with ice, but rather local law enforcement, and it's those local agencies that work with ice. This is the complication that I mentioned earlier. And if you're a decoder listener, you know where it's going. I asked Jamie about all those databases, who owns them, and what it means to connect them all up with AI. But when you connect a bunch of those databases, right, when you connect particularly to facial recognition, there's a, there's a turn in the privacy conversation where the stakes ratchet up really high, right? Where maybe it's gone forever. How are you thinking about that kind of decision making? Okay, we, we have a lot of intelligence in the AI. It's trivial for the AI to go connect to another store of information. That, that's a thing you can do with AI, especially at a big company like Amazon, where you have lots of other stores of information. There's a line. What's the line for you?

[B]

I mean, there is a responsibility, obviously, just to, like, build, you know, safe products. So let's just start with that. Yeah, we did announce facial, like we call familiar faces, but that's not connected. That's just for your, like, that's, you know, how your, I mean, your iPhone today, if you search your iPhone, it's crazy, like search for someone's name in your photos and like their pictures come up. And so I do think there's a, there's a balance between not allowing technology to exist that should exist, that helps people and gives them more efficiency, gives them safer homes. And then also obviously not creating to where you're going to like this sort of dystopian place that, you know, is, is, is that. And so I think that that is like, that's the responsibility. But like, what we're doing with familiar faces is we're just giving you the ability to say, like, when my wife comes home, don't, don't, don't. You know, because it is like silly, like, why do I get an alert when my wife comes home? I don't want it. Like, I don't need it.

[A]

I'm asking this for a lot of reasons, but, you know, I look at sort of broadly what's happening with surveillance footage out in the world. And I'm not saying RING is participating this, I'm just giving you the example. ICE has facial recognition systems, right. And they are arguing that a positive match in their facial recognition system is a definitive determination of someone's immigration status. That's way out there. I don't think you're doing that, but you can get to, okay, we have facial recognition, we have a bunch of evidence coming off of Ring cameras to make it really safe. You want to go from passive surveillance to active surveillance, right? That's what the studies show. Now we can just. The camera will literally identify the criminal by face and tell the cops, this person tried to steal a car from this driveway. And that's the thing that would get you to actually zero out crime. There's a lot of risk in those steps. But if I draw the thread from what you're saying, it's all the way to the criminals won't come here because the cameras will know who they are and tell the cops. Are you willing to go that far?

[B]

It's not about the. I think it's also that the cameras will alert people in a way that, you know, if, you know, part of what made ring and what made neighbors safer with like ring1 dot. Oh, and I think we are in like ring 2.0 is that there was no presence at the home. Like, like what, how did people break into homes? It's like they go literally, knock, knock burglars. They go like, knock, knock, like no one was home. And then like it was at 3 o' clock in the afternoon, they'd go to the homes next door, find a place that was empty and they go in the home. Ring allowed you to. Now all of a sudden like when someone comes up to the door like, you're like, oh, I got emotional alert.

[A]

Hi.

[B]

Like what's going on? And so it gave presence to the home. So it didn't, you know, I don't think you have to go as far as that real time stuff to like get to where we're talking about. I think it's more of like the anomaly detection and allowing people to make it so that if, you know, if someone comes in that you're aware of what's happening around the neighborhood. Because right now there's like no awareness of what's going on around. And so I don't, I don't think it's as dystopian as where you're going. It's really, it's not what we're building. And I do think we can impact things to a really high level in neighborhoods. Which again, to the Gentooie thing in neighborhoods is where we were talking about that with AI and what we're doing with a bunch of rings together. And I think even Dog Search Party is a good way to look at it, which is like, how do these cameras come together for good in the neighborhood?

[A]

We'll be right back.

[B]

Right now, get up to 20% off select online storage solutions put heavy duty HDX totes to good use, protecting what's important to you.

[A]

The solid impact resistant design prevents cracking and the clear base and sides make.

[B]

Items easy to find even when the totes are stacked. Find select online shelving and tote storage up to 20% off at the Home Depot.

[A]

To organize every room in your home.

[B]

From your garage to your attic, visit homedepot.com how doers get more done we heard you. Nine years of bring back the snack wrap and you've won. But maybe you should have asked for more.

[A]

Say hello to the Hot Panny Snack Wrap. Now you've really won. Go to McDonald's and get it while you can. Today the backlash against surveillance has led Ring to kill that Flock deal. The company is also doing damage control about Dog Search, telling the Verge that the technology that powers Search Party is not, quote, capable of being used to find people and that there's no indication that such features are on future roadmaps. Sure, it seems obvious that Ring has a lot of trust to earn back here and certainly that we're all thinking about what it means to put Internet connected security cameras on our homes. I think that's good and it's Certainly overdue. But let me complicate this just a little for you. At the same time this conversation about Ring is happening, we're also watching regular people record the police in ICE with their cell phones, capturing critical documentary evidence about how those agencies are violating the rights of everyday Americans in ways that is leading to change, however slow. Here's Minnesota Governor Tim Walz telling people to hit record when they see ICE so the footage can be used in future prosecutions.

[B]

And if you see these ICE agents in your neighborhood, take out that phone and hit record. Help us create a database of the.

[A]

Atrocities against Minnesotans, not just to establish a record for posterity, but to bank evidence for future prosecution. And just this week, the FBI released video that Google appears to have gone and specially recovered from Nest camera systems at Nancy Guthrie's house in order to help identify her kidnapper. That's a lot of video that's being captured and used in ways that maybe don't feel so invasive in some ways, maybe even feel good. But the systems that create, store and share that video, they're all the same. And the guardrails around them are just as weak as whatever makes us feel uncomfortable about Ring. I'm not sure how to feel about all that video. Especially in a world where AI makes it easy to fake and having some source of truth seems more important than ever. I asked Jamie about that too. Whether Ring will control all the video and sign it with some metadata so people can ensure it's real. Presuming we have to have an authenticated server. Right. There's a crime in my neighborhood and I'm opted in. And we're going to say the cops can only get the video from the Ring server because that's where we know it's true. I might not be as in control of my video anymore.

[B]

No, because I mean, not, not, not. Well, I mean, not how it's built and not while I'm here. Because the way it works is that you will decide if you want to or not want to share that video, which is your property, with someone now, once you share it, then it is like up to us to figure out to your point of like, how do we share it? How do we make sure that the digital fingerprint goes all the way through, or how does that chain of custody work of this video to make, to make sure there's no fake in the process of it? I think this is why it is important to build these systems. It's going to be important though. I mean, this is like where also government is going to have to step in. We're going to have to deal with this across the board because we also have video coming off of cell phones. We have. So we do need to figure out how to build. And there's going to be companies, you know, Axon would probably be one of the companies. I'm not going to speak for them, but they have evidence.com so to build these evidentiary systems to take in, because Ring is one part of taking in sort of data around, call it a crime scene. Cell phone video is maybe even more still today than that. So how do you take that in? How do you make sure that it actually was captured on the iPhone directly and not tampered with? Between the two things, we're going to have to figure it all out. I think we do have to work together on it. And it is, you know, the AI stuff is pushing us to sort of have to do it. I am proud with Ring is that we have built it so that you can, you know, take it directly, you know, keep it on the server so you can understand where it was, where it's from, where it was created. And we have that digital fingerprint on it and the audit trail of it. But I think you're going to have to do that more and more as this world is changing. Like, you're just not going to be able to see. Just because someone sends you a video doesn't mean it's true.

[A]

You get the feeling we'll be coming back to that idea quite a lot in the years to come. But today, Ring has canceled its deal with Flock, and Flock itself is putting out blog posts flatly saying it does not have a contract with ICE and noting that Ring's other partner, Axon, does have a contract with ice. In the meantime, Dog Search Party is still active and on by default, although you can just go into settings in the Ring app and flip it off. And the enormous amount of video that we are all generating all the time is still being uploaded to servers run by big companies that have their own dealings with governments and law enforcement agencies far outside of our control. There's a lot of potential solutions to all of these problems, a lot of ways to design regulations that might balance out privacy and civil liberties with the real need of police. But right now, in 2026America, I'm not sure we're really going to be able to do that. So in the meantime, we're going to keep pushing the leaders of these companies on what they really mean and keep running the answer so you can listen and decide. I also think it's about time we all started thinking about how the technology we use to make our own lives better affects other people. Because that bigger conversation we need to have. Yeah, that's what it's really about. We'll see you next time. Thank you for listening to Decoder. I hope you enjoyed it. If you'd like to let us know what you thought about the show or really anything else at all, drop us a you can email us atdecoder the verge.com we really do read all the emails. Or you can hit me up directly on Threads or Bluesky. We're also on YouTube now. You can watch full episodes at Decoder Pod. We also have a TikTok and an Instagram. They're both at DecoderPod too and they're a lot of fun. If you like Decoder, please share it with your friends and subscribe over to your podcast. If you really like the show, hit us with that five star review. Decoder is a production of the Verge and part of the Vox Media Podcast Network. The show is produced by Kate Cox and Nick Statt. It's edited by Ursa Wright. Our Editorial director is Kevin McShane. The Decoder Music is right. Break Master Cylinder. We'll see you next time.

[B]

Lifelock how can I help?

[A]

The IRS said I filed my return.

[B]

But I haven't One in four tax.

[A]

Paying Americans has paid the price of identity fraud. What do I do?

[B]

My refund though. I'm freaking out. Don't worry, I can fix this. Lifelock fixes identity theft guaranteed and gets your money back with up to $3 million in coverage.

[A]

I'm so relieved. No problem.

[B]

I'll be with you every step of the way.

[A]

One in four was a fraud paying American.

[B]

Not anymore.

[A]

Save up to 40% your first year.

[B]

Visit lifelock.com podcast terms apply this precedence.

[A]

Day Upgrade the look of your home without breaking your budget. Save up to 50% site wide on new window [e-mail] blinds.com makes it easy with free virtual consultations on your schedule and samples delivered to your door fast and free. With over 25 million windows covered and a 100% satisfaction guarantee, you can count on blinds.com to deliver results you'll love.

[B]

Shop up to 50% off site wide plus a free professional measure during the President's Day Mega Sale happening right [e-mail] terms apply.