Amazon did us all a service recently by airing a Super Bowl commercial showing how Ring doorbell cameras spy on everyone walking past. (I discussed this on Techtonic this week with Chris Gilliard, aka hypervisible: episode page / podcast. Recommended listening.)

Here’s the Ring commercial, which featured this key image:

In the instant that that image aired, millions of Americans finally understood what I – and other tech critics – have been trying to warn about for years: networked cameras are spying on you. The blue circles show the reach of Ring cameras, and – crucially – indicate that they’re all part of one network, controlled by Amazon, which can share or sell data to any number of third parties.

Networked surveillance cameras, after all, first transmit all the footage to their corporate owner, after which other parties might get access. This means any time you walk by a Ring camera, your image – and a recording of anything you say – go straight to Amazon. After that it’s available to law enforcement, other surveillance companies, or (in some documented cases) Amazon employees and third-party contractors who might have an interest in accessing the footage.

No wonder that Ring ad freaked people out. I don’t generally like YouTube comments – heck, I don’t like YouTube period, given that it’s a surveillance honeypot run by Google (which is why I watch videos in the Duck Duck Go browser, which strips out Google surveillance). Anyway, in this case the YouTube comments are eye-opening:

I don’t think there is a better possible ad to get rid of your Ring camera.

This is like the commercial they show at the beginning of a dystopian sci fi film to quickly show people how bad things have gotten.

Whoever came up with this ad is a genius. It’s like whistleblowing without getting caught.

That last comment raises an interesting question. Assuming it wasn’t a canny whistleblower inside Amazon who designed the ad, how did the commercial get approved in the first place? Bad focus groups, perhaps? (I write in Customers Included about the many ways that focus groups can be poorly designed, facilitated, or interpreted.)

A New York Times story today (gift link, Feb 19, 2026) helps answer the question. It appears that Ring leadership didn’t understand – and still doesn’t – that customers dislike being spied on. Ring’s founder, Jamie Simonoff, places the blame squarely on the image I pasted above:

He said that he understood people’s concerns, and that maybe people were “triggered” by an image in the ad that showed blue rings radiating out from suburban homes. There will be fewer maps in any future ads, he said.

Ah yes, the devilish power of an image describing your service. Once that’s removed, everything will be fine.

The underlying problem, of course, is one that Jamie Simonoff can’t address – unless he wants to radically change his career. Ring’s networked cameras are there to support a business model of . . .

• spying on people in their everyday lives, often without their knowledge or consent – in this case tracking them every time they leave or enter their house, or just walk by

• analyzing the data and – even after the videos are deleted – storing the inferences in a dossier kept on each individual

• monetizing that knowledge by giving access to advertisers, authoritarians, and other third parties

• promoting a culture of fear and suspicion in society, so as to increase dependence on surveillance for “safety”

What people reacted to in the ad, and what is crying out for some response, is the proliferation of networked surveillance cameras. Amazon Ring has built up a national network of spy cameras in countless homes and neighborhoods; Google Nest has its own competing product; and reportedly Apple is working on its own surveillance doorbell that will use FaceID to identify people.

Then there are the networked cameras used by organizations. Many residential buildings in New York City have installed a networked surveillance system (ButterflyMX or others) to record anyone who enters or exits the lobby. As with Amazon Ring and the rest, ButterflyMX transmits footage to the company’s cloud, where data can be analyzed – people tracked – inferences made – after which the videos might be deleted, while the surveillance analysis is monetized, possibly shared, and stored indefinitely.

Community centers, grocery stores, churches and temples – all of these, and more, are installing networked surveillance cameras. Note, again, that I’m saying networked: this is different from closed-circuit security cameras, which keep footage within the control of the organization. There’s nothing wrong with a security cam, if it’s accessible on-site only. But everything changes when the footage goes to a surveillance company. It’s time for us to get rid of networked cameras.

Let me return to religious institutions. Someone comes to a church, temple, mosque, whatever – hoping to find a moment of peace, a respite from the increasingly commercialized world outside. Little do they know that a three-trillion-dollar company is spying on them throughout the service, with the ability to analyze their biometrics, identify the individual, and (when asked) notify the authorities about the attendance patterns of the person in question.

Do I need to spell it out for you, why authoritarians might like to know who’s available for kidnapping on a Sunday morning? And with Silicon Valley CEOs showing up at the White House to grovel before the current occupant, do you doubt that Big Tech would sell out any of your neighbors if asked? (See also how the Dept of Homeland Security now has a $1 billion contract with Palantir.)

It doesn’t matter what religion you are, or none at all. The idea that a Big Tech camera would be installed in a sacred space, tracking everyone who comes in, is one of the more demonic uses of technology I can imagine. It’s time to get rid of networked cameras in all religious institutions. Failing that, if the service has to be livestreamed, the camera must be pointed only at the service leaders, never – ever – showing any attendee.

Facial recognition, unfortunately, is becoming common with networked cameras. For example, Mark Zuckerberg’s spy glasses, in partnership with Ray-Ban, will soon have facial recognition (per NYT): yet another reason to shun anyone wearing those specs.

But it’s hard to shun the surveillance doorbells of your neighbors as you walk down your street. Facial rec is there, too. In an article on “Ring’s surveillance nightmare” (Feb 10, 2026), the EFF writes:

Amazon Ring already integrates biometric identification, like face recognition, into its products via features like “Familiar Faces,” which depends on scanning the faces of those in sight of the camera and matching it against a list of pre-saved, pre-approved faces. It doesn’t take much to imagine Ring eventually combining these two features: face recognition and neighborhood searches. . . . [Ring cameras also] feature microphones that have been found to capture audio from the street.

Facial recognition isn’t merely a creepy technology, it’s a means to an end for the authoritarians. This story was instructive: ICE mobile app scans protester’s face, revokes her TSA PreCheck status (SFGate, Feb 7, 2026). We’re entering a new era in society, when we’re being spied on whenever we leave home – or go to the store – or to church – or anywhere in public. The surveillance network is metastasizing as you read this. The rules now are:

• Anywhere you go will be recorded.

• Anything you say will be recorded.

• Anyone you’re with will be identified.

• All of this will be analyzed and stored indefinitely, and you’ll have no access to it.

• If you express any dissent with the authoritarian, your privileges can be revoked.

Today it’s TSA Precheck. Tomorrow it’s whether you’re allowed on the plane at all. Soon after, zip ties and the van.

Now, friends. Right now, before it’s too late. It’s time to get rid of networked cameras.

I depend on your support to continue this writing. Please join Creative Good to get access to all my posts, comments, Good Reports tech alternatives – and help keep this newsletter going.

Until next time,

-mark

Mark Hurst, founder, Creative Good
Email: mark@creativegood.com
Podcast/radio show: techtonic.fm
Follow me on Bluesky or Mastodon