Ring backtracks, lets cops once again request video from your doorbell and security cameras
Earlier this year, Axon, the maker of Taser, announced (spotted by Business Insider) that it was partnering with Ring to allow customers to share "relevant video with law enforcement to help solve crimes faster and safeguard neighborhoods.
This will affect all of the best Ring video doorbells.
It's a reversal of the video sharing policy introduced in January of 2024 when Ring removed the "Request for Assistance" button from the Neighbors app. This meant that public agencies could no longer request and receive video directly in the app except in emergencies.
It was another step in scaling back law enforcement involvement by Ring due to privacy concerns.
With the Axon partnership, police can now request footage from Ring users via Axon's digital evidence management system. As of this writing, it's unclear if police solicitations will appear in the Neighbors app.
Tom's Guide has reached out to Ring for clarification on the Axon partnership and how new law enforcement requests will appear for customers.
Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
According to Axon, the once a request is made, Ring owners can decide to to send the footage or not. If they do it will be 'encrypted and securely added to the case file."
This year, former CEO and founder of Ring, Jamie Siminoff, returned to Amazon, taking over Ring and several other smart home companies within Amazon's umbrella. Business Insider reports that he has made sweeping changes across the company with a desire to have Ring return "to its founding identity as a crime-prevention tool."
Emails to employees read that Siminoff wants to return Blink to its original goal of making neighborhoods safer.
Ring is not without controversy. In 2023, the FTC sued the company after reports that it enabled workers and hackers to spy on customers, as reported by The Verge. Motherboard reported in 2019 that the company was coaching police on how to get footage without a warrant from users.
Currently, Ring has partnerships with over 2,000 police and fire departments across the country.
Ring has partnerships with over 2,000 police and fire departments across every U.S. state. The last official number we could find came from a letter Ring sent to Senator Markey (via Wired) in 2022, which noted 2,161 partner "law enforcement agencies" and 455 fire departments.
The company has an "Active Agency Map," which Ring claims is regularly updated. From that, we were able to find 113 "local government agencies," mostly animal services and emergency management, 2,678 "local law enforcement," and 622 fire departments. An additional 517 and 167 police and fire departments have been added since 2022.
Ring makes some of the best video doorbells, and even takes up multiple slots in our picks.
However, if the sudden turn to more of a law enforcement-enabling company makes you uncomfortable, there are alternatives, including the Eufy Video Doorbell Dual and the Nest doorbell. Again, this won't necessarily stop company's from sharing videos with cops without your consent, but other doorbells don't have quite the same privacy controversies as Ring.
It should be noted that Siminoff is not only in charge of Ring but also the Amazon-owned company, Blink, which makes one of the best home security cameras in the Blink Outdoor 4.
The Ring founder has combined teams for Ring, Blink, Key, and Amazon Sidewalk, but it's unclear if this Axon partnership will remain exclusive to Ring devices.
But just in case, you could try alternatives like the Wyze Cam v4 and Arlo Ultra 2, both excellent choices.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Return Fraud Epidemic: How $103 Billion In Returns Are Costing Shopping And Sellers Big
Many shoppers think of returns as a no harm, no foul transaction. If they deem a purchase unnecessary, and the product is unused and easy to resell, they're largely right. However, retailers are now telling Business Insider that the returns are becoming a major issue. Especially as outright return fraud — in the form of empty packages, swapped out items, claiming failed deliveries, or abusing generous return polices — is ramping up. 'Consumers who would never go into a physical store and take an item off without paying and stealing are actually being trained socially that it's actually acceptable to take advantage of retailers in these small ways,' Narvar Vice President of Consumer Strategy David Morin said. 'They think it's OK, right? Stick it to the man.' Don't Miss: 'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. You can Accredited Investors: Grab Pre-IPO Shares of the AI Company Powering Hasbro, Sephora & MGM— A 2024 report by Appriss Retail and Deloitte found that last year the total value of returned merchandise in the U.S. reached $685 billion, or 13.21% of total retail sales. Of those returns, 15.14% were fraudulent, resulting in a $103 billion loss for retailers. Morin told Business Insider that it's hard to determine exactly who is behind all of these fraudulent returns, but that it's clear a pretty expansive group of people made up of both ordinary consumers and organized criminals is involved. Last summer, Narvar's 8th Annual State of Returns report found that 57% of shoppers said they had participated in return fraud at least once. Return fraud incidents, the report said, were up by 16 percentage points year-over-year. 'There seems to be this mentality that consumers feel entitled to do it,' Loop Senior Vice President of Marketing Jessica Meher told Business Insider. Trending: $100k+ in investable assets? – no cost, no obligation. E-commerce has made return fraud easier to participate in, the outlet says, because overwhelmed warehouse employees who are receiving these packages are less likely to examine their contents closely. Meanwhile, employees at brick and mortar stores have the bandwidth to ensure the products are unused and match the original purchase. Social media is also adding to the problem, as people take to platforms like TikTok and Reddit to post their best tips for getting free refunds. "It's almost like coupon sites where consumers have been trained to look for coupons and discounts,' Meher said. 'That's starting to happen with what companies offer loose return policies.' For many people, this sort of low-level fraud feels like a victimless crime that only affects soulless corporations, Business Insider says. People assume that because these companies have extended such generous return policies, they really don't care all that turns out, that's not the case. Many retailers, both large and small, have started changing their return policies in hopes of slowing their losses. Tightening return windows, implementing stricter policies, and even tailoring those policies for individual customers are among the most popular reactions to return fraud, the outlet found. Progress is slow, though, because many companies are worried about alienating their most loyal customer base. "How do I make sure that I don't piss off my good customers?," is one of the most pressing questions retailers are considering when reassessing their return policies, Meher said. Read Next: Warren Buffett once said, "If you don't find a way to make money while you sleep, you will work until you die." Image: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article The Return Fraud Epidemic: How $103 Billion In Returns Are Costing Shopping And Sellers Big originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
'The More Value You Provide, The More Money You Can Earn,' How This Self-Made Millionaire Employed 'One-To-Infinity' Leverage, Growing Her Net Worth
For years, Rose Han made her money linearly. She toiled away at her corporate job hour after hour, bringing home regular paychecks. The money was good, enough to help her tackle six figures of student loans and begin investing, but not enough to live the lifestyle Han desired. So she began to explore the idea of "leveraged income." "That's a completely different mentality that we don't learn in school,' Han told Business Insider. "Leverage is the explanation behind any significant wealth creation, no matter who you look at." Don't Miss: 'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. You can Accredited Investors: Grab Pre-IPO Shares of the AI Company Powering Hasbro, Sephora & MGM— Han, who now owns a financial literacy company, broke down the idea of leveraged income this way. A personal trainer who works one-on-one with clients has zero leverage. 'You show up, trade hours for dollars, and you get paid," she told the outlet. Trainers who run group fitness classes and can work with multiple clients at once have what she calls "one-to-many" leverage. "Now they're serving 10 people at once and therefore making about 10 times more,' she said. The goal, though, is "one-to-infinity" leverage. This could look like a personal trainer who builds an app that can be downloaded by an endless number of people. Essentially, you do the work once and are able to reap the benefits for years to come. "That concept really was the key that I unlocked," she said. For Han, the jump to "one-to-infinity" leverage didn't happen overnight. Trending: $100k+ in investable assets? – no cost, no obligation. She started her business in the basement of a co-working space, where she hosted regular classes based on her own experiences. 'I was just learning a lot on my financial awakening journey, so I wanted to share it,' she told Business Insider. 'In the back of my mind, I thought, 'OK, maybe there's some way I could make this lucrative,' but that's not the goal.' After two years, she started posting some of her classes on YouTube. 'The idea that a video could reach millions of people, 24/7, for the rest of my life and even after, that was really just wild to me,' Han said. 'I was skeptical because I'd never gone on camera. It was scary."These days, her YouTube channel has nearly 1 million subscribers and has evolved into an entire company with online courses, brand deals, affiliate links, and even a book deal. "I worked a lot to create that course, and it didn't just happen in seven days, but I created something once that I could sell over and over and over and serve a lot of people. I created a lot of value with something, and so I got paid in that exponential way," she told Business Insider. Those looking to emulate Han's success should start by asking themselves one question, she says: What value can I provide? 'I fully believe that the more value you provide, the more you can earn,' Han told the outlet. 'And, if you think creatively enough, there's no limit to how much value you can provide and therefore how much money you can earn.' Read Next: Here's what Americans think you need to be considered wealthy. Image: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article 'The More Value You Provide, The More Money You Can Earn,' How This Self-Made Millionaire Employed 'One-To-Infinity' Leverage, Growing Her Net Worth originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Business Insider
10 hours ago
- Business Insider
Tesla must pay over $242M in damages after being found partly at fault for deadly Autopilot crash
In a major blow to Tesla, a Florida federal jury on Friday found Elon Musk's electric car company partly to blame for a 2019 crash that left a 22-year-old woman dead and her boyfriend seriously injured. The jury sided with the plaintiffs, awarding the family of Naibel Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, a combined $329 million in total damages — $129 million in compensatory damages and $200 million punitive damages. Jurors awarded $59 million in compensatory damages to Benavides Leon's family and $70 million to Angulo, who suffered a traumatic brain injury and broken bones among other injuries. The verdict marks a substantial setback for Tesla and its Autopilot driver-assistance feature that the attorneys for the plaintiffs said was engaged at the time of the deadly collision and had design flaws. Tesla, in a statement, called the verdict "wrong" and said it plans to appeal "given the substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial." "Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology," said Tesla. The company added, "This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs' lawyers blaming the car when the driver — from day one — admitted and accepted responsibility." Please help BI improve our Business, Tech, and Innovation coverage by sharing a bit about your role — it will help us tailor content that matters most to people like you. Continue By providing this information, you agree that Business Insider may use this data to improve your site experience and for targeted advertising. By continuing you agree that you accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . The plaintiff's attorney, Brett Schreiber, said the verdict "represents justice for Naibel's tragic death and Dillon's lifelong injuries, holding Tesla and Musk accountable for propping up the company's trillion-dollar valuation with self-driving hype at the expense of human lives." The verdict follows a three-week civil trial that included testimony from Angulo, Benavides Leon's family members, and the driver of the Tesla that plowed into a parked SUV and struck the couple as they were stargazing outside the vehicle alongside a Key Largo road. The jury found Tesla 33% responsible for the crash, with the driver responsible for the rest. Tesla will have to pay the full punitive damages amount, and a third of the compensatory damages, which equals $42.5 million. The case stems from a wrongful-death lawsuit that the plaintiffs brought against Tesla. The lawsuit argued that the carmaker's vehicles were "defective and unsafe for their intended use." Tesla, the lawsuit said, programmed Autopilot"to allow it to be used on roadways that Tesla knew were not suitable for its use and knew this would result in collisions causing injuries and deaths of innocent people who did not choose to be a part of Tesla's experiments, such as Plaintiffs." "Despite knowing of Autopilot's deficiencies, Tesla advertised Autopilot in a way that greatly exaggerated its capabilities and hid its deficiencies," said the lawsuit, which pointed to multiple comments from Musk touting the safety and reliability of the software. Tesla driver George McGee had Autopilot on when his 2019 Model S blew past a stop sign and a flashing red light at a three-way intersection and plowed into Angulo's mother's Chevrolet Tahoe at more than 60-miles-per-hour, the lawsuit said. McGee — who previously settled a separate lawsuit with the plaintiffs for an undisclosed amount — said he had dropped his cellphone during a call and bent down to pick it up moments before his Tesla, without warning, T-boned the Tahoe. He testified during the trial that he thought of Autopilot, which allows the vehicle to steer itself, switch lanes, brake, and accelerate on its own, as a "copilot." "My concept was it would assist me should I have a failure" or "should I make a mistake," McGee said in testimony, adding, "I do feel like it failed me." "I believe it didn't warn me of the car and the individuals and nor did it apply brakes," McGee testified. Attorneys for Tesla have argued that McGee was solely responsible for the April 25, 2019, crash. In the trial's opening statements, Tesla attorney Joel Smith said the case was about a driver, not a "defective vehicle," and had "nothing to do with Autopilot." "It's about an aggressive driver, not a complacent driver, a distracted driver who was fumbling around for his cellphone," Smith said. "It's about a driver pressing an accelerator pedal and driving straight through an intersection." Tesla's attorneys said that just before the crash, McGee hit the accelerator, overriding the vehicle's set cruising speed of 45 miles per hour and its ability to brake on its own. Autopilot mode, Tesla says on its website, is "intended for use with a fully attentive driver, who has their hands on the wheel and is prepared to take over at any moment."
