The Current - Are you under surveillance in your own neighbourhood?

Episode Date: February 25, 2026

There's been backlash against Amazon's Ring doorbells after the company put out a commercial showing how footage from their devices can help find lost pets. Kristen Thomasen is the University of Windsor's Chair in Law, Robotics, and Society and she talks about why people should feel concerned about their privacy in their own neighbourhoods and what further guardrails need to be in place around surveillance technology

This ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often. You've got to be an underdog that always overdelivers. You've got to be 6,500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors all doing so much with so little. You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. And you can help us keep climbing. Donate at lovescarbro.cairbo.ca.

This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway, and this is the current podcast. Remember the good old days? You had a dog. The dog went missing. You put up a poster in the neighborhood. You got a search party together. All your neighbors came together.

We're going to find the dog. We're going to look for your missing dog. Well, that might be a thing of the past. If the makers of Amazon's ring doorbells have anything to say about it. One post of a dog's photo in the ring apps 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. Well, that sounds great. It's a commercial that played a few weeks ago during the Super Bowl.

If you haven't seen it, basically, it shows the footage from people's door cameras and how that footage can now, thanks to artificial intelligence, be linked up to find a lost dog. The reaction to that idea has been swift. There have been plenty of concerns about privacy of not just the front doors, but of the public square. The co-founder of Ring, Jamie Siminoff has been outdoing damage control addressing this concern, saying that people are misunderstanding how his technology works. He spoke with ABC News. The way it works is, you know, we, someone posted dog. We say, hey, this dog that's posted looks like this dog that's missing in front of your camera. Do you want to contact your neighbor or not?

And that's where the key is. It's optional. It's optional. It's optional. It's literally no different than you coming home from work and there's a dog on your front lawn and you look at the tag and decide whether or not to call the number on the tag. Hmm. For most people with these sorts of doorbells, they have them because it's about convenience. Just give me one sec. I'm just doing something, but I can unlock the door for you right now if that works. Brittany Schwab got her camera doorbell for her home in Vancouver a few years ago. She gets an alert on her phone whenever someone rings the doorbell or even just walks past the camera on her front porch. For her, it is about more than seeing who is at the front door.

And the delivery came up while I was out of town. I didn't actually notice the notifications that came through saying that someone was on my porch at the time. When I got home for my trip, which was I think either later that night or the next day, my package was gone, even though it had said it had been delivered. So I went onto the camera and I could very clearly see someone came onto the porch, picked up the package and walked away. I was able to just take some screenshots, send it to the company that I was buying from. I also can use that to send to the police, for example,

so that they have someone that they can watch out for who's maybe stealing. These cameras are everywhere. And for more on the rise of these sorts of systems and what they mean for our overall privacy, I'm joined by Kristen Thomason. She is chair of law, robotics, and society at the University of Windsor and an expert in the legal treatment

of automated technologies and surveillance. Kristen, good morning. Good morning. What did you make of the ad that we started with, the Super Bowl ad? I mean, you lose the dog, the neighborhood bends together, you find the dog. That's heartwarming, isn't it? Or maybe not so much. I think it's reflective of a push towards encouraging acceptance, social and public acceptance,

of these kinds of very sophisticated, very invasive surveillance networks. So Ring over the years has had a range of approaches in their advertising. Sometimes it's very much like, afraid of crime and people breaking into your home. And this is taking a bit of a different approach showing or attempting to show, you know, this is the benefit of this integrated surveillance network. As I mentioned, the co-founder of Ring was out doing damage control. What did you make of his pushback to people's concerns?

This is just like the dog ends up on your front porch and you call the number on the tag. Nothing to be worried about here. I think actually it's really. informative how much pushback there was that people saw immediately through this advertisement that is focused on, you know, a lost dog, like who is against lost dogs being found, but instead recognized immediately how potentially dangerous this technology can be. And his analogy that this is the same as when a person sees a dog, I think it's just so completely flawed. And I imagine that a lot of people saw through that as well, because if you find a dog

and you call the number on the dog, that's dramatically different than all of the homes across a wide residential area having a networked surveillance system relying on AI to track objects or people potentially that move in front of those cameras. One of the concerns, and you mentioned people, one of the concerns that was raised in the wake of that commercial, particularly in the United States right now in 2026, is that the cameras could be used by immigration officials, that ICE could use these cameras and the network of cameras. to help track people's movements, for example. Do you think that's a reasonable concern?

Yes, I think that's a reasonable concern. I think that's an extremely worrying part of how these networks are being developed and created by private companies that are regulated very differently from how police are regulated. And, of course, in the United States, that regulation is different than it is in Canada. But this is almost, in a way, becoming a corporate backdoor to what would otherwise be restrictions on widespread, you know, 24-7-type surveillance of public space that state actors, police agencies, et cetera, might not otherwise be legally able to do,

but because this is done under the guise of its individual choice, it's able to, like, companies are able to encourage this kind of networking that police can then have access to. So if I have a camera like this on my front porch, and I put it there because I want to see who's stealing the packages that might be being delivered to my house. What do we know about how private that camera's footage is? So it will depend on what type of camera you're using,

maybe what the terms of service are. But something that we know about Amazon Ring, for example, comes out of Federal Trade Commission investigations into the company due to complaints by customers. So it's possible, or there have been instances, I should say, in the past of third-party hackers, gaining access to these cameras. And there were some fines that came out of the FTC

as a result of that in the United States. Hackers were able to access and even speak through some of the monitors that people had in their homes to children, for example, which really contradicts the sort of presentation of this as a security device. And then there have also been investigations around concerns about Rings' internal policies

so that employees were able to access the footage of people. ring cameras and and observe people in sort of a voyeuristic way. And it just, again, highlights that this isn't necessarily like a privacy or a security tool. It's very much a video surveillance mechanism. You use the word invasive right at the beginning of our conversation to describe this technology. Why that word? Because of the extensiveness of the surveillance, I think an important distinction between, say, somebody having a personal camera for a personal reason, whatever it might be, that loads onto their computer. And I'm not saying that people should

be encouraged to consider this. It can have its own challenges. But there's a distinction between that and a network of cameras and other technologies. I mean, Ring has also put out like a drone that you can use to monitor your property when you're away and other devices as well. And these are all networked and accessible by the company that's providing them. And that's what makes the surveillance in this context so invasive is that not only can it gather a lot of information about the person who's using the system, so the person who's bought it and installed it on their home, but it's also monitoring anyone who walks in front of the house. In some cases, depending on how it's set up, depending on a person's property, it might be monitoring

the sidewalk, the road, maybe even the sidewalk across the street. There have been some examples of technologies that pick up sound. So it just collects so much information pervasively and then sends these messages to homeowners in a way that can sometimes, I think, stoke fear and worry where, you know, if we were just in our home and somebody walked in front, we might not think about it twice. But if you're constantly receiving text messages, letting you know about that, it can create this sort of added, you know, hypervigilance around what's happening in front of the home that I think combined together makes it so invasive. This ascent isn't for everyone. You need grit to climb this high this often.

You've got to be an underdog that always over delivers. You've got to be 6,500 hospital staff, 1,000 doctors all doing so much with so little. You've got to be Scarborough. Defined by our uphill battle and always striving towards new heights. and you can help us keep climbing. Donate at lovescarborough.ca.a. At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak startup funding and comprehensive game plans. We've mastered made-to-measure growth and expansion advice,

and we can talk your ear-off about transferring your business when the time comes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us. and contact Desjardin today. We'd love to talk, business. What are the guardrails in this country that would protect people's privacy, whether, as I say, it's one of the owners of these systems,

or to your point, somebody who just happens to be walking down the sidewalk? There are some laws that would sort of limit or create obligations in terms of how data is collected and shared, but it's a little bit complicated with these home video cameras because of, and it was in the interview with the CEO of Ring, because of that role of the individual choosing how they want to share the information and with whom, it creates a bit of complexity to how the law has evolved to protect privacy. So, you know, commercial organizations have to follow certain privacy laws in Canada when they're collecting personal information about people. and that should include Amazon. However, the way that it's collected through the homeowner, I think can create some complications in that process

because it's like me, a person installing this camera is the one doing the collection. And then on top of that, if the person with a video footage chooses to share it with police, that might actually override certain restrictions that would otherwise be in place for law enforcement to have access to that, like meeting to go to the court and ask for a warrant first. Do you have to share the footage with police? I ask this, in our neighborhood, there was an incident, and I know that police were checking with people who had those cameras on their front door

to see whether they had the plan that backed up some of the data and what have you. Do you have to share that information with police? Have to, no, but it's possible that if there is at least the reasonable grounds for the police to think that you have evidence on it, there may be ways that they can access it through a court order. What do we know even thus far about how law enforcement is using these sorts of cameras? We know more, I think, about this in the United States because Ring has really actively sought out partnerships with police forces. And in those contexts, there's a really seamless way for people to share footage with police. And there have even been investigations that have shown police have received so much video footage that they actually can't parse through it very well.

and so it's actually created inefficiencies in some ways. That's where I think a lot of concern from privacy advocates focuses on how that almost creates an incentive for more use of different artificial intelligence tools for scanning through all of that data. So there's worry that this could become even more invasive, scrutinized, and potentially also full of errors because we know artificial intelligence systems don't always get it right. And so there's quite a bit of information about that sharing in the United States. We don't necessarily have the same level of data here. There had been a discussion amongst Windsor Police and Amazon Ring prior to the pandemic about entering into one of these partnerships. It didn't materialize. And I don't know the details of why exactly that didn't follow through.

I'm glad that it didn't because I do think it's worrisome when the access to that video footage is made incredible. incredibly seamless. Knowing we were going to have this conversation, I walked down my block yesterday, and I think there are three or four houses on my street that don't have these sorts of cameras. Is the horse out of the barn when it comes to this, when it comes to our privacy and what we have, what we're willing to give up and what we've already given up, do you think? I think the horse can always be returned if it even is out of the barn. when it comes to new technologies like this

and especially sort of, you know, maybe more of like a public revelation of how deeply invasive they can be, I think there are always ways in which we can push back on this. And the backlash to that ad would suggest that you're right there. And the backlash to those camera, the glasses cameras as well, there's been quite a social reaction to the fact that people can,

you know, monitor everywhere they go in public spaces And then, of course, the risk that that can be then matched up with facial recognition, and you could actually pull someone's social media profile while you're looking at them on public transit, for example, is I think many people would flag that as quite terrifying. And yet people really like this technology. And they like having the camera there because they're tired of somebody stealing their Amazon package from in front of their door. How do you think we should be weighing the ease of knowing who's at your door and where your packages are? with those privacy concerns? Yeah, I think they don't even have to be in conflict with one another necessarily.

I mean, one thing I would say is a weakness with this kind of video surveillance that is never promoted in the advertisements around their convenience is what do they actually accomplish? Like, even the example from earlier, the package is still stolen. You saw the person take your package. Yeah. And so, so, you know, there's maybe a bigger conversation to be had around even just the commercial nature of shopping post-pandemic, I think, is when this has become especially more popular to order things online, have them delivered. You know, are there other ways to maybe address that concern that don't involve installing integrated surveillance network throughout a whole neighborhood?

These cameras don't, they're not in, they're not bystanders, they're not neighbors. They're commercial products that are sold for profit. Two quick things before I let you go. If you had a friends or family who said, I'm going to get one of these cameras, what do you think? What would you say to them? I would emphasize, I think, first, this exact concern that those cameras actually introduce new security concerns into your home. So if you're buying it because you think it'll give you security, here's some information about the ways in which it might also jeopardize your security. And then I would also emphasize, you know, the bigger consequences.

But I think sometimes can be harder to weigh against the convenience. I get that. But the bigger consequences, I think something we really saw in discussion around ICE's operations in Minnesota is that this recognition that your ring camera is an ICE agent. And I think sometimes it takes those kinds of bigger moments to really see the potential risk down the road of installing this. kind of infrastructure that we might not see in the moment when we're just thinking of the convenience of it. What does this do, or what does it say about our social fabric right now? Do we trust our neighbors? I think a lot of the profit motivation around the sale of these cameras has focused on this pushing of fear and concern, but there's a lot of pressure pushing back against that.

And I think resisting it and resisting the profit incentive that's driving it is a really powerful thing. And I think we see that in Minnesota and the reaction to some of the violence that ICE has been bringing there. I think we see it in the resistance to that ring advertisement. You know, I think that neighborliness is still there. But I think that these cameras are trying to pull on different threads and resisting that, I think, is really powerful. This is such an interesting story. And I'm really glad to talk it through with you. Kristen, thank you very much.

Thank you so much for having me on. Kristen Thomason is chair of law, robotics, and society at the University of Windsor and an expert in the legal treatment of automated technologies and surveillance. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca.ca.