166 pointsby cdrnsf6 hours ago11 comments
  • Bratmon5 hours ago
    Fun fact: Lockheed Martin advertises the F-35 during football games, because even though most of the audience isn't in the market for massive government contracts, the people who are are watching.

    I suspect the Ring mass surveillance ads are the same thing.

    • lukev5 hours ago
      It’s not just for purchasers… it’s to build consensus/approval around the concept of the US military-industrial complex.
      • godelski4 hours ago
        Is the same idea around why companies like Coke make ads. Does anyone seriously think Coke needs brand recognition? LOL

        Car companies do this too. Frequently expensive cars are advertised to people who could never buy them. The ad makes them associate it with luxury. That helps rich people associate it with luxury because luxury is often based on a social consensus.

        Maybe all ads are made to sell you things, but the thing being solid is always an idea. Sometimes that idea isn't as simple as "go buy this now"

        • dfadsadsf2 hours ago
          Coca Cola actually have to run ads to stay relevant. War in Ukraine provided nice experiment - Coca Cola stopped all advertisement in Russia in 2022 and results are in.

          - Feb–Mar 2022 (before full production/marketing stoppage): RosIndex reported that 94.3% knew the Coca-Cola brand.

          - 2023 (roughly a year after global brands stopped producing in Russia): 88.6% of consumers knew the Coca-Cola brand.

          5.7% drop in recognition in one year translates to billions of losses if scaled to US market. So yes, Coca Cola has to constantly run ads.

          • simoncionan hour ago
            If Coca-Cola both stopped advertising and stopped officially selling their products (and permitting their import) in the region, then this doesn't prove what you claim it does. Disentangle the two things, and then we can draw some conclusions.
            • dfadsadsfan hour ago
              Coca Cola stopped officially selling in Russia but Coca Cola products are widely available due to grey import from other countries (it's present in literally every store - though prices are higher than for local brands).
            • bigstrat2003an hour ago
              Yeah, this tells us nothing at all. Of course people aren't thinking about Coca-Cola when there's a freaking war going on.
          • greedoan hour ago
            That's probably due to the fact that a good portion of consumer aged Russians are pushing up daisies in Ukraine this spring...
        • stavros2 hours ago
          Ahh, the old "I want to own this because you know you can't".

          Veblen goods are status symbols, and something can't confer status if nobody else knows they're supposed to be awed by how expensive it is.

    • asdff5 hours ago
      These sorts of advertisements make no sense for me. Who is the buyer? Some senator on some appropriations committee? Maybe some nato equivalent? And they need a 10 second flyover during a superbowl to be reminded of the existence of the f-35 program?
      • godelski3 hours ago

          > Who is the buyer?
        
        You are

        With your tax money. With your votes.

        They're there not to sell you a plane directly but to make you happy with the money spent. To make you excited about the machines.

        Think of it as a political ad, not a sales ad

        • jerkstate2 hours ago
          Is there a way an American can vote to not buy F-35s?
          • bigstrat2003an hour ago
            This is why, on so many issues, the idea that the American public "chose" the outcome is a fantasy. When every possible candidate for office supports the military industrial complex, how is one supposed to vote against it?
          • bigyabaian hour ago
            You can try; the plane is already made and exported, and for certain customers (eg. the US Navy) they're going to struggle to find anything that replaces it.

            The best way to invest "against" the F-35 is to put money in companies like Embraer and Saab, which have put up a strong fight on the export market.

          • cheonn6382 hours ago
            [dead]
        • asdff2 hours ago
          They fly over the superbowl every year no matter how I might vote.
      • wyldfire4 hours ago
        > Who is the buyer?

        Who do you know who is currently sitting in a seat of massive power in the US Government, watches TV and says things like, "I need to have that! Why do we not have that already? It will project strength, and all the best governments project strength at every opportunity!"

        • asdff2 hours ago
          Pretty sure trump knows about the f35 already
          • wyldfire7 minutes ago
            "How many of those did we order? Let's get some more. Super-size me!"
      • bigyabai5 hours ago
        Again, 99.999% of the viewers aren't really in the position to finance a $120 million fighter jet. However, the ~0.001% that are in that position will probably be watching, and feel FOMO for not having the iPhone of strike fighters.

        Even if it only moves the needle on 2-3 sales every decade, the ROI is probably great.

        • asdff2 hours ago
          I'm just saying, that random saudi prince or whatever with $120 million and the green light to buy military hardware is probably well aware of the f35 already. Plus only plane nerds in the know are going to know what the hell just flew over. For everyone else its a military jet shaped jet same as the rest.
          • bigyabaian hour ago
            That ticks both the boxes. Plane nerds are blogging online, and the Saudi princes are doing napkin math in the VIP booth.

            3,000lbs of avgas is only a few thousand dollars, you can run a formation flight for less than $15,000 plus maintenance. Cynically speaking, that's a bit of a steal when you've got the private sector paying millions for a 30-second ad spot.

    • chasd005 hours ago
      The Super Bowl fly over was kind of random. My son said it was f18s, f35s, and f15s. I was able to make out the two b1bs. It was like the air force forgot about the flyover and just scrambled whatever was on the closest tarmac.
      • mmooss37 minutes ago
        The soldier recognition events are actually paid advertisements by the US military. I think flyovers are too?
      • 5 hours ago
        undefined
      • esseph4 hours ago
        They had several days in advance of training together. It was all planned in advanced.

        https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4384084/air-...

      • gerdesj5 hours ago
        Given your description, its good to see the USAAF are clearly on the ball when it comes to security. If, say, all your B1s overflew the nutjob bowl then certain planners across the world might decide to act in a certain way. A random assortment leaves everyone guessing.
        • alex435783 hours ago
          You could have a 9 plane fly-by of just B2s, and you’d still have less than half our operational stock committed (disregarding maintenance/readiness issues).

          Using a few planes for a fly-by, particularly of anything other than B2, wouldn’t possibly “give away” any info.

          • mizzack39 minutes ago
            B2s have made the trip from Whiteman AFB to perform flyovers at the past 20 or so Rose Bowls fwiw
      • runjake3 hours ago
        This seemed like a standard flyover. What struck you about it being random?

        Caveat: A non-trivial number of air assets are currently stationed or assigned on the other side of the world right now.

        Citation: I used to be involved with flyovers.

        • throwup2382 hours ago
          USAF also has a pilot shortage. Could have just been whatever the available pilots were certified to fly.
  • dabinat4 hours ago
    Ring’s marketing is almost comically wholesome, but as soon as ICE learns that such a thing is possible they will for sure want to use it.

    This interview with Forbes from a few months ago provides some extra details: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidphelan/2025/12/05/how-sear...

    1. Apparently what happens is that the AI scans the videos of surrounding cameras and pings the owner to ask if they can share the footage. So no video is shared unless the owner chooses.

    2. Ring is indeed working on being able to detect people.

    • youarentrightjr4 hours ago
      > So no video is shared unless the owner chooses.

      That's all fine and good until we hear "oops, turns out all the customer video feeds were streaming to our cop accessible servers 24/7!".

      I don't believe Ring's claims (or flock etc etc) for one second.

      • randycupertino4 hours ago
        It's more that police will use it for their own personal inquiries- to track their girlfriends, potential girlfriends etc. This happens enough already with license plate readers:

        - Sedgwick, Kansas (2024): Former Police Chief Lee Nygaard resigned after it was discovered he used Flock cameras to track his ex-girlfriend and her new partner 228 times over four months, according to The Wichita Eagle and KAKE.

        - Menasha, Wisconsin (Jan 2026): Officer Cristian Morales was charged with misconduct in office for allegedly using the Flock system to track his ex-girlfriend, WLUK-TV reported. Morales admitted to using the system due to "desperation" and "bad judgment".

        - Orange City, Florida (2025): Officer Jarmarus Brown was charged with stalking after reportedly running his girlfriend's license plate 69 times, her mother's 24 times, and her brother's 15 times over seven months, the Miami Herald reported.

        - San Diego, California (2021): Sergeant Mariusz Czas was arrested for stalking his ex-girlfriend using police resources

        https://fox11online.com/news/crime/menasha-police-officer-ac...

        https://local12.com/news/nation-world/police-chief-gets-caug...

      • beart4 hours ago
        More likely - a quiet update changing opt-in to opt-out. They can repeat this update as many times as they want and each time, a few more people will miss the email. They can also hold your data hostage, i.e. "All data now and historical will be included in our partner sharing unless you delete it all."
    • citruscomputing4 hours ago
      It's already happening. Someone local to me seems to be spray-painting over ring cameras and leaving flyers about the ring-flock-ice connection. I can't say I agree with the methods, but it is sending a message.
      • WarmWash4 hours ago
        Police still need a warrant for ring camera footage. Its just that overwhelmingly people will hand over the footage if police ask.

        "A suspected criminal walked past your house the other day, mind sharing your doorbell cam footage with us?"

        "Sure officer, no problem!"

        • iterateoften4 hours ago
          I don’t think they need a warrant if they buy it directly from the company though. A little loophole.
          • observationist3 hours ago
            Some of these companies have (local) law enforcement subscriptions, and default opt-in disclaimers throughout their ToS to make it all tidy and legal.

            None of them have contracts with, nor can they sell to, federal agencies. Agencies have to provide a warrant, and the processes are verified through each of the companies' respective legal teams.

            Their recordings data is not generally available for sale; that's a legal minefield, but there are official channels to go through. Geofence warrants and things like that aren't conducive to real-time surveillance, and the practice of using those types of reverse-search , differential analysis uses of sensitive data is under review by the Supreme Court; it's thought that they're going to weigh in on the side of the 4th amendment and prohibit overbroad fishing expeditions, even if there's snazzy math behind it.

            TLDR; They need to pay the company, either via subscription or direct charge for T&M, require warrants, and the use is limited in scope. It's burdensome and expensive enough that they're not going to be using it for arbitrary random "let's scan everyone's doorbell cams in case there's an illegal immigrant!" situations, but if there's a drug dealer, violent offender, or some specific high value target, they're going to use the broad surveillance tools wherever they can.

        • maxerickson4 hours ago
          They do not need a warrant if the owner of the camera voluntarily shares the evidence.
          • WarmWash2 hours ago
            Exactly, and people almost always share it, so they don't even bother with warrants.

            Hell even if you tell them to get a warrant, they'll just go and get Betty next door's footage instead.

        • ImPostingOnHN4 hours ago
          It's more like,

          "computer, search the entire flock database (which in partnership with ring also includes everybody's doorbell and security cameras[0]) for this minority, and plot a map of their whereabouts over time[1]"

          0: https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-safety-and-ring-partn...

          1: https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/flock-nova-smarter-investig...

      • alex435783 hours ago
        On the flip side, trespassing and vandalism by some nut is also an excellent ad for security cameras by itself, so…
      • 4 hours ago
        undefined
      • FranklinJabaran hour ago
        > I can't say I agree with the methods

        What other methods have actually worked?

      • thinkingtoilet4 hours ago
        At this point, I don't mind the methods. Shit is far gone if you're actively enabling the surveillance state, people have a right to fight back. I'm sure this won't go over well here.
        • IMTDb3 hours ago
          I’m not sure destroying other people’s property is the best way to make them sympathetic to your cause.

          I don’t own a Ring camera (or any similar device), but the idea that someone could spend time unnoticed on my porch, messing with my stuff, right where my daughter likes to play on weekends, makes my skin crawl.

          If that happened to me, I’d probably just double down on security to be honest. Knowing that some people actually feel it's the right thing to do makes me wonder if I shouldn't start today.

          To be clear, I have no issue with someone peacefully informing people in their neighborhood about the potential dire consequences of enabling "share images of my doorbell with the government or other private agencies", that's all fine to me. But if you feel the need to impose your views by harassing me about it or by breaking the law to get your point across, you won't get an ally in me.

          • FranklinJabaran hour ago
            > I’m not sure destroying other people’s property is the best way to make them sympathetic to your cause.

            We're in a slow moving civil war at this point. Looking for sympathy stopped making sense a long time ago. You're either pro humanity or pro property tbh

            • gruez41 minutes ago
              >We're in a slow moving civil war at this point [...] You're either pro humanity or pro property tbh

              You don't realize this type of thinking is exactly what contributes to the "civil war"? Same with all this virtue signaling where if you're even slightly for some sort of immigration enforcement you're labeled as not being "pro humanity" or whatever, and then a populist gets in power because the other side's rallying cry is "there's no illegal on stolen land". In the wake of the killing of Renée Good, Trump's approval on immigration was 48% approve to 52% disapprove. In the same survey, who do you think voters trusted more on immigration? Still Republicans, 44% to 33%.

              https://prod-i.a.dj.com/public/resources/documents/Redacted_...

          • fwip3 hours ago
            Well, they aren't trying to win your sympathies.
          • giraffe_ladyan hour ago
            > you won't get an ally in me.

            If you're not going to ally with the people fighting the surveillance systems that are currently being used by the secret police to disappear and kill people what does that make you. My cause doesn't need your sympathy it needs to stop this horror. I'm not quite saying "with or against" but you are saying "against."

            • gruez20 minutes ago
              >If you're not going to ally with the people fighting the surveillance systems that are currently being used by the secret police to disappear and kill people what does that make you.

              1990s Ireland:

              A: "hey guys, maybe it's a bad idea to set off bombs in public places to promote Irish independence. You won't get an ally in me."

              B: "If you're not going to ally with the people fighting British that are currently subjugating the Irish what does that make you. My cause doesn't need your sympathy it needs to stop this horror. I'm not quite saying "with or against" but you are saying "against.""

    • iAMkenough2 hours ago
      Ring's marketing is almost comically wholesome, but what's to stop someone like an abusive ex or stranger trolling my Instagram page from uploading a photo of my dog and tracking our daily walk patterns?
  • RegnisGnaw5 hours ago
    The answer is that most people don't care if it benefits them. My Tesla has 6 cameras recording full time when driving and parked, but it benefits me so I enable it. It saved me $1000+ (my deductible and possible rise in insurance rates) when someone hit my car while parked at Costco (they drove off but Sentry Mode caught them).
    • BloodyIron3 minutes ago
      Thanks for recording me without my consent just because I walked past your car parked. /s
    • rubiquity3 hours ago
      If you’d like the opposite of this story: I was reversing out of a parking spot. I had moved about 2 feet and a drunk driver hit and ran my vehicle. The driver was charged by police because driving at 40mph and hitting cars in a shopping center in broad daylight got a lot of attention.

      I gave the video footage from my car to local police and insurance company and the insurance companies ruled I was at fault because I was in reverse.

      • twostorytower2 hours ago
        This is why I always back into parking spots. If I never have to back out, I'll never be at fault!
        • gruez39 minutes ago
          What if you need to load groceries in the trunk/back?
          • BloodyIron2 minutes ago
            You open the trunk and put it in. And leave enough room behind your vehicle to do that, which is available in _every_ parking spot.
    • mv45 hours ago
      fyi Tesla employees were caught accessing private videos.

      https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sens...

    • apt-apt-apt-apt5 hours ago
      Did that result in a hit-and-run charge for them?
      • RegnisGnaw3 hours ago
        The Tesla Sentry Mode only got their license plate in footage. They hit my parked car as they were backing out of their spot. I was able to go after their insurance to fix it.

        Since I didn’t capture who was driving, the police didn’t charge them with hit and run.

        • ooterness2 hours ago
          So you gave up everyone's privacy for no benefit at all?
          • SkyPuncher42 minutes ago
            Not sure, the point.

            People generally aren't complaining about home owners mounting cameras for themselves (the car is no different). A 3rd party combining the interconnected nature of their system into a holistic system with sweeping coverage is much different than a single person figuring out who hit their car.

            • seanmcdirmid10 minutes ago
              It would be nice for neighborhood cameras to timely alert neighbors when a porch pirate was on the prowl in their neighborhood. I get the privacy implications, but after having a few packages stolen one might just not care anymore.

              Since police absolutely have no care about porch pirates where i live, I rig my camera to turn up a siren for 10 seconds (using a homekit power plug) when it sees someone near my townhome after 11PM (this is enough to usually scare them off to easier pickings). It wouldn't be so bad if the kids bedroom wasn't on the first floor and we are on the third, but it is what it is. At least its only really bad in late spring and summer, the only time when Seattle's long rainy season comes in useful.

              Its too bad that I can't bike in Seattle anymore, the theft situation just makes it too unbearable (and probably why you see fewer people biking these days even though they are dumping lots of money into biking infrastructure). Think what we could do with cameras like we've done with apple tags to ramp down bike theft (then again, police don't care, and people aren't ready to go vigilante here).

          • seanmcdirmid14 minutes ago
            proper blame assignment is its own reward, at least the offending party's insurance rates increased (assuming they had insurance).
          • alex4357838 minutes ago
            The privacy of being in a parking lot, surrounded by a dozen other cameras from a myriad of businesses, in public?
          • Omatic810an hour ago
            I don't think a Costco parking lot provides any reasonable expectation of privacy to be given up.
            • DangitBobbyan hour ago
              I think there should be more than one standard. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is usually used to dismiss people's concerns about constant surveillance. Let's stop being complicit in public surveillance.
          • fn-mote26 minutes ago
            Just wait until you go to a Walmart and they have a portable surveillance tower set up in the parking lot.
    • wiredpancake2 hours ago
      [dead]
  • BloodyIron4 minutes ago
    I'm actually probably going to start asking new friends if, when they invite me over, if they have a ring doorbell. I'm getting fed up with being recorded without consent just because I want to go visit someone. Fuck that.
  • vondur5 hours ago
    Most people don't care if they feel it helps solve crimes. I doubt it does 90% of the time though.
    • SoftTalker5 hours ago
      That's the thing, it legitimately does solve some crimes. And both Flock and the police who use it will quickly trot out some high profile examples. It is one of those classic "if it saves one child it's worth any price" arguments.

      Are you OK with being tracked everywhere you go in public so that some bad guys don't get away with their bad activities? Many people are.

  • pstuart38 minutes ago
    I didn't see the commercial but had it described to me -- it seemed like a brilliant bit of whitewashing the "oopsie we just added more surveillance state!"

    The proposed solution is lovely. And having the tools of the surveillance state available for things like a lost child or tracking a porch pirate or whathaveyou should be nice things we should be able to have.

    But we won't get those nice things, but Big Brother will whether we like that or not.

  • xbaran hour ago
    No one at my party understood my horror. "But think of the dogs!?"
  • ThrowawayTestr5 hours ago
    Unironically the most terrifying thing I've ever seen on TV. The use of dogs to convince people this is a good idea is so blatant.
    • tantalor2 hours ago
      The Byrna ad was pretty fucked up too.

      https://youtu.be/ldMqXUReHVo

      • alex4357835 minutes ago
        The worse part about that is the idea that a glorified paintball gun is actually a substitute for proper self-defense.
    • roughly3 hours ago
      I’d bet money if you uploaded a person’s picture as your “dog” it’d work.
  • orthecreedence5 hours ago
    For a while, someone in our neighborhood was going around and stabbing people's packages at our mailbox area on our street. Some of the neighbors wanted us to put a surveillance cam on our property because our place is right in front of the mailboxes. We told them all to fuck off, but promised we'd be on the lookout.

    Turns out this deviant package stabber, surely a scruffy disgruntled man in his 40s who was likely on six types of meth, cloaked and operating in the shroud of darkness, was actually a mischievous raven. I'm glad we didn't expand the surveillance hell hole that has the US has absentmindedly embraced just to find the infamous package stabber was a raven. The neighbors, many of whom were screaming for blood, were incredibly let down when we shared what had actually happened.

    Not super relevant, but funny. Also, fuck Ring.

    • kstrauser2 hours ago
      I have a Logitech Circle video doorbell that doesn't share my video.

      When we had a porch pirate, I absolutely shared that video with the police. Screw that guy. But it was our deliberate decision to share the video and we decided exactly how much to give them. I like having the ability to help law enforcement. I demand the right to choose how and when to do so.

    • yunnpp5 hours ago
      That sounds like peak Nextdoor Karen paranoia, thanks for sharing. Honestly, some people are just too dumb.
      • dfxm125 hours ago
        I don't know if it is a matter of being dumb. I think a bigger part of it is that people are conditioned by a bombardment of bad-faith ads like this, as well as news media convincing you to be wary of your neighbors & trade freedom for giving power to LEO.
  • charcircuit4 hours ago
    Having safe neighborhoods is such an important factor to people's quality of life. If Ring cameras can help achieve that it will be a benefit for society.
    • dawnerd4 hours ago
      Safe neighborhoods existed before ring and connected doorbells. They only serve to track and monitor your neighbors and feed into some ai training set, especially if you’re labeling who each person is.
      • charcircuit2 hours ago
        I don't want safe neighborhoods to just exist, I want every neighborhood to be safe.
    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
    • quantified2 hours ago
      At the expense of how much else?
    • brendoelfrendo4 hours ago
      I feel less safe knowing that anyone's doorbell could be tracking me and sending my movements to a third party to do whatever they want with that information. A camera that lets someone see their front doorstep and can record someone stealing a package is one thing; when that camera is now part of a network that is part of a larger, society-wide surveillance apparatus, I am concerned.