As I have mentioned, I rarely see things completely one way or another. Whether we like it or not we are multitudes and nuance is always required. I can’t think of a single topic where this doesn’t hold true (I’m sure there is, I just can’t think of one right now).
And then I read this post which is very clear and, in my opinion, very closed to nuance, and as an owner of a doorbell cam (Eufy (Anker) not Ring) I feel compelled to respond. I do not expect to change Ava’s thought process on this as she has stated clearly that it won’t be possible —a statement which in itself feels a little odd/stark but that’s a whole other topic.
Go read Ava’s post or what I’m about to suggest might not make too much sense. To be fair, it still might not…
Modern devices are flawed
I think Ava makes genuinely good points on a topic that has been on my mind recently too —largely driven by the media coverage of said Flock system in the US of A— particularly around privacy and the creeping normalisation of surveillance. It’s just that I’m not entirely convinced by the leap made from “Ring cameras aren’t a magic security solution” to “therefore they’re basically bullshit”.
We live with many devices in this modern age, many of which have been around a long time, yet I can’t think of a device that is reduced to “bullshit” because it fails to completely manage whatever situation it’s deployed into (again, I’m sure there is, but I can’t think of one at this very second).
A smoke detector doesn’t prevent a fire, a seatbelt doesn’t prevent a crash, locks don’t prevent someone breaking into my house. But that doesn’t mean any of those items are pointless. Sometimes the use of an item is purely to try and reduce the consequences rather than trying to prevent the thing happening in the first place.
I know that, even as a deterrent, a bike lock won’t stop a seasoned bike thief but my hope is it will at least slow them down a little!
I think it’s the same with a camera. It might not stop someone stealing a parcel, but it can tell me whether the parcel was actually delivered, what happened to it, what time someone was at my door, or potentially give me useful evidence afterwards. Whether that evidence actually results in anything is another question, obviously, but “the police don’t solve every crime” doesn’t render the evidence worthless —again the myriad reasons of
It’s not all fear mongered
I’m also not completely sold on the idea that everyone suddenly bought these because they were frightened into it during 2020. I think they gained some popularity for sure but they’d also gotten cheaper, easier to install and much more useful at exactly the same time that we started having an absurd number of things delivered to our front doors. Ultimately I think there are probably several different, softer, explanations rather than one giant conspiracy by Big Doorbell to make us all paranoid.
We got our camera doorbell around that time, and it was a matter of convenience for us, not a worry about crime. Yes, we were getting things delivered to the front door, whilst I worked upstairs at the back of the office and hadn’t always heard the old doorbell, it was more so I didn’t miss a delivery.
And a few years ago I installed one for my sister to give her some sense of safety after she split from her abusive husband. I’d say her use case is the more valid one. It wouldn’t have STOPPED anything happening but could’ve provided evidence if something had. That would’ve been important.
Privacy is not binary
The privacy argument is actually the bit I find most interesting. I do think there’s a legitimate question about how much recording of ordinary life we’re comfortable with, who owns that footage, who can access it and what happens when millions of individually owned cameras become part of a much bigger surveillance network.
But I don’t think that necessarily means the person who puts a camera on their front door is participating in some dystopian surveillance project. I know for a fact, because I checked before buying it, that the footage from our doorbell never even hits the cloud, it’s recorded locally (on a loop) on a miniSD that I can access using an app over our wifi.
So I think there’s a fairly large gap between the gentle use case of “I’d quite like to know who keeps leaving parcels behind my bins” and the more extreme “I enthusiastically endorse the panopticon”.
What’s my position?
I think I land —as ever— somewhere in the middle of all this. I absolutely agree that a Ring camera isn’t a substitute for actually addressing crime, and I think the privacy concerns are worth taking seriously. I just don’t think the existence of those concerns means the practical benefits are imaginary.
It’s always a balance; I think a domestic camera can have legitimate, measurable use even though it could simultaneously contribute to a wider surveillance ecosystem that creates legitimate societal risks.
For me the question isn’t whether cameras are “good” or “bad”; it’s whether the particular use is proportionate, whether the owner controls the data, and whether the benefits justify the privacy and societal costs.
I guess the tldr version of this would be: security camera ≠ magic crime shield, but neither does it = completely useless piece of security theatre.
What are your thoughts?