Ring Video Doorbell 2


Ring Video Doorbell 2

And they get to watch and sell your video to the police!

3 Likes

Agreed! Don’t buy ring products. Terrible escalation of surveillance culture.

2 Likes
  • When making a video request to Ring, law enforcement must reference a relevant case, and can only request video recordings within a limited time and area. With each request, customers decide whether to share all relevant videos, review and select certain videos to share, take no action (decline), or opt-out of all future requests.
2 Likes

“Ring is a troubled company. Last week a panel of five United States senators sent a letter to Amazon chief Jeff Bezos that expressed concern with Ring’s struggles with information security and habit of sharing its users’ videos not only with law enforcement but also with its Ukraine-based research team. The senators wanted to know how Ring encrypts user data (if at all) and how its internal security audits work. This is all happening after unsettling reports that Ring doorbells exposed users’ home wi-fi passwords to hackers and that Ring employees spy on unwitting users.”

Read more about it here: https://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-anyone-a-ring-camera-1840070640

2 Likes

Would definitely steer clear of Ring. I’m a little disappointed at woot too… Beyond the spying and lack of transparency from Ring, this doorbell requires a monthly service fee if you want to actually record and review the video. That should be clearly stated in the description. I would recommend the Eufy doorbell. No monthly fees, keeps all the video local and has a much better video camera.

3 Likes

Fake news! The police don’t “buy” videos from Ring.They can request it or get a warrant if it contains evidence related to a crime. Keep your tin foil hat on and don’t buy it if you don’t want it but stop spreading nonsense.

14 Likes

It’s not fake news that Amazon employees and Ring employees have had unfiltered access to folks’ Ring videos in the past. It is not fake news that Ring partners (police) have no common standards for security and data retention for videos they obtain. It is not fake news that Ring’s privacy policy does not collect information of people under 13 yet they use captured footage of kids during halloween in a promo video. it is not fake news that Ring has been sending videos to contractors in Ukraine without permission of the owners.

Some of the concerns may be overblown, to be sure, but don’t try to dismiss some of the serious privacy concerns that Ring raises.

1 Like

It’s EXACTLY what it is. Fake News.

There is NO unfiltered access, by anyone except the owner of the product. This has been debunked already.

There are absolutely standards for the police to receive ANY video and how and what they are able to do with them. Again, this bull has been debunked.

Collect information of people under 13? Yeah, clearly you’re believing the bull that you read. Some simple fact checking will show you’re clueless here.

Sending videos to contractors in Ukraine? LMAO. Stop watching Fox News and believing it’s truth, fool.

8 Likes

If you’re allowing companies to put their cameras and microphones in and outside your home, that’s on you. CCTV is the only way.

1 Like

Soo uhh is this a good deal…?

3 Likes

I’m not at all disappointed in Woot. Who owns woot and who owns ring? The answer to both is Amazon. That’s why you will continue to see this, fire tablets, and all kinds of other stuff dumped on here. And it should be no surprise.

1 Like

I had two of these before we knew Ring was super-evil-creepy-panopticon-nonsense, and even aside from all that it was terrible. The video quality was abject garbage, the battery life was so-so, even at their best they were unreliable. Then when they both stopped working within a couple weeks of each other 9 months after I bought them I learned that Ring’s tech support and customer service are also complete trash.

They also purportedly file all the paperwork for monitored alarm services for you, and they botched that as well. It wound up taking me way longer to fix the bureaucratic mess Ring made with my city by filing my permit wrong than it would have taken to just file it myself.

My advice: don’t ever buy anything from Ring. Their products are bad, their politics are bad, and their customer service is bad.

Edit: for the record, my Wifi was not the problem (although Ring’s tech support script seemed hell-bent on that being the problem). I’ve got Arlo cameras now in the exact same places the Rings used to be. They record reliably, and the video quality is massively better.

If you DO NOT pay for the subscription, and YOU can not see recorded video of an incident…Does ring still record/store videos somewhere.

With each request, customers decide whether to share all relevant videos, review and select certain videos to share, take no action (decline), or opt-out of all future requests.

It has been shown that no user interaction or request has been requested for Amazon to turn over ring doorbell video to police.

When making a video request to Ring, law enforcement must reference a relevant case, and can only request video recordings within a limited time and area

It has been shown that Amazon have ( although since removed) provided a ‘heat map’ of Ring doorbell locations FOR law enforcement to scan and ‘cherry pick’ location / time and also that ‘limited time and area’ is untrue. They have requested all, ‘surrounding this area’, and Amazon provided it without question. NO homeowners were contacted.

There are absolutely standards for the police to receive ANY video and how and what they are able to do with them. Again, this bull has been debunked.

Quite the opposite. While Amazon may SAY ‘we need a warrant / we don’t release videos without homeowner consent’ etc etc… what they actually do behind closed doors is something completely different.

Note: I don’t own a Ring. Nor do I own a Google Assistant. They both have privacy issues and buyers should be aware. I do own a CCTV system whos recordings are held locally and and accessible ‘from the cloud’ but for which no ‘big business’ company is involved.

New are on sale for $130 so this price is pretty good if you’re okay with a used or a refurb. Refurb saves you $40 vs a new and has the same limited warranty as a new unit. Used saves you another $20 but only has a 90 day warranty.

1 Like

Other than “both owned by Amazon”, what is the relationship between Ring and Blink? Blink seems like a better deal, except for the actual “doorbell” part, which I don’t really care about. I have motion detection, so I see them on my porch, and can talk to them, whether they knock or not. There’s an acceptable amount of cloud video included as well.

I have two of the Ring 2 doorbells and love them. Battery life is ~6 months, but will vary depending on traffic to/from each door as well as your settings.

The video quality is great, however this is dependent upon the rssi to your network as it will scale down the resolution if you do not have a solid signal.

The last couple times these were up on Woot, the refurbs were $69.99 and “used” was not an option.

I’ve had a Ring D2 for about a year and it’s great. Video and sound quality are both nice. Battery lasts a few months and gives you plenty of warning when it’s getting low.
You do need to sign up for a plan that costs $3 a month to access past videos, Otherwise you can only monitor live notification.
From some of these posts, it makes me wonder what people are doing on their front porch to be so paranoid about someone seeing the video. If the police need to see my front lawn to help with some crime…go for it.

3 Likes

What do you do outside your front door that has you all nervous about this?

7 Likes