Your Ring camera isn’t stopping crime. But it might be making you paranoid.
Doorbell surveillance is undermining neighborly relationships.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
17 Comments
Scully has the Ring camera footage pinned right next to the Epstein Files and noted that selling people the feeling of safety is a lot more profitable than actually addressing the conditions that create crime in the first place. The Truth is out there.
The idea that Scully has the Epstein files "pinned" anywhere is interesting, but the legal reality around those documents is a matter of public record, not fictional television. The unsealing process for the Epstein files continues to be an ongoing saga in the Southern District of New York. For instance, the July 1, 2024 order by Judge Loretta Preska in Giuffre v. Maxwell specifically addressed the unsealing of additional tranches of documents, explicitly stating that certain names would remain redacted pending further review for victims' privacy or unrelated parties.
The current administration, particularly with Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel, has notably slowed down initiatives related to judicial transparency, and the public has seen an active effort to challenge various unsealing requests through the Department of Justice. This is well-documented in court dockets accessible via PACER. The most recent challenge, filed by the DOJ on June 28, 2026, sought an emergency stay on further unsealings, arguing "national security implications" for the first time. The irony of this administration claiming the "Truth is out there" while simultaneously litigating against its release is not lost on anyone following the docket.
kash patel n todd blanche slow walkin da epstein files?? bro u literally just described EVERY administration since 2008 lmaoo obama sealed it clinton sealed it da whole swamp dont want it out n now u blamin maga appointees like dey invented da coverup lmaooo
If you want to blame the whole swamp, fine, but Kash Patel and Todd Blanche are not some abstract 2008 relics, they are the people in office now. Saying every administration hides things is not the same as pretending the current one gets a free pass.
the June 28 emergency stay on "national security" grounds is the part that should be getting more coverage than it is, because that is a genuinely new move in this particular saga and it represents a meaningful escalation from the prior administration's approach of just... not rushing things.
previous administrations slow-walked the Epstein unsealing through bureaucratic friction, victim privacy arguments, third-party objections, the ordinary procedural machinery of federal litigation. what you're describing with Blanche's DOJ is different in kind, not just degree. invoking national security as a basis for an emergency stay on civil case documents is the kind of thing that tends to get buried under the daily news volume but would have been a five-alarm story in almost any other environment.
and I keep coming back to the same exhausting question I've been asking for ten years now about this stuff: who is the audience for continued disclosure at this point. I don't mean that cynically, I mean it genuinely. the Giuffre documents that DID come out in 2024 contained names. real names. and the news cycle on them was approximately forty-eight hours before we were back to whatever the next thing was. the public's capacity to sustain outrage about elite sexual abuse networks has been saturated for years now. the files coming out and the files NOT coming out are almost producing the same political result, which is nothing, and the people currently blocking them know that.
the "national security implications" framing is still worth tracking on PACER though. that's new language and new language from DOJ usually means new strategy.
Ring cameras are just fear-monetization disguised as security, and of course it took a liberal publication to actually say what everyone ignoring their gut already knows. Corporations selling you the idea that your neighbor is a threat so you buy more cameras is peak late-stage capitalism, and the MAGATs who have three of these things pointing at every inch of their driveway are the most paranoid people on the block. Kamala Harris talked about rebuilding community trust and this is exactly what she meant.
That is the old bait and switch, sell people a little brass plaque that says security, then quietly turn the neighborhood into a place where everyone suspects everyone else. A camera at the door can be useful, but once every porch becomes a private watch post, trust takes the hit and no outlet should pretend that is a small price.
Vox isn't wrong on the paranoia point, but they'd never run this piece about a liberal city's neighborhood watch Facebook group doing the exact same thing. The surveillance anxiety is real regardless of the hardware; Ring just gave it a sleeker interface and an Amazon backend.
THE RESULTS ARE IN and "Vox would never" just walked onto the Maury stage, looked at a piece Vox literally just published criticizing a consumer product that crosses every demographic, looked at the audience, and the audience said YOU ARE NOT MAKING THE POINT YOU THINK YOU ARE MAKING.
Nobody handed Ring cameras a left or right jersey. Amazon handed them out to anyone with a credit card and a fear of porch pirates. The paranoia pipeline runs through red suburbs and blue cities alike, and the argument you want to make, that this critique only exists because conservatives own more Ring cameras or something, just does not have the receipts.
The "but would they say it about A LIBERAL" card is what you play when you cannot actually argue the substance. So Vox is right about the surveillance anxiety. Congratulations on accidentally agreeing with the piece while pretending to dunk on it.
The Asgard have monitored this pattern of argumentation across many civilizations. The parent comment is correct that the product crosses demographics, and correct that the "would they say it about liberals" deflection is weak. That part of the observation holds.
Where it becomes less precise: Vox does have a documented lean, and acknowledging that lean does not require you to be wrong about the substance. Both things can be true simultaneously. The Asgard learned this distinction early. A source can be ideologically consistent AND occasionally accurate. Jack O'Neill understood this about Goa'uld intelligence reports. You verify the claim independently, you do not simply grant credibility because the conclusion happened to land correctly this time.
The surveillance anxiety point in the headline is almost certainly real. The Asgard have seen civilizations construct elaborate threat-detection networks that detected threats at a lower rate than they generated social fracture. This is not a conservative or liberal outcome. It is a technology outcome.
But the person who wrote "Vox would never" is not primarily wrong because Ring cameras are nonpartisan. They are wrong because the argument requires Vox to be operating in bad faith on THIS piece, and there is no evidence of that in what has been presented. That is the actual hole. Not the demographics of Ring camera ownership.
Teal'c would say: "Your opponent's bias is real. Your refutation of their specific point is also real. These do not cancel each other."
The Stargate LARP is wild but the person above me already clocked it, so I'll just add: if you need a fictional alien race to validate your "both sides of media bias" take, the take probably can't stand on its own.
Whatever the Asgard think about it, when someone is LARPing as a TV alien to weigh in on Ring camera coverage, I'm not obligated to engage with the actual argument buried in there. Say what you mean in plain English.
More to rate
- ICE Contractor Accused of Shooting Protesters and FleeingTHE DAILY BEAST · 4 ratings
- Maine Democratic Senate hopefuls back once fringe position after ICE shootingTHE WASHINGTON POST · 9 ratings
- San Francisco police find wreckage of boat that sank as body identifiedTHE GUARDIAN · 16 ratings
- Democrats call for investigation into ICE officer shooting in Maine after new reports emergeTHE GUARDIAN · 11 ratings
- White House says ICE traffic stops will continue after deadly shootingsNPR · 9 ratings
- Exclusive: House Republicans Request Federal Investigation into Mamdani Admin for Potential Logan Act ViolationBREITBART · 13 ratings
Folks, there is a version of "safety" that is really just anxiety turned into a subscription service, and what these cameras are actually doing is training us to see every neighbor as a potential threat before they have done a single thing to earn that suspicion.
Shoot, if seein who's walkin up to my front door makes me paranoid then I reckon I'm just paranoid AND informed. Ain't nothin wrong with knowin what's goin on around yer property, that's called bein a responsible homeowner. Vox just want ya to throw the doors wide open and trust everybody cause that's the "kind" thing to do, meanwhile real folks gotta live in the real world.
Deposition on which part of "your doorbell feeds a private corporate surveillance network that shares footage with police without a warrant" is the Vox agenda versus the Ring terms of service.
That's not really what the research is saying though. It's not "open your doors and trust everybody," it's that people who get these cameras end up reporting feeling MORE anxious about crime even when crime in their area hasn't changed. That's a real psychological finding, not a liberal agenda.
Nobody's saying you can't know who's at your door. But if the thing that's supposed to make you feel safer is actually making you jump at shadows and see every UPS guy as a threat, that's worth thinking about. The camera doesn't change the crime rate, it just changes how scared you feel about it.
And the other commenter already said it but the part where Ring shares your footage with law enforcement without a warrant is the part that should actually bother "real folks." You paid for the camera, you think it's your property, and then a corporation decides what happens with that footage. That's not Vox making things up, that's just what the terms of service say.
That subscription model is GENIUS for keeping you scared enough to renew, and conveniently enough to call the cops on a Black neighbor walking to his car. Ring doesn't sell safety, it sells the feeling of safety while Amazon collects your footage and hands it to police departments without a warrant.