In recent developments, Amazon’s Ring, a leading provider of video doorbells and home security cameras, has reintroduced a mechanism enabling law enforcement to request user footage—this time, through strategic partnerships with two police-focused technology companies, Flock Safety and Axon. This move comes less than two years after Ring removed a similar feature that had sparked concerns over privacy and the ease with which law enforcement could access private video recordings without a warrant.
Ring’s new approach centers around the “Community Requests” feature, accessible through the Ring Neighbors app. This feature allows local law enforcement agencies to submit formal requests for footage related to specific incidents. Through its partnerships, Ring is now working with Atlanta-based Flock Safety, known for its surveillance technology such as license plate readers and police drones, and with Axon, a company specializing in law enforcement tools and evidence management solutions.
Under the revised system, if a public safety agency—verified by Axon Evidence or Flock Safety and approved by Ring—needs video evidence for an investigation, it can submit a request specifying the location and timeframe of the incident. This request appears publicly on the Neighbors app for users within a half-square-mile area, alerting them to the situation and allowing them to decide whether or not to share their footage. Importantly, Ring emphasizes that if users ignore these requests, their decision is anonymous and the agency will not be notified. Any footage voluntarily submitted is sent directly to Axon Evidence, where it is checked for authenticity.
Ring has clarified that only local and county agencies, nonprofits, and local governments can have a verified account to make Community Requests. Federal agencies—including those with existing relationships with Axon or Flock—are not eligible for these requests, nor can third parties submit on their behalf. Ring also claims that agencies do not have access to data about how many users are in a given area or who receives a request, adding an additional layer of user privacy.
The company maintains that these requests are strictly opt-in: users must actively choose to share their footage, and law enforcement cannot access any video without explicit permission. However, privacy experts warn that this system still raises significant concerns. While only the footage owners can provide videos to law enforcement, the people captured in those videos—such as passersby, children playing, or neighbors walking their dogs—have no say in whether their images are shared with authorities. This means individuals who have not consented to surveillance may nonetheless be swept into investigations.
Erik Avakian, a technical counselor at Info-Tech Research Group and former chief information security officer for Pennsylvania, points out that even with opt-in sharing, major questions remain about how footage is used once in law enforcement’s hands. Videos could potentially be used for unrelated investigations, shared across agencies, or even analyzed for biometric data such as facial recognition. The footage might reveal more about bystanders and neighbors than about the actual incident under investigation.
Avakian suggests that blurring or masking individuals not relevant to an investigation in