this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2026
794 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

81078 readers
4048 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A Super Bowl ad for Ring security cameras boasting how the company can scan neighborhoods for missing dogs has prompted some customers to remove or even destroy their cameras.

Online, videos of people removing or destroying their Ring cameras have gone viral. One video posted by Seattle-based artist Maggie Butler shows her pulling off her porch-facing camera and flipping it the middle finger.

Butler explained that she originally bought the camera to protect against package thefts, but decided the pet-tracking system raised too many concerns about government access to data.

"They aren't just tracking lost dogs, they're tracking you and your neighbors," Butler said in the video that has more than 3.2 million views.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 15 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

I honestly didn't know what they were thinking with that commercial. Why would you proudly advertise that you've built a massive surveillance network

Presumably because most end users are in deep with the "if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" crowd ... and besides it can find a lost dog /s.

They brought these sorts of intrusive cameras in the first place so privacy was not top of mind, or even in 2nd or 3rd place.

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Presumably because most end users are in deep with the "if you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" crowd

I agree with other comments that this is probably an Executive issue. Decision-makers operating with missing information can make misinformed decisions. Whether or not end users actually are in that crowd is less relevant than whether the people making such decisions think the users are in that crowd.

In a game-theory framing, it's a game with incomplete information. What you assume about others, including what you assume about their assumptions, influences your decisions. The sheer amount of players makes it a lot harder to model or predict.

[–] kieron115@startrek.website 5 points 11 hours ago

I would also put a good bit of the blame on executives and marketing people being way out of touch with the average person.