Ring, AI, and the Dog That Opened the Door
…nobody wants to lose their dog. And nobody wants to live in a surveillance state. The trouble is, the path from one to the other has never required a villain or a dramatic turning point, just a series of small, reasonable-seeming steps, each one easier to accept than the last.
Last month, Super Bowl viewers learned about innovative plans by the home security company Ring to have its system turned into a lost dog-finding tool with the aid of artificial intelligence.
Ring's "Search Party" is an AI-powered feature that utilizes neighborhood outdoor cameras to locate missing dogs. When a user reports a lost pet in the Ring app, AI scans nearby participating cameras for matches. If a match is found, the camera owner receives an alert, allowing them to voluntarily share footage with the pet owner.
At first blush, the idea sounds fabulous for any pet owner who has lost a dog. Who wouldn't want to be able to have the ability to quickly locate a pet before it gets hurt or disappears forever?
But the idea has received a lot of backlash from privacy experts who worry the dog-finding feature could be a first step toward a far more invasive surveillance state. And members of the public have expressed concerns because of a growing intrusion into people's lives from tech companies. Apparently, some Americans are even deleting their Ring accounts or destroying the product.
As someone who had a long career in journalism, I don't have an expert’s background when it comes to privacy concerns. But I do have the ability to come up with good questions, and so, I asked Claude the AI chatbot for some assistance in digging into the subject. Following is my conversation.
GW: What should a forward-looking policing research organization make of all this?
Claude: The institute would likely examine how consumer surveillance infrastructure — marketed for benign purposes like finding pets — normalizes pervasive monitoring and creates infrastructure that later enables more invasive applications. Historical patterns are consistent: technologies introduced for sympathetic use cases tend to expand well beyond their original scope.
Ring is owned by Amazon and has established partnerships with law enforcement. The Future Policing Institute would ask whether this commercial is quietly positioning a voluntary civilian surveillance network as wholesome and helpful — one that police can access through formal partnerships or legal processes. Beyond that, the governance questions the ad doesn't answer are often the most important ones: What training data powers this AI? How accurate is it? Who has access to footage and metadata, and for how long?
There's also an equity dimension. Communities with more Ring cameras may receive different policing attention than those without, potentially deepening existing disparities. And perhaps most broadly, when surveillance is associated with protecting beloved family members, it becomes much harder to question its expansion into other domains.
GW: That raised an obvious follow-up: Has this kind of thing happened before?
Claude: The pattern tends to follow the same arc. A technology is introduced to solve a specific, sympathetic problem. Initial assurances emphasize limited scope. Gradually, use cases expand as institutions discover new applications. By the time the public recognizes the full scope, the infrastructure is entrenched and politically difficult to roll back.
License plate readers were marketed to recover stolen vehicles and support Amber Alerts. They now capture and store the movements of millions of law-abiding citizens, with some jurisdictions using the data to track attendance at political protests. Social Security numbers were created in 1936 solely to track retirement benefits — the original cards read "Not for Identification" — and became the de facto national identifier used by banks, employers, and healthcare systems, creating massive vulnerability to identity theft. DNA databases, established to identify violent criminals, now include people arrested but never convicted, and commercial genealogy sites like GEDmatch have been used by law enforcement to genetically surveil millions who never consented to be in any police database. The PATRIOT Act was passed as an emergency anti-terrorism measure; many of its provisions became permanent and were used for routine criminal investigations with no terrorism connection whatsoever.
Each incremental expansion seems reasonable in isolation. Cumulatively, they transform the relationship between individuals, technology, and institutional power in ways the original adopters never anticipated.
GW: That led me to a term I hadn't encountered before: surveillance creep. Is that actually a real thing?
Claude: Yes — though it's worth noting the more common term in academic and policy literature is "function creep," referring specifically to when a system gradually extends beyond its original purpose. Privacy researchers like David Lyon and Shoshana Zuboff, along with organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have documented this pattern extensively. "Surveillance creep" conveys the same idea and isn't wrong — it's just more likely to show up in journalism than in scholarly work.
GW: But I kept coming back to the harder question: Is it possible the positives outweigh the negatives?
Claude: This is genuinely one of the hardest questions in contemporary technology policy, and honest analysts disagree.
Part of the difficulty is structural. Many benefits are immediate and concrete — a crime solved, a person found — while many costs are gradual and systemic: a normalized surveillance culture, infrastructure available for future misuse, chilling effects on lawful protest. How do you weigh a child rescued today against the possibility of democratic backsliding in twenty years?
A civil libertarian framework would argue the negatives dominate because rights erosion is hard to reverse, surveillance powers historically expand and get abused, and privacy is foundational to a free society — not a luxury to trade for convenience. A public safety framework might counter that concrete harms prevented are measurable, most people benefit from greater security, and democratic oversight provides adequate safeguards.
The historical evidence, though, suggests the negatives compound over time while the benefits plateau. Crime-solving gains are often oversold — predictive policing hasn't delivered its promised reductions, and most crimes go unsolved even with more surveillance. Meanwhile, surveillance infrastructure, once built, is available to whoever controls it, including future governments with very different values.
Perhaps the more useful question isn't whether the positives outweigh the negatives in theory, but whether we're building adequate safeguards to keep them in balance. On that front, the evidence is not encouraging: minimal oversight, weak data retention controls, limited transparency about accuracy and bias, and almost no systematic cost-benefit analysis before deployment.
In the end, nobody wants to lose their dog. And nobody wants to live in a surveillance state. The trouble is, the path from one to the other has never required a villain or a dramatic turning point, just a series of small, reasonable-seeming steps, each one easier to accept than the last.
Ring's lost dog feature may find millions of missing pets. It may also be the moment we look back on someday and ask ourselves how we got here. The question worth sitting with, for individuals deciding whether to install a camera, for policymakers deciding whether to regulate one, and for policing leaders deciding whether to partner with the company that makes it, is not whether the technology works.
It's whether we are paying close enough attention to where it leads.
About the author: