Ring Scraps Planned Partnership with Police Surveillance Firm Flock Safety Amid Backlash Over Super Bowl Ad

In a dramatic turn of events that underscores the growing tensions between consumer privacy and law enforcement surveillance, Ring, the Amazon-owned smart doorbell giant, has abruptly terminated its planned collaboration with Flock Safety, a controversial provider of surveillance technology to U.S. police departments. The decision comes on the heels of mounting public criticism following Ring’s Super Bowl ad, which spotlighted its “Search Party” feature—a tool that leverages a network of Ring cameras to locate missing pets.

The partnership, announced in October, aimed to integrate Flock Safety’s capabilities into Ring’s “Community Requests” feature, enabling Ring users to share footage with local police upon request. However, in a statement released on February 12, Ring revealed that after “a comprehensive review,” it determined the integration would require “significantly more time and resources than anticipated,” leading to its cancellation.

The timing of this decision is no coincidence. Just days earlier, Ring’s Super Bowl ad ignited a firestorm of controversy. The commercial depicted a neighborhood-wide mobilization of Ring cameras to find a lost dog, showcasing the power of collective surveillance. Critics, however, were quick to point out the darker implications: the same network could easily be repurposed to track individuals, raising serious concerns about privacy and civil liberties.

Flock Safety, for its part, is no stranger to controversy. The company is best known for its network of license plate-reading cameras deployed across the U.S., which upload data to a centralized database accessible by law enforcement. This technology has been used to track vehicles, often without clear oversight or accountability. Recently, Flock denied allegations of collaboration with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), stating, “ICE does not have direct access to Flock cameras, systems, or data.”

Ring and Flock both emphasized that no customer data was shared during the brief period of their collaboration, as the integration never went live. Ring reiterated its commitment to “building tools that empower neighbors to help one another while maintaining strong privacy protections and transparency.” Flock, meanwhile, vowed to continue supporting law enforcement with tools that are “fully configurable to local laws and policies.”

The backlash against Ring’s Super Bowl ad reflects a broader unease within the tech industry and among the public about the expanding reach of surveillance technologies. This sentiment is echoed by employees at major tech companies, some of whom have called on their employers to divest from partnerships with law enforcement agencies like ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

As the debate over privacy and surveillance intensifies, Ring’s decision to scrap its partnership with Flock Safety serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between innovation, security, and individual rights. Whether this move will satisfy critics or merely delay the inevitable remains to be seen.

Tags: Ring, Flock Safety, surveillance, privacy, Super Bowl ad, Amazon, law enforcement, license plate readers, ICE, CBP, smart doorbell, controversy, tech backlash, community requests, search party, data privacy, civil liberties, centralized database, police surveillance, public criticism, transparency, accountability, tech industry, innovation, security, individual rights.

Viral Phrases: “Neighborhood-wide mobilization of Ring cameras,” “Darker implications of collective surveillance,” “Track individuals, raising serious concerns about privacy,” “Expanding reach of surveillance technologies,” “Delicate balance between innovation, security, and individual rights,” “Mounting public criticism,” “Firestorm of controversy,” “Abruptly terminated collaboration,” “Growing tensions between consumer privacy and law enforcement surveillance,” “Broader unease within the tech industry,” “Critics were quick to point out the darker implications.”

,