Ring’s Jamie Siminoff has been trying to calm privacy fears since the Super Bowl, but his answers may not help

When Ring founder and CEO Jamie Siminoff decided to use the company’s first-ever Super Bowl commercial to introduce Search Party — an AI-powered feature that uses Ring camera footage to help find lost dogs — he expected Americans to love it. Instead, the TV spot set off a firestorm.

In fact, practically since the moment it aired in February, Siminoff has been making the rounds on CNN, NBC, and in the pages of the New York Times, explaining that his critics fundamentally misunderstand what Ring is building. He sat down with TechCrunch a few days ago to make his case again, and while he was candid and plainly eager to reframe the narrative, some of his answers may well raise fresh questions among those already uneasy about the growth of home surveillance.

The feature at the center of the controversy is fairly mundane on the surface, and something we covered in a straightforward way when it was first released. A dog goes missing; Ring alerts nearby camera owners to ask whether the animal shows up in their footage; users can respond or ignore the request entirely and stay invisible to everyone involved. Siminoff leaned heavily on this throughout our conversation — the idea that doing nothing counts as opting out, that no one is conscripted into anything.

“It is no different than finding a dog in your backyard, looking at the collar and deciding whether or not to call the number,” he said.

What he believes actually prompted the backlash was the visual in the Super Bowl spot: a map showing blue circles pulsing outward from house after house as cameras switched on across a neighborhood grid. “I would change that,” he said. “It wasn’t our job to try to poke anyone to try and get some response.”

But Ring picked a rocky moment to make its case. Nancy Guthrie — the 84-year-old mother of Today Show anchor Savannah Guthrie — had vanished from her Tucson home on January 31st, with bloodstains later confirmed to be hers found at the residence. Footage from a Google Nest camera at the property, capturing a masked figure trying to smother the lens with foliage, had swept across the internet and plopped home surveillance cameras squarely into the center of a national argument about safety, privacy, and who gets to watch whom. 

Siminoff leaned into the Guthrie case rather than away from it. In a separate interview with Fortune, he contended it was practically an argument for putting more cameras on more houses. “I do believe if they had more [footage from Guthrie’s home], if there was more cameras on the house, I think we might have solved” the case, he said. Ring’s own network, he noted, had turned up footage of a suspicious vehicle two and a half miles from the Guthrie property.

Whether you find that heartening or disturbing depends on your point of view. Siminoff clearly believes video is an unqualified social good, but some might look at the same statements and see a company founder using a kidnapping to get more of his products into consumers’ hands.

Either way, the discomfort with Search Party isn’t simply about those blue concentric circles in the ad. The feature sits alongside two others — Fire Watch, which crowdsources neighborhood fire mapping, and Community Requests, which allows local law enforcement to ask Ring users in a given area whether they have relevant footage from an incident. Ring relaunched Community Requests in September through a partnership with Axon, the company that makes police body cameras and tasers, and operates the evidence management platform Evidence.com. (Axon and Ring announced the partnership in April of last year, shortly after Siminoff rejoined the company after stepping away in 2023.)

A previous version of that partnership involved Flock Safety, which operates AI-powered license plate readers. Ring ended that partnership several days after the Super Bowl ad aired, citing the “workload” it would create and noting mutual concerns.

Asked directly, Siminoff declined to address whether Flock’s reported data-sharing with U.S. Customs and Border Protection played a role. (Dozens of towns across the U.S. have cut ties with Flock over exactly those concerns.) But the timing of Ring’s decision was notable. Even if Siminoff believes customers are misreading his products, he clearly understands Ring can’t afford to dismiss their anxieties, particularly right now.

None of this is happening in isolation. Just days ago, NPR reported on its own investigation compiled from dozens of accounts from people who found themselves caught in the Department of Homeland Security’s expanding surveillance apparatus, including U.S. citizens with no immigration status issues at all. One woman, a constitutional observer trailing an ICE vehicle in Minneapolis in late January, described a masked federal agent leaning out the window, photographing her, and then calling out her name and home address. “Their message was not subtle,” she told NPR. “They were, in effect, saying, we see you. We can get to you whenever we want to.” 

Siminoff seems to understand deeply that his answers about Ring’s own data practices take on added weight as a result. When we talked, he pointed to end-to-end encryption as Ring’s strongest privacy protection and confirmed that when it’s enabled, not even Ring employees can view the footage, since decryption requires a passphrase tied to the user’s own device. He described this as an industry first for residential camera companies. 

The facial recognition question is where things get more tangled. Ring rolled out a feature called Familiar Faces in December, two months before the Super Bowl ad aired. It allows users to catalog up to 50 frequent visitors — family members, delivery drivers, neighbors — so that instead of a generic motion alert, you get a notification that reads “Mom at Front Door.” Siminoff described the feature enthusiastically during our conversation, saying gets alerts, for example, when his teenage son pulls into the driveway. He compared it to the facial recognition now routine at TSA checkpoints – the implication being that the public has already made its peace with this kind of thing. When asked about consent from people who appear on a Ring camera but never agreed to be catalogued, he said simply that Ring adheres to applicable local and state laws. 

He was also careful when asked whether Amazon draws on Ring’s facial recognition data. “Amazon does not access that data,” he said, then tacked on: “If a customer, in the future, wanted to opt in to do something with that, maybe you could see that happening.” 

He further volunteered that end-to-end encryption is an opt-in feature: users have to manually enable it in the Ring app’s Control Center. But according to Ring’s own support documentation, the tradeoff for enabling it is steep. The full list of features disabled by end-to-end encryption includes event timelines, rich notifications, quick replies, video access on Ring.com, shared user access, AI video search, 24/7 video recording, pre-roll, snapshot capture, bird’s eye view, person detection, AI video descriptions, video preview alerts, virtual security guard — and Familiar Faces, which requires processing in the cloud. In other words, the two things Ring is actively promoting as flagship capabilities — AI-powered recognition of who’s at your door, and true privacy from Ring itself — are mutually exclusive. You can have one or the other but not both.

As for whether Ring users should worry about their footage ending up in front of a federal immigration agency, Siminoff said no — community requests run only through local law enforcement channels — and pointed to Ring’s transparency report on government subpoenas. He didn’t take up what happens when that boundary proves porous.

Unsurprisingly, Siminoff is building toward something bigger than doorbell cameras. Ring has more than 100 million cameras in the field and is now quietly dipping into enterprise security with a new “elite” camera line and a security trailer product. He acknowledged that small businesses have been pulling Ring into their spaces already, whether Ring markets to them or not. He’s also open to outdoor drones — “if we could get the cost in a place where it made sense” — and on license plate detection, which Ring’s now former partner Flock Safety has made its core business, he declined to say never. (Asked directly whether it’s something Ring might explore, he said Ring is “definitely not” working on it today but then added: “It’s very hard to say we’re never going to do something in the future.”)

He frames all of it through a belief he says he has held from the start of the company, that each home is a node controlled by its owner, and residents should be able to choose whether to participate in neighborhood-level cooperation when something happens. 

Alas, in a moment when an NPR investigation has documented federal agents photographing and identifying civilians who were doing nothing more than observing arrests, and when a kidnapping case has become a national talking point about both cameras and privacy, the question isn’t just about whether Ring’s opt-in framework is designed well. It’s whether what Ring is building — including a network of tens of millions of cameras, AI-powered search, and facial recognition — can remain as benign as Siminoff may well intend it, regardless of who is in power, what partnerships get struck, and how the data flows.