That Latest Racist Thing? Ring Cameras!

Smart doorbell cameras are the latest thing to fall victim to the tired and overused “racist” label. Forget that they are used to catch FedEx throwing packages, Adrienne So, writer for the tech magazine Wired, has decried the use of these cameras because… Wait for it… They are used to help catch criminals who might not be white. How does she turn her mind into clay so she can rationalize this insanity? It’s because of their program called Neighbors. Here is her (lack of) logic:

When you install a Ring doorbell, you are, by default, enrolled into Neighbors (but can easily opt-out). This allows two significant things can happen. First, let’s say your Ring camera captures someone stealing an Amazon package off of your front port. If you report that in the Neighbors app, other Ring users are notified that there’s someone in the area stealing packages off of front porches.

According to So, because of this benefit, “Neighbors increases the possibility of racial profiling. It makes it easier for both private citizens and law enforcement agencies to target certain groups for suspicion of crime based on skin color, ethnicity, religion, or country of origin.” Although reporting crime has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with catching criminals, So is more concerned that someone who fits a profile she feels should be protected might be implicated because they are CAUGHT ON VIDEO. It’s because there are myriad instances of these videos helping to catch criminals (here, here, and here for example) that leftists hate them.

The second significant thing that can happen when you catch a criminal on video is that you are able to forward that video to law enforcement. You would think anyone with a brain would love this feature as it allows law enforcement to quickly obtain video evidence to look for the criminal and aid in prosecution. But So is all against this. In her article, she cries “If a crime has been committed, law enforcement should obtain a warrant to access civilian video footage.” In other words, she wants to prohibit crime victims from giving helpful video footage to police and make it as difficult as possible for criminals to be found.

She even mentions this directly with her comment “Yes, there’s nothing stopping law enforcement from physically canvassing streets near a suspected crime scene and asking camera owners, Ring or otherwise, for video footage. However, this process has its own friction points, including walking to find relevant homeowners and going through the process of subpoenaing footage.“

In summary, Adrienne So does not want crime victims to be able to let their neighbors know about criminal activity in the neighborhood. She also wants to stop crime victims from being able to help police by providing them with video footage. So elegantly summarizes her article with the admission that she prefers social justice to law and order. Her summary?