Nilay Patel

What's the line for you?

I'm asking this for a lot of reasons, but I look at sort of broadly what's happening with surveillance footage out in the world.

And I'm not saying Ring is participating in this.

I'm just giving you the example.

ICE has facial recognition systems, right?

And they are arguing that a positive match in their facial recognition system is a definitive determination of someone's immigration status.

That's way out there.

I don't think you're doing that.

But you can get to, OK, we have facial recognition.

We have a bunch of evidence coming off of ring cameras.

To make it really safe, you want to go from passive surveillance to active surveillance, right?

That's what the studies show.

Now we can just, the camera will literally identify the criminal by face and tell the cops, this person tried to steal a car from this driveway.

And that's the thing that would get you to actually zero out crime.

There's a lot of risk in those steps.

But if I draw the thread from what you're saying, it's all the way to the criminals won't come here because the cameras will know who they are and tell the cops.

Are you willing to go that far?

We'll be right back.

Today, the backlash against surveillance has led Ring to kill that flock deal.

The company is also doing damage control about dog search, telling The Verge that the technology that powers Search Party is not, quote, capable of being used to find people, and that there's no indication that such features are on future roadmaps.