The only clear moral breach I can find in this article is the questionable assertions of Ring cameras reducing crime. This is definitely wrong if Ring does not have any evidence of the truth of these claims and they should stop doing that.
Everything else, to me, can be boiled down to the fact that the author is uncomfortable with the tradeoffs people are making between privacy and security. The author engages with this point only in passing, at the very end of the piece:
"But for ordinary people, like those in Northwest Baltimore, the reason for trusting Ring is simple: they are scared. Pastor Moore said that he understands concerns that people have about Ring’s use of data. However, he said his community didn’t share these concerns."
Yea. I can't figure out why the "Law Enforcement Neighborhood Portal" is supposed to be so terrifying. It lets police see which addresses have Ring cameras running so the police can request footage directly from a nearby resident when there's been a crime in the neighborhood. I can't tell if I'm supposed to be afraid because this leaks the bit of info that the resident own cameras, or because police might get the footage "without a warrant" by, horror of horrors, asking the resident for it:
Everything else, to me, can be boiled down to the fact that the author is uncomfortable with the tradeoffs people are making between privacy and security. The author engages with this point only in passing, at the very end of the piece: "But for ordinary people, like those in Northwest Baltimore, the reason for trusting Ring is simple: they are scared. Pastor Moore said that he understands concerns that people have about Ring’s use of data. However, he said his community didn’t share these concerns."