Amazon, Google Unwittingly Reveal the Severity of the U.S. Surveillance State
Source: Hacker News
Amazon’s Ring and Google’s Nest Unwittingly Reveal the Severity of the U.S. Surveillance State
Just a decade after a global backlash was triggered by Snowden reporting on mass domestic surveillance, the state‑corporate dragnet is stronger and more invasive than ever.
Glenn Greenwald – Feb 13, 2026 – 77 418 158 Share
One of Google’s Nest surveillance cameras, whose recordings can be accessed by Google even if users don’t subscribe to the security firm’s services.
CC Photo Lab / Shutterstock
That the U.S. surveillance state is rapidly growing to the point of ubiquity has been demonstrated over the past week by seemingly benign events. While the picture that emerges is grim—at the very least, Americans are again confronted with crystal‑clear evidence of how severe this has become.
The Ring “Search Party” ad
The latest round of valid panic over privacy began during the Super Bowl on Sunday. During the game, Amazon ran a commercial for its Ring camera security system. The ad manipulatively exploited people’s love of dogs to induce them to ignore the consequences of what Amazon was touting—yet the trick did not work.
The ad highlighted what the company calls its “Search Party” feature: a user can upload a picture of a lost dog, which then activates multiple other Ring cameras in the neighborhood. Those cameras use AI to scan for dogs and identify the missing one. The 30‑second spot was full of heart‑tugging scenes of children and elderly people being reunited with their lost pets.
Ironically, the graphic Amazon used unintentionally illustrated how invasive this technology can be. That a capability now exists in a product long marketed as a simple homeowner‑monitoring tool creates an unavoidable contrast between public understanding of Ring and what Amazon now boasts it can do.
Amazon’s Super Bowl ad for Ring and its “Search Party” feature.
Many people were not just surprised but shocked and alarmed to learn that a system they thought was merely a personal security device could link with countless other Ring cameras to form a neighborhood‑wide (or city‑wide, or state‑wide) surveillance dragnet. Amazon’s claim that the feature is available only to those who “opt‑in” did little to assuage concerns.
- The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) condemned Ring’s program as previewing “a world where biometric identification could be unleashed from consumer devices to identify, track, and locate anything—human, pet, and otherwise.”[source]
- Private citizens who previously used Ring reacted negatively. “Viral videos online show people removing or destroying their cameras over privacy concerns,” reported USA Today.[source]
- The backlash was so severe that, days later, Amazon announced the termination of its partnership with Flock Safety, a police‑surveillance tech company. While Flock is unrelated to Search Party, public outrage made it impossible—at least for now—for Amazon to send Ring user data to a police surveillance firm.[source]
The ad has shone a long‑overdue spotlight on how the combination of ubiquitous cameras, AI, and rapidly advancing facial‑recognition software will render the term “privacy” little more than a quaint concept from the past. As EFF put it, Ring’s program “could already run afoul of biometric privacy laws in some states, which require explicit, informed consent from individuals before a company can just run face recognition on someone.”
Google Nest and the Guthrie case
Those concerns escalated a few days later in the context of the Tucson disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, mother of long‑time TODAY Show host Savannah Guthrie. At her home, Nancy used a Google Nest camera for security—a product similar to Amazon’s Ring.
Guthrie did not pay Google for a subscription; she used the cameras solely for real‑time monitoring. As CBS News explained, “with a free Google Nest plan, the video should have been deleted within 3 to 6 … ”[source].
(The original article cuts off here; the missing portion likely discussed the implications of video retention policies for investigations.)
Bottom line: The recent Ring “Search Party” ad and the Guthrie Nest incident illustrate how consumer‑grade surveillance devices are being repurposed into expansive, AI‑driven monitoring networks—raising profound questions about consent, biometric privacy, and the future of civil liberties in the United States.
Hours — long after Guthrie was reported missing.
Even professional privacy advocates have understood that customers who use Nest without a subscription will not have their cameras connected to Google’s data servers, meaning that no recordings will be stored or available for any period beyond a few hours.
For that reason, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos announced early on “that there was no video available in part because Guthrie didn’t have an active subscription to the company.” Many people, for obvious reasons, prefer to avoid permanently storing comprehensive daily video reports with Google of when they leave and return to their own home, or who visits them at their home, when, and for how long.
Despite all this, FBI investigators on the case were somehow magically able to “recover” this video from Guthrie’s camera many days later. FBI Director Kash Patel was essentially forced to admit this when he released still images of what appears to be the masked perpetrator who broke into Guthrie’s home. (The Google user agreement, which few users read, does protect the company by stating that images may be stored even in the absence of a subscription.)
Image obtained through Nancy Guthrie’s unsubscribed Google Nest camera and released by the FBI.
While the “discovery” of footage from this home camera by Google engineers is obviously of great value to the Guthrie family and law‑enforcement agents searching for Guthrie, it raises obvious yet serious questions about why Google, contrary to common understanding, was storing the video footage of unsubscribed users. A former NSA data researcher and CEO of a cybersecurity firm, Patrick Johnson, told CBS:
“There’s kind of this old saying that data is never deleted, it’s just renamed.”
Subscribe
It is rather remarkable that Americans are being led, more or less willingly, into a state‑corporate, Panopticon‑like domestic surveillance state with relatively little resistance, though the widespread reaction to Amazon’s Ring ad is encouraging. Much of that muted reaction may be due to a lack of realization about the severity of the evolving privacy threat. Beyond that, privacy and other core rights can seem abstract and less of a priority than more material concerns—at least until they are gone.
It is always the case that there are benefits available from relinquishing core civil liberties:
- Allowing infringements on free speech may reduce false claims and hateful ideas.
- Allowing searches and seizures without warrants will likely help the police catch more criminals, and do so more quickly.
- Giving up privacy may, in fact, enhance security.
But the core premise of the West generally, and the U.S. in particular, is that those trade‑offs are never worthwhile. Americans still learn and are taught to admire the iconic (if not apocryphal) 1775 words of Patrick Henry, which came to define the core ethos of the Revolutionary War and American founding: “Give me liberty or give me death.” It is hard to express in more definitive terms on which side of that liberty‑versus‑security trade‑off the U.S. was intended to fall.
These recent events emerge in a broader context of this new Silicon‑Valley‑driven destruction of individual privacy.
- Palantir’s federal contracts for domestic surveillance and data management continue to expand rapidly, with more and more intrusive data about Americans consolidated under the control of this one sinister corporation.
- Facial‑recognition technology—now fully in use for an array of purposes from Customs and Border Protection at airports to ICE’s patrolling of American streets—means that fully tracking one’s movements in public spaces is easier than ever, and is becoming easier by the day. It was only three years ago that we interviewed New York Times reporter Kashmir Hill about her new book, Your Face Belongs to Us. The warnings she issued about the dangers of this proliferating technology have not only come true with startling speed but also appear already beyond what even she envisioned.
On top of all this are advances in AI. Its effects on privacy cannot yet be quantified, but they will not be good. I have tried most AI programs simply to remain abreast of how they function.
After just a few weeks, I had to stop my use of Google’s Gemini because it was compiling not just segregated data about me, but also a wide array of information to form what could reasonably be described as a dossier on my life, including information I had not wittingly provided. It would answer questions I asked it with creepy, unrelated references to the far‑too‑complete picture it had managed to create of many aspects of my life (at one point, it commented, somewhat judgmentally or out of feigned “concern,” about the late hours I was keeping while working, a topic I never raised).
Many of these unnerving developments have happened without much public notice because we are often distracted by what appear to be more immediate and proximate events in the news cycle. The lack of sufficient attention to these privacy dangers over the last couple of years, including at times from me, should not obscure how consequential they are.
All of this is particularly remarkable, and particularly disconcerting, since we are barely more than a decade removed from the disclosures about mass domestic surveilla—
The era of mass surveillance was ushered in by the courageous whistleblower Edward Snowden. Although most of our reporting focused on state surveillance, one of the first stories featured the joint state‑corporate spying framework built in conjunction with the U.S. security state and Silicon Valley giants.
The Snowden revelations sparked years of anger, attempts at reform, changes in diplomatic relations, and even genuine (albeit forced) improvements in Big Tech’s user privacy. But the calculation of the U.S. security state and Big Tech was that, at some point, attention to privacy concerns would disperse and then virtually evaporate, enabling the state‑corporate surveillance apparatus to march on without much notice or resistance. As of now, that calculation appears to have been vindicated.
This Substack is reader‑supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Subscribe (replace # with your subscription link)