Ring says its new encryption limits what it can give police
Ring, the Amazon-owned home security camera company, has introduced a new encryption system called TAKE (Throw Away the Key Encryption), which it says will restrict what footage the company can hand over to law enforcement. The move comes amid heightened scrutiny of Ring over its historical ties to police and privacy concerns surrounding its AI-powered Search Party feature, and marks an attempt to reassure customers without sacrificing cloud-based features such as smart alerts and AI video search.
Under TAKE, encryption keys rotate every five minutes and are deleted within 24 hours, with Ring stating it retains no persistent access and that footage requests to police would yield only non-video information and encrypted files. The system, built on the Messaging Layer Security standard, differs from full end-to-end encryption (E2EE) in that Ring temporarily holds keys via an AWS Nitro Enclave to enable processing, whereas E2EE never gives Ring access at all; newer cameras can toggle between the two, while older models support only TAKE. The feature begins rolling out in September to all customers regardless of subscription status and will eventually become the default, though users who lose access to their devices and cannot use one of several recovery options will be locked out of their encrypted footage.
- Ring launches TAKE encryption to limit data given to police
- Encryption keys rotate every five minutes, deleted within 24 hours
- Rolls out from September as default for all Ring users
New here? Start with this
Ring makes internet-connected cameras and doorbells that let users view footage remotely and use cloud features such as alerts and video search. Because recordings can capture people at home or in public, the company’s relationships with police and its handling of customer footage have raised privacy questions.
Encryption scrambles footage so it cannot be readily read without a key. Ring’s new system is designed to limit its lasting access to recordings, while still allowing some cloud services to work; it differs from end-to-end encryption, which prevents the company from accessing the keys at all. The distinction matters to customers weighing convenience, privacy and how they can recover footage if they lose access to their devices.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Proponents argue that users have a fundamental right to privacy in their own homes, and that Ring's historical sharing practices with police forces have raised legitimate concerns about surveillance and data misuse. They contend that TAKE encryption appropriately restricts Ring's ability to hand over sensitive footage without warrant, protecting users from warrantless searches and corporate complicity in mass surveillance whilst preserving useful cloud features. The principle that companies should not maintain persistent access to intimate home footage represents a necessary check on both corporate and governmental overreach.
The case against
Critics argue that robust law enforcement access to security footage is essential for investigating serious crimes, locating missing persons, and protecting public safety. They contend that TAKE encryption, whilst preserving some cloud functionality, significantly impairs police ability to obtain crucial evidence even with proper warrants, potentially hampering legitimate investigations and leaving victims without recourse. They note that Ring's previous cooperation with police aided lawful investigations, and that encryption systems preventing warrant-authorised access represent an undue impediment to public safety and the rule of law.