Ring Denies Rumors That Its Footage Is Used By ICE. Here’s What to Know.

Following a surge in immigration enforcement actions in recent weeks, rumors have swirled, claiming that Amazon-owned Ring, which has sold tens of millions of smart cameras and video doorbells in the US, has been providing federal immigration law enforcement with access to user data.

That unsubstantiated claim, frequently reposted on social media along with calls to disable or destroy Ring devices, also asserts that Ring’s service is integrated with Flock Safety, a company that markets license-plate scanning devices and software and has come under scrutiny due to purported use of its services for immigration enforcement.

Some of Ring’s products, including cameras, home security systems, and lighting devices, have been or are Wirecutter picks. In the past we have paused recommending Ring products at various times following what we considered systemic lapses in its security and privacy policies.

And so, with this new round of rumors swirling, we contacted Ring for clarification and independently investigated the concerns ourselves.

Here’s what you should know.

Ring did announce a partnership with Flock Safety. But it hasn’t taken effect yet. Ring announced in October 2025 that the partnership would allow Ring-device owners to voluntarily share their own footage, which could be viewable to local law enforcement agencies that use the Flock network. However, that integration has not yet launched, and Ring has not specified when it will.

Ring and Flock Safety both say that they don’t allow federal agencies to have direct access to user data. Ring confirmed to Wirecutter, and Flock states on its website, that access to user data is restricted to local law enforcement and is supplied only with permission of the device owner.

Note that with Flock, at least, federal law enforcement may still gain access. A 404 Media article in May 2025 detailed instances of local law enforcement agencies’ cooperating with federal agencies, including immigration enforcement, by performing data lookups on Flock’s network of cameras.

Ring says that any access to user content (such as video recordings) or non-content (data such as a user’s name, address, and other profile info) can be requested only by local law enforcement using the company’s Community Requests service. Users can simply not reply to requests or can completely opt out of receiving such requests.

Ring provided Wirecutter with the following statement:

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot initiate Community Requests. Ring has no partnership with ICE, does not give ICE videos, feeds, or back-end access, and does not share video with them. Like all companies, Ring may receive legally valid and binding demands for information from law enforcement, such as search warrants, subpoenas, or court orders. We do not disclose customer information unless required to do so by law, or in rare emergency situations when there is an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. Outside of that legal process, customers control which videos are shared with law enforcement.”

All camera makers may be compelled by law to share access to specific recordings. That’s what the latter half of Ring’s statement is getting at. Ring — and any other company that sells security cameras, including Eufy or TP-Link — may be subject to a legally binding action, such as a subpoena, search warrant, or court order. While some of those may be challenged, ultimately a company may be required to produce user data, even if the user has previously opted out of video-sharing options like Ring’s Community Requests. And while a company may notify a customer that their recordings or other data have been shared, it may be prevented from doing so due to legal restrictions.

How often does this happen? Amazon publishes an information-request transparency report for Ring every six months. In the most recent report, covering January through June 2025, the company received 2,099 search-warrant information requests, 270 subpoenas, 56 court orders, and another 2,590 information-preservation requests.

Of those, Ring eventually shared content (meaning video, audio, or other data) for 977 of the requests and non-content data in 1,448 instances. Of all those affected users, just 599 of them were notified of the request or data sharing.

For context, this number of requests for user content represents a fraction of a percent of Ring’s ownership base, which the company states is “in the tens of millions.”

Companies may contact authorities during a time-sensitive emergency. All of the camera makers that produce devices that are Wirecutter picks, including Ring, state that they may contact law enforcement if they become aware of a time-sensitive emergency.

What exactly does that mean in practice? Ring told Wirecutter: “On rare occasions, Ring will provide information to law enforcement on an emergency basis when there is an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury, such as a kidnapping or an attempted murder. These emergency requests are reviewed by trained professionals who disclose information only when that standard is met. This process is not specific to Ring and is something many other companies follow.” (For more information, view Ring’s Law Enforcement Guidelines.)