Big Brother is watching. He lives next door.

Walk through Riverdale today and you are likely to see a Ring camera mounted next to a front door. For many residents, these devices have become as common as mailboxes or porch lights. Their appeal is obvious: package theft is frustrating, and knowing who is at our front doors provides a measure of safety. We want to protect ourselves, our property. In many cases, technologies like these doorbells do exactly what they promise. They provide security and can help identify suspicious activity when crimes occur.

But while these devices may make us feel safer, they also raise an uncomfortable question: what are we giving up in return? Whether it is doorbell cameras or location-sharing apps or neighborhood watch platforms, technologies designed to make us feel safe have become prevalent parts of everyday life. They are tools that offer real benefits — but they also make ordinary people nodes in vast networks of data collection and surveillance.

The very idea may sound dystopian. The surveillance debate is often framed as a conflict between citizens and governments. But more often than we realize, surveillance is something we participate in ourselves.

Most homeowners who install cameras, or concerned parents who track their kids on their phones, aren’t trying to spy on anyone. They utilize these devices for entirely legitimate reasons, and many people genuinely benefit from them. The problem is not necessarily the intentions of individual users. The problem is that when thousands of people adopt these technologies, they unwittingly create a network of constant observation that extends far beyond its original purpose.

This issue is especially relevant in close-knit communities like ours, and Ring cameras, which have become a household security staple in greater Riverdale and beyond, provide a useful example of this broader trend.

Critics of Ring and similar technologies have long questioned how the collected data is handled. They point to concerns about data retention, the possibility of footage being shared beyond its original purpose and the broader implications of creating detailed records of everyday activity.

Ring, owned by Amazon, has also faced substantial criticism over privacy and consent. Because its cameras often record sidewalks and neighboring properties, people can be filmed without their knowledge. Critics have also raised concerns about Ring’s past partnerships with law enforcement agencies and whether users fully understood how their footage could be shared.

In recent years, Ring has introduced stronger privacy controls and given users more authority over their data. However, questions still remain about data collection and the broader impact of making constant surveillance a normal part of everyday life. Because today, surveillance is no longer something that happens only from the top down; it now commonly happens interpersonally, through the devices we install in our homes, or carry in our pockets.

Security matters. Homeowners have every right to protect their property. Loved ones cannot be faulted for looking out for one another. But as the technologies that make these feats easier become more common, we should remain aware of the broader systems they help create. The question isn’t one of abstaining from modern technologies, but approaching them — and by extension, the companies to which we are entrusting our data — with a healthy dose of skepticism. Importantly, we must also resist the idea frequently sold to us that more surveillance is the answer to every problem.