We may now be out and away from the Super Bowl, but discussions are still very much happening. During this year’s Super Bowl, a 30-second commercial from Ring told a simple story: a family dog slips out of the yard, cameras across a neighborhood quietly track its path, and artificial intelligence pieces together the footage. In the end, the dog is reunited with its owners.
It was the kind of feel-good moment advertisers aim for — relief, safety, community. Almost immediately, though, the reaction online shifted. What struck some viewers as heartwarming struck others as unsettling. The concern wasn’t about the dog; it was about what made the reunion possible.
The commercial highlighted Ring’s “Search Party” feature, which the company says can help locate lost pets and even track wildfires. Around the same time, Ring confirmed it had ended a planned partnership with Flock, a firm known for operating automated license-plate reader systems across thousands of communities nationwide. The integration never launched, and Ring says no customer video was shared.
Still, the broader reaction exposed something deeper: organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation questioned the expanding overlap between AI, facial recognition, and neighborhood camera networks. When technology is introduced in the name of safety, critics argue, the infrastructure itself can quietly reset expectations about privacy.
It is a debate that feels national, but it is not unfamiliar here. Linton residents have already discussed the role of automated cameras and license-plate readers in their own community. Supporters emphasize deterrence and investigative value. Skeptics focus on data control and long-term oversight. Both begin from the same place: wanting safe neighborhoods.
What the Super Bowl ad did — intentionally or not — was condense that entire conversation into half a minute. A lost dog is easy to support, but a system that tracks its movement is much more complicated.
Technology rarely arrives labeled as surveillance. It arrives as convenience, efficiency, and protection. Most people welcome it when it solves an immediate problem. The unease tends to surface later, as networks expand and capabilities layer on top of one another.
The commercial will fade. The dog came home. The moment passes.
The larger question does not.
As camera systems and artificial intelligence become part of everyday infrastructure, communities — large and small — will continue deciding where the line between safety and monitoring should rest. Those decisions are rarely dramatic. They happen incrementally, one installation, one feature, one vote at a time.
The lens is already in place.
What we choose to place within its view is still being negotiated.