Your neighbor has just installed a home security system. Should you be worried? A surveillance expert says, “It’s inherently a bit creepy.”

(SeaPRwire) –   Imagine this scenario: your neighbor installs a new doorbell camera, perhaps even two. One is positioned to monitor their driveway, while the other offers a clear view of your front yard. They haven’t sought your permission, though they aren’t obligated to. Depending on the camera’s manufacturer and how that company utilizes the footage, you could find yourself in a database without your knowledge.

This is precisely the kind of situation Hilary Schneider, CEO of SimpliSafe, addresses. She notes that public concern is escalating, possibly amplified by a recent Super Bowl commercial that brought this issue to the forefront. However, video surveillance is only one facet of her role at a company that prioritizes security over surveillance. Her current focus is on assuring consumers that the company monitoring their homes is not, in turn, monitoring them.

“There’s a growing focus on who gets to control the data, how it’s used, and how it’s protected,” Schneider told . “When you think about your home, what we’re really securing is your home and your family. Those videos are capturing things that are inherently private to you. And the whole idea that that information could be shared, or that there are business partnerships that enable other people to use it, I think it’s inherently a little creepy to customers.”

This anxiety is no longer theoretical. During Super Bowl LX, Ring aired a commercial intended to be heartwarming, depicting a lost dog and AI cameras facilitating neighborhood assistance. Instead, it went viral for negative reasons, with viewers labeling it “dystopian” and vowing to stop using the product. Days later, Ring quietly canceled a planned integration with Flock Safety, an AI-powered license plate reader company whose contracts are being terminated by cities nationwide due to concerns that its footage could be shared with federal immigration enforcement without local consent. In February, Americans began physically destroying Flock cameras in acts of public protest.

Schneider finds none of this surprising. She views it as consumers finally catching up to an issue the industry has long avoided. “Consumers are speaking with their feet when they think something feels too big brother,” she stated. “The first signal companies are getting isn’t ‘is this legally correct?’ It’s ‘Does this feel wrong?’”

The legal frameworks governing surveillance technology, dictating what companies can collect, store, share, and sell, are, by her own assessment, significantly outdated. “Our old definition of legal controls is just not moving fast enough to anticipate all the changes happening in the world of AI,” Schneider explained. “The regulation and what’s acceptable will get litigated over time. But right now, you have consumers acting first.”

Home protection with privacy

With SimpliSafe, the customer retains ownership of their video footage, a principle integrated into both the company’s policy and its hardware. Law enforcement agencies are required to present valid warrants, subpoenas, or court orders to access any customer footage; there is no voluntary sharing or government data agreements. Indoor cameras are equipped with a mechanical privacy shutter that audibly engages and physically prevents streaming when not in use. Live monitoring agents can only access video during an active triggered alarm, after a customer has explicitly opted into the service. All stored footage is deleted after 30 days. “The data belongs to the customer,” Schneider stated plainly. “We believe we can protect people’s homes while also protecting their privacy with the same level of care.”

This approach is increasingly becoming a business strategy as much as a statement of values. In February, the same month the Ring Super Bowl ad sparked a privacy controversy, SimpliSafe reported that Schneider observed a “material increase in consumer demand.” She partly attributes this to the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, a case that captivated the nation and prompted millions of Americans to seriously consider their own security for the first time. However, she is quick to add a crucial clarification often overlooked in marketing: a camera, by itself, does not constitute a security system.

“There are a lot of sophisticated consumers who have a video doorbell and think they have a security program,” she commented. “When they’re not there, there’s really nobody on deck. Having video doesn’t protect you if you don’t have a human who can intervene.”

Schneider believes the market is moving towards bridging this gap between passive surveillance and active, accountable protection. As the public discourse surrounding AI and data privacy intensifies, she anticipates that the companies that will thrive in the next growth phase will be those that made a clear strategic choice early on.

“I think the American zeitgeist is just starting to tease apart the implications,” she concluded. “What makes me feel secure? What makes my life easier? Versus — what gives me a lack of control, where all of a sudden I’m giving up information that I don’t feel anybody else has the right to have?”