https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-n...

I've also seen SCOTUS rulings that they see a difference between public ancillary recordings, and mass surveillance of all public actions.

In other words, this case is about active surveillance, versus Ring cams are more passive (record everything all the time for no specific reason)

No, this is not public property, it's if you walk on private property. Ring cams are placed on private property and are targeted at homeowners. They usually don't record or activate outside of a range of 30 feet or so. So if someone drives by my house the ring cam doesn't capture it but if someone walks by my door it does.

30 feet is often more than the distance from the front door to a sidewalk, and often well into the actual street.

The Ring videos my neighbors post show their yards, the sidewalk, and all the way to the cars on the other side of the street.

It seems to be all about how your doorbell is positioned, though.

It's not cut and dry, but if what you're doing is in clear view of a public street, then it's unlikely you will win an argument based on having a reasonable expectation of privacy.

You of course can bring this argument in front of the courts, but my non-legal opinion is that you wouldn't prevail.

There are a few contrived examples:

A cop walks by and sees you assault someone in your house through the window. That's enough PC to enter without a warrant. You can try to argue your privacy was violated and , but it was in clear view of the public.

You perform a lewd act in your home in front of the window, that is in clear view of a school bus stop where children are awaiting the bus. It would be doubtful that you could use privacy as a defense against indecent exposure laws.

If the ring camera was somehow zoomed in to ONLY film your actions through the window, then perhaps you may have cause.