Actually, we know that a large portion of data obtained by the NSA can be shared with law enforcement[1]. We also know the NSA isn't exactly upfront about how much they collect and that they can basically collect what they wish without reprocusions[2]. We also know that Ring has given access to police and partnered with 630+ departments[3] directly.
Not even close to "plain and simple FUD", as most things it's a bit more nuanced.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more...
[2] https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-united-states-secrets-pa...
[3] https://www.cnet.com/news/ring-gave-police-a-street-level-vi...
As for the third one, I'm not sure what your point is. The specific article only speaks of a heatmap of doorbells. The article also states the the precise location of the doorbell isn't even given, let alone footage.
I don't think anyone considers that data to be anywhere equal to giving access to video feed. You can simply drive down the road and see which houses have a Ring doorbell, or probably even detect them sniffing packets.
Buying less "on the cloud by default" devices and using encryption.
Your latter point doesn't really make sense. I'm fairly sure all of these devices use encryption to the cloud, it's just that the NSA has access to the unencrypted data on the cloud itself, theoretically. Unless you mean storing your own encrypted data on the cloud, which again goes back to the point above.
If you refuse to give police the video they can just request from amazon directly. You don't get to control what happens to that video once it touches amazon's servers. Once the police have it they can keep it forever, share it with others (like ICE or the FBI), and once again you have no control. Amazon tracks people who refuse to hand over video to the police directly and they share stats about them with police.
What are you talking about?
As discussed here not that long ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21346307
Nowhere in the original there's talk of giving user location, yet Yahoo someone starts talking of "detailed map of doorbell installation", for whatever definition of "detailed".
"the heat map showed police where Ring cameras are concentrated: the darker the shade, the more the cameras. But when zoomed in, it would show light circles around individual locations,"
It also links to other cases where maps of cameras were sent to police by amazon such as the one shown here:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/29/ring-amaz...
It's incredibly dumb to host 24x7 video surveillance of your home and your comings and goings outside of your home.
"Incredibly dumb" is way out of line. Many people (including me) find having such video available to be extremely useful. Yes, there is a tradeoff involved if you are buying the video capability from a third party instead of rolling your own, but many people find it a tradeoff worth making.
When you host information with a third party, your only protection is your contract.
Can you give some specific examples?
Also, storing data outside of the home (or at least backup copies of it) might be a good idea in case something happens to your home.
The police can ask nicely for it by requesting it, or demand the video with a warrant or subpoena.
Getting a warrant or subpoena for your video data is infinitely easier than it would be without Ring as an intermediary, because Ring already told the police the data does, indeed, exist and that you have it. It's also infinitely easier because a judge is more likely to sign off on a warrant for video from a specific person and camera, than they are for a warrant that casts a wider net.
If they go to Ring with a warrant for video the company says you have, you don't even have to be notified when its taken.
A lot of these articles make it sound like Ring gives unilateral full access to the police, which is just plain and simple FUD.