I absolutely agree. This is silly that we both cannot control the lights.
I agree. There needs to be multiple owners or shared users need access to bridge. It is silly that my partner cannot turn on or off lights without logging out of their account and logging into mine. We have separate accounts for a reason.
1 Like
Agreed. Ring, when will this be implemented?
Agreed, my spouse and I would like the same access. Our other security system had this. Not having it is creating issues.
1 Like
I just found this thread because I too am very annoyed at this. My s.o set up our system but I’m the one mainly using the dang thing and yet I can not operate nearly half of the options I should be able to. It’s very frustrating
I joined the forum for this perticular feature. So yeah, we want this! It makes no sense that my husband can’t acces everyhthing while I can
I’m sorry to disagree but In my view having more than one “MASTER” account puts the system more open to breaches (lost or stolen phone/tablet). It’s the same setup for every device! Your WiFi router only has one main login that lets you control everything! You would’nt want 15 login accounts on your router with full access would you??? (I sure as heck would not!). This is done for a reason - security…Guest accounts are setup for this reason. A guest pin will not allow you to change major system settings or delete components just as a router or any large company computer network/intranet. Long story short like a router your home security system has to be “secure”. This is the other reason (I read) that RING will not use Geo-fencing because if your phone is stolen and the theif knows where you live all he/she has to do is “go home” and your system is disarmed and ready for the taking! I have an app lock on my phone so no “joe” can access my RING app without a finger print or a pin code just in case someone does “jack” my phone!
Just another point of view and something you may have not considered…
YES!!!
Agree this really should be standard. Not sure if there is any security vulnerability?
Or there could be a option in the user profile to allow changes in settings… or really the answer may be customisable roles so an owner can set up multiple role configurations.
Yes this is extremely frustrating as me and my husband share this
I would like the same role as my husband
How is this not a thing?
One location should be able to have two owners so each can have full rights on the app- married couple…kinda frustrating only one if can control settings/users.
30 Likes
I’m not going to send a new request, since I agree with this request. Me and my spouse should have full rights and complete access on all settings of my devices. Not only that, but please note that we have different notifications, so logging under one account is not an option.
Keep the Neighbour option, since that is perfect for others i want to add with limited rights.
@mattyod wrote:
How is this not a thing?
It’s baffling, isn’t it?
Whilst @Zatt001 makes some valid points, an ideal solution by Ring would be to allow permissions to be set on Shared User accounts; i.e. allow them to connect their Amazon/Alexa account and delete videos.
Do Ring engineers not live with their partners / spouses? Do they have trust issues? I really don’t see why dual owners or selectable permissions isn’t an option for these devices.
Interesting points by Zatt001 but I dont agree that an alarm system is in the same area as a router… a router you might update or change the configuration occasionally and you can always ask the owner to do it but the alarm needs to be activly managed by the people who live in the house, turning in on and off, enabling different elements, receiving alerts. In my case its not “my” alarm system, just like its not “my” house… i jointly own the house with my wife. My family live in the house and I want them to be able to ensure its secure.
What’s being asked is that Ring deliver an alarm system with a robust, flexible and granular management system which allows the purchaser to define the roles and authorities they need.
Not everyone will want to give authority to others but, based on feedback on various posts on this topic, many do.
Some comments questioned the possible security concerns … if you need others to manage the system then you have no option but to share your id and password… having to do this is far less secure than having seperate ids with granted authority… you simply make one id (initually the first one) the one which can add or remove other managers just like i can add or remove guests at the moment… if an id is compromised then it can be removed from the system and a new one set up… If multiple people are using the same id the whole system is compromised.
1 Like
I also created an account just to search for this. My significant other and I should absolutely have the same rights and privileges in the account. It is absurd that I have to ask him to change things on a system I helped pay for and use just as often for a house that I own. I can’t even set up new devices that I buy for our home?
Is the expectation that people share an account?
I have been trying to figure out why my spouse has more control options than I do and after reading the other comments it seems like Ring engineers need to really work on allowing dual ownership settings. Most couple want to be able to have the same settings and privileges. Get busy Ring and make this possible.
I’m ready to return all 9 path lights, 8 cameras, alarm and doorbell because of this lack of permission control. It’s absurd.
Try to see this feature from the users’ point of view. Imagine if only one of the sysadmins at Ring had full perms on your servers. Now imagine that chick gets on an airplane for an overseas trip or goes to sleep at night. Nothing can happen until you can get in touch with her? Nope.
What if the owner customer is hospitalized in some emergency? His/her spouse can’t adjust the settings on path lights until the owner recovers?
Multiple people sharing one owner account as a workaround is clearly happening from the comments posted here. That should be enough of a security risk to prioritize this feature.