Would like to see more granular control for shared users to give the option not to change anything, such as the alarm system setup.
Should be possible to create individual definitions for each shared user :
Access Live View
Access for History
Access to Download / Copy / Share Link
I would like the ability to temporarily remove access to video for certain shared users during certain hours without totally deleting them. Like possible a schedule of when they can access and when they cannot.
You should add enhanced multi-user functionality. This would include the ability to change roles for shared users, adding settings and abilities to each additional user. There is no reason that my wife should not be able to change the occupancy mode on her own account. I shouldn’t have to switch the system to Away mode for her and disarm it for her every single time she leaves/enters the house.
I agree that we need either customizable settings per user, add another owner (so passwords can be separate), or add a power user / supervisor or other similar role that can also be customizable or very owner like but maybe just can’t delete devices, or other high security features. I only say delete, because I wouldn’t want my wife / spouse or child to accidentally delete a camera or security system. But I’d have no problem with some or all of the setting changes. I’m sure there are other features that other people may want to limit access as well. So I think customizable is the way to go.
Can the option to be able to give shared users specific permissions instead of the blanket permission the Ring determines is what is needed? For example, not allow shared users live access. A simple toggle of each permission would be great.
I wanted to ask if it would be possible, in a future update, to add a per-user enabling menu where it is possible to choose whether or not the aforementioned shared user can see a camera recording, the live view or the motion notifications.
I ask this because, unfortunately, a member of my family suffers from control mania and since we signed to the protection plan we are not even able to leave the house in peace without him calling us.
When you are two or more people in the household, I think it is so obvious that members of said household should all be able to arm / disarm the system.
This feature is so obvious that I’m surprised that this isn’t the case already. Only a single user per location can set Home/Away/Diarm status
We leave and come home at different times. The last person to the house should be able to arm it, and the first person to come home should be able to disarm it.
Luckily I have bought only a single camera. I consider the feature “multiple users” to be misleading.
I don’t know if this feature would correctly be called “shared users” or “multiple owners”. But since “shared users” exists, I’m placing it in that category.
It has been requested and highly recommended that Ring finally customize its features to better fit the needs of landlord/tenant housing situations. I am renting my home with a previously installed ring camera and I have decided that the camera remain in the home as an additional feature for the tenant. This addition conveys extra security to me as the homeowner and added protection for my tenant in the case of an emergency. In the event that the tenant loses WIFI connection, Ring has requested that I share my email address and password with the tenant in order to allow for re-connection. This is ridiculous. The tenant can now access my full account information such as credit card data, previous payment history, and so much more. Why should a benefit to the tenant turn into a complete invasion to privacy? Shared users should have access to WIFI connections with the owner’s permission. It is absurd that this enhanced feature does not already exist! This contradicts every aspect noted in Rings General Privacy Statement.
Thank you for your response! Having access to cameras on a rental property is no different from the stipulation in the lease agreement signed by the tenant indicating that the landlord can enter the home without notice. Although, I have no desire to view the camera outside of an emergency, one cannot be too certain of this; I understand that notion. Both my doorbell and garage camera are pointed in the direction of incoming traffic to the home, not inside the home, so this eliminates the privacy concern which alludes to spying as there are no direct video surveillance laws for public, private, or even consent required in my home State. Whether a homeowner or renter, law suggest that adding a camera is indicative of a smart move. Federal law also moves to state that outside security cameras are not considered an invasion of privacy, this only gets murky when the camera is pointed in the direction of another homeowner in view of private areas such as restrooms. Neighbors can also video record other properties if the activity happens in a public place. I may consider allowing the tenant to setup their own Ring account and add the camera to it later; but the option not too is highly desirable for many landlords who value the safety of the home. If my home were vandalized by the tenant, they would have access to footage that I would not as I would lose the ability to know whom last entered the home if this information were ever needed.