Google’s breakthrough in the Nancy Guthrie investigation has prompted unsettling questions about how closely it monitors people
[blank] delivered a key breakthrough in the probe into Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance by uncovering footage of a suspected intruder entering her residence.
The 84-year-old mother of Today Show host Savannah Guthrie has been missing since February 1. Her front door’s Nest camera was taken, and since investigators noted she hadn’t subscribed to a premium plan, the footage was thought to be irretrievable. However, yesterday, the FBI [blank] released visuals of a masked, armed person of interest entering her home the night she vanished.
Brian Stelter, CNN’s chief media analyst, reported that Google’s technical expertise provided a lead that could help investigators crack the case.
“Google—owner of Nest—managed to retrieve data from the Nest doorbell camera at Guthrie’s front entrance,” [blank]. “The retrieval process took several days and was so technically complex that investigators weren’t sure if it would succeed,” he added, citing law enforcement sources.
Yet the footage also sparks uneasy questions about digital privacy and surveillance practices.
“Fortunate for this case, but I don’t know how I feel about them recording everything—I just can’t access it unless I pay,” one [blank] responded to Stelter’s post.
“CNN is promoting Big Tech’s surveillance state today instead of framing this as a massive privacy violation,” [blank] another user stated.
Google did not promptly reply to [blank]’s request for comment.
Nest, subscriptions, and privacy
The video released by investigators displays a Nest logo—Google’s $150 home camera device. Customers without a subscription can view real-time footage and get movement alerts at their doorstep. Opting for a premium plan ($10–$20 monthly) allows videos to be stored and accessed later.
An internet-connected Nest doorbell, priced at around $150, can record video and notify homeowners of sounds or movements at their door. Users can pay a monthly fee for premium features like long-term video history. However, [blank] comments from Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos indicate Ms. Guthrie didn’t have a subscription that would have saved the video, suggesting she could only access live footage while historical clips likely resided on a server in one of Google’s vast data centers.
Ring, the doorbell camera brand owned by [blank], has [blank] tools that let police view posts in its Neighbors app and request user video footage. By 2023, over 2,600 police departments had formal partnerships with Ring, enabling them to use these in-app tools and access a Neighbors-linked dashboard.
This practice has drawn [blank] criticism from civil liberties and tech advocacy groups, who label it warrantless, networked surveillance that fuels over-policing and bias. Some groups advise that if people use doorbell cameras, they should disable law enforcement integration features and avoid cloud storage when possible to reduce risks of secondary use or compelled disclosure.
In a 2024 blog post, Ring announced it would discontinue a tool allowing law enforcement to request door camera footage. It reversed this 2025 decision [blank] with Axon, a law enforcement tech firm. Under the new setup, police can ask Ring owners for relevant clips via Axon’s digital evidence system, and Ring is [blank] developing features that let users livestream camera footage directly to law enforcement. Ring’s returning founder Jamie Siminoff frames this as strengthening ties between “neighbors” and public safety agencies.
The Nancy Guthrie case underscores growing unease over how much control Nest and Ring-style devices grant tech companies and law enforcement over intimate home footage. Connected doorbells may help solve serious crimes, but they also create always-on, cloud-stored records of home life governed by opaque retention policies, loophole-filled data-sharing rules, and public attitudes that may be “too comfortable” with pervasive surveillance seeping from public streets into private homes.