← IoT Privacy Database

ADT / ADT+ Home Security (Google Nest-integrated)

ADT Inc. · Camera / Doorbell

✓ Reviewed

4.0Surveillance
Index
Policy — what its policy permitsD
Evidence — what research provesC

ADT is a professionally monitored home-security provider whose newer ADT+ platform integrates Google Nest cameras and doorbells. It collects audio/video from cameras, alarm and sensor events, account and payment data, and location/telemetry, storing footage in the cloud and sharing camera data with Google's Nest ecosystem. Professional monitoring means ADT staff and its systems have privileged access to customer devices - the central failure exposed when a technician used that access to spy on hundreds of customers for years.

Why this rating

Evidence (dominant): DOJ prosecution established that ADT technician Telesforo Aviles secretly accessed 200+ customers' home cameras more than 9,600 times over 4.5 years by adding himself to their accounts (severity 5), a systemic access-control failure that also drove class actions; he was sentenced to 52 months in 2021. Policy: audio/video capture (-15), Google Nest data-sharing via ADT+ (-15), indefinite retention (-8), plus arbitration and emergency law-enforcement disclosure clauses.

What it is

Manufacturer
ADT Inc.
Category
Camera / Doorbell
Model years
2020-present
Market status
Current
Companion app
ADT+

The evidence 2

Independent research, regulatory action, lawsuits, breaches and journalism about this device — the "what actually happens" axis. Each links to its source.

  1. Regulatory action · U.S. Department of Justice (USAO Northern District of Texas) · 2021-06

    ADT technician Telesforo Aviles pleaded guilty to computer fraud after secretly adding himself to about 200 customers' ADT Pulse accounts and accessing their cameras 9,600+ times over four and a half years; he was sentenced to 52 months in prison.

    Why it matters here: A direct, court-proven privacy catastrophe enabled by ADT's own installation and access-control practices.

  2. Lawsuit · Courthouse News Service · 2020-05

    Class-action suits alleged ADT failed to provide basic safeguards, letting staff grant themselves permanent remote access to home cameras during installation.

    Why it matters here: Independent legal action documenting the systemic access-control failure behind the spying incident on this provider's devices.

Descriptive, cited, not legal advice; ratings are versioned and corrections create a new version. Data from the IoT Info Grabber DB research project, CC BY-SA 4.0.

← Back to the IoT Privacy Database