Across New York City, London, and Washington, DC, ads for Meta’s smart glasses have been plastered over with satirical posters from activist groups. One guerrilla ad calls these “the biggest advancement in pervert technology since the trenchcoat.” Another transposes the words “mass surveillance predator glasses” over influencer Kylie Jenner’s face, calling her out for partnering with the company as a glasses ambassador.
The message of these ads is clear. These glasses may violate your privacy — and would you trust Meta?
Meta seems spooked. For so long, the company’s privacy efforts for smart glasses have essentially relied on a single LED light and a policy that could be summed up as “don’t be a jerk.” Unfortunately, plenty of Meta glassholes have emerged over the last three years, filming often-sexualized videos of others without their consent, sometimes with the LED disabled. In a recent conversation with The Verge, Meta’s VP of wearables, Alex Himel, acknowledged that the company has become aware that an increasing number of people have tampered with the devices.
This explains why the company recently announced a mandatory software update that will disable the camera on all its glasses if the privacy light is physically tampered with. Last week, Instagram head Adam Mosseri said that the social media platform will take down videos taken with Meta’s glasses that depict harassment. Instagram might have opened a can of worms concerning content moderation, but attempts to curtail misuse are good. The problem is Meta could have been doing this all along.
The Rise and Stumble of Meta’s Smart Glasses
We can’t talk about the current era of smart glasses without acknowledging that Meta has made a series of savvy decisions. Where Google Glass was loud, the Ray-Ban Meta glasses were normal and discreet. Bose beat Meta to the idea of audio glasses by a few years, and Snap was first to the idea of glasses recording POV content for social platforms. But Meta was the one that executed on making affordable, name-brand, and genuinely stylish glasses by partnering with EssilorLuxottica. It’s a model that Google and Samsung are now emulating by partnering with Warby Parker and Gentle Monster. Other companies may have been first to the concept of smart glasses, but Meta notably has been the closest to making these genuinely mainstream.
Except, in recent months, Meta’s been playing its cards all wrong. First there was the New York Times report that Meta was looking to roll out facial recognition tech for the glasses while privacy advocates were distracted. Then there was the Wired report that said Meta had silently shipped — but not activated — that tech to existing glasses. Now, there’s a Financial Times report that alleges Meta wants these glasses to record 24/7. Outside these larger beats, Meta has done things like remove the ability to opt out of voice recordings training its AI. Its executives occasionally say tone-deaf things like those who eschew smart glasses will be at a “cognitive disadvantage.” And amid legitimate privacy concerns following bad actors misusing the tech, the company has seeded these glasses to content creators alongside a splashy campaign with Kylie Jenner — one of the most visible but polarizing celebrities.
In a vacuum, a gaffe or two happens. When you screw up this many times, it starts to look like you’re purposefully missing the point.
The LED Light Problem
Focusing on the privacy LED light, experts say, isn’t enough on its own. “You cannot hinge your entire privacy policy on a single light. You can’t expect everyone in the world to know that and react to that,” says Uttara Ananthakrishnan, a technology professor at the University of Washington who specializes in how online interactions affect platforms, markets, and social behaviors. “It puts a lot of pressure on the person who isn’t even wearing the glasses to be aware of what another person is going to do.”
Ananthakrishnan is skeptical that smart glasses will take off outside specific workplaces, not just because of social stigma, but because societal attitudes toward Big Tech companies and what’s shared online have shifted. Case in point, Meta’s executives have often pointed to the early days of the smartphone in defense of smart glasses. Back then, the public was unsure about these devices, but eventually, everyone figured out what the acceptable social norms ought to be. Ananthakrishnan disagrees.
“Tech companies are not at all looked upon with favor right now. Compounded with the fact that we live in an age of social media, where anything that we say and everything that we do — we could be liable for it. There’s a lot more awareness that there are bad people on the internet who could do really terrible things compared to the smartphone era,” says Ananthakrishnan. She also points out how people feel about individual privacy is different than when you are responsible for others’ privacy.
Take smartwatches. Ananthakrishnan notes that people are willing to risk their own health data privacy because there’s a clear benefit to their goals. However, if there are negative outcomes — for example, your health data getting leaked to your employer — you’re the only one who suffers, and you’re the only victim. With smart glasses, the privacy calculus changes. You’re the person risking others’ privacy, possibly without consent — the perpetrator.
Wearing smart glasses forces you to wonder: who else’s privacy am I putting at risk?
Too Little, Too Late?
So is it even possible for Meta — or any other smart glasses company — to reassure a skittish public? Or are its recent attempts simply too little, too late?
“There’s not much Meta can do to convince me they genuinely care about user privacy when their whole business model is built on invading it,” says Kendall Schrohe, executive director of the Attention Sphere, one of the advocacy groups affiliated with the anti-Meta glasses ads in DC and New York City. “At the end of the day, there is nothing privacy-preserving about sunglasses with a built-in camera. This is surveillance technology and no amount of tweaking changes that.”
Schrohe says that Meta’s credibility is further undermined by the fact that it, along with other tech companies, reportedly lobbied to weaken state privacy bills. “I think this moment has passed for them,” agrees Ananthakrishnan, noting that Meta isn’t known as a company that effectively communicates privacy policies. “Maybe Apple can, but I don’t think either Google or Meta could pull this off given their history. It’s not going to be reassuring if they put out a statement that says, ‘Hey we are doing everything we can; this is our privacy policy.’ People are still not going to believe that.”
The societal stigma, plus fatigue with Big Tech, is one reason for the backlash against smart glasses. Meta’s reputation is another. The company’s history of privacy scandals, from the Cambridge Analytica debacle to repeated data breaches, has left a deep reservoir of mistrust. Even if Meta were to implement ironclad privacy protections, the public might still view the products through a lens of suspicion. The very concept of a camera embedded in eyewear evokes dystopian imagery from films like Black Mirror and Minority Report, making it an uphill battle for any company, let alone one with Meta’s track record.
Moreover, the regulatory landscape is shifting. In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) imposes strict rules on biometric data and consent. In the United States, state-level privacy laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) are expanding, and there is growing bipartisan support for federal privacy legislation. Meta’s lobbying efforts to weaken such bills only fuel the perception that the company prioritizes profit over user rights. If smart glasses become a vector for mass surveillance, lawmakers may act swiftly to ban or severely restrict the technology, as they did with facial recognition in several cities.
Historical Context: From Google Glass to Meta’s Missteps
The smart glasses market has been fraught with challenges since Google Glass debuted in 2013. Dubbed “Glassholes” by the public, early adopters faced widespread hostility due to the device’s conspicuous design and the fear of being recorded without consent. Google eventually pulled the consumer version but continued developing enterprise editions for factory floors and healthcare. Snap’s Spectacles, launched in 2016, failed to gain traction despite a limited run and a focus on fun, ephemeral video recording. The devices were seen as a novelty rather than a practical everyday accessory.
Meta entered the space in 2021 with the Ray-Ban Stories, a collaboration with EssilorLuxottica that prioritized style and affordability. The first generation lacked a camera and instead featured speakers and a microphone, but the second generation, the Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses, added a 12-megapixel camera capable of capturing 1080p video. The move seemed smart: by making the glasses look like ordinary Ray-Bans, Meta avoided the obvious dorkiness of Google Glass. However, the trade-off was that people could be recorded without realizing it, as the camera was discreetly housed in the frame near the temple.
Meta’s initial privacy strategy relied on a small LED light that illuminated when the camera was recording. But the light could be easily covered with tape or disabled through software manipulation. Reports of harassment surged, with victims ranging from subway commuters to people in bars and gyms. In response, Meta announced the mandatory software update that ties camera functionality to the physical integrity of the privacy light. Yet critics argue that this is a reactive measure that does not address the core issue: the glasses inherently enable covert surveillance.
Meanwhile, Meta’s ambitions for the glasses extend beyond basic recording. The company is reportedly developing augmented reality features, including real-time object recognition and contextual information overlay. A Financial Times report suggests Meta wants the glasses to record continuously for 24/7 context awareness, potentially pair with AI assistants, and even use eye-tracking for ad targeting. These capabilities would represent a significant escalation in data collection, far surpassing what smartphones achieve today. Given Meta’s business model, which relies heavily on targeted advertising, the potential for abuse is enormous.
The Role of Influencers and Activism
Meta’s decision to partner with Kylie Jenner and other influencers for a high-profile campaign backfired spectacularly. The association with a celebrity known for promoting consumerism and controversial products (like her cosmetics lines) only amplified the negative sentiment. Activist groups like the Attention Sphere and the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (STOP) seized the opportunity to launch counter-campaigns, plastering satirical posters on Meta’s own advertisements. The imagery—comparing the glasses to a trenchcoat used by “perverts” or labeling Jenner a “mass surveillance predator”—went viral on social media, creating a public relations nightmare.
These activist groups argue that Meta’s entire approach is fundamentally flawed. They call for an outright ban on consumer smart glasses with hidden cameras, or at least require that any recording device be accompanied by an unmistakable audible or visual cue—like a shutter sound that cannot be disabled. Some suggest regulatory solutions such as requiring a separate hardware switch that is difficult to tamper with, or mandating that glasses be designed with the camera obviously visible, as is common in professional video cameras.
In a statement, the Attention Sphere said: “We are not anti-technology; we are anti-surveillance. If Meta wants to sell a product that records people without their knowledge, they are selling a weapon of harassment. We will continue to expose the dangers until the public demands better.” The group has also called on lawmakers to consider privacy impact assessments before approving wearable cameras.
What Meta Should Do Differently
Experts suggest several steps Meta could take to regain trust, though many doubt they will be implemented. First, Meta could commit to an open-source transparency report detailing every instance of misuse reported and the company’s response. Second, it could work with independent privacy auditors to certify that its hardware and software have no backdoors or hidden data transmission capabilities. Third, it could offer an opt-out feature for bystanders: for example, a mobile app that allows people to request that any nearby Meta glasses delete recordings of them. Fourth, it could ban the use of facial recognition in smart glasses outright, or at least require explicit consent from all subjects before any identification occurs.
Meta could also learn from Apple’s approach to privacy, which positions the company as a champion of user control. Apple’s App Tracking Transparency framework, while controversial among advertisers, has been popular with consumers. Meta could implement a similar framework for its glasses, requiring apps to ask permission before accessing camera or microphone data. However, doing so would run counter to Meta’s data-hungry business model, making such changes unlikely without external pressure.
Barring a dramatic overhaul, it’s going to be hard for Meta and Big Tech at large to change the current narrative. And it’s tempting to think that, perhaps, some tech execs might throw up their hands and give up on pursuing proactive privacy at all. To lean into the surveillance dystopia until external actors, like legislators and private businesses, force their privacy hand.
But the reality is that we’re all watching to see what card Meta — the current leader in this space — plays next. Continuing to run the same strategy all but ensures the company will either hand the mantle to Google or Apple, or tank smart glasses as a whole. If Meta wants even the smallest chance of succeeding, it simply has to do something different.
Source: The Verge News