Advocacy groups issued a letter calling the wearable technology a “dystopian invasion of privacy.” Some people feel violated because it was secretly recorded on their device.
Secret recording with smart glasses raises privacy concerns
Smart glasses are raising new questions about privacy and consent as wearable cameras become harder to detect in public.
Kashif Hoda was waiting for a train in Cambridge, Massachusetts, when he had an encounter that he remembers clearly almost two years later.
A young man wearing “strange glasses” asked him for directions and left.
A few minutes later, the man approached him again, called him by name, and asked him about his commitment to India’s minorities.
“There was something disturbing, to say the least, about this whole interaction,” he said.
Hoda soon realized that the moment was recorded in those “strange” glasses. He appeared in a video on X that has been viewed more than 1.2 million times, demonstrating how easy it is to record and identify strangers in near real time.
In that video, technology was used behind the scenes to identify Hoda, but it wasn’t seamlessly integrated into the glasses. But privacy groups worry it’s only a matter of time.
On April 13, more than 75 advocacy groups issued a letter calling the wearable technology a “dystopian invasion of privacy” and a “serious threat to the privacy and civil liberties of all members of our society.”
The letter was in response to reports that Meta plans to add real-time facial recognition to its smart glasses.
Some of the arguments against this technology include:
- Real-time facial recognition could be used by stalkers, scammers, and abusers to identify and track victims.
- The glasses are already being used to record people without their consent.
- The technology could be employed by law enforcement to monitor immigrants, people of color, and nonviolent protesters.
Metagras currently does not include technology that can identify people in real time, but it does allow for discreet recordings, which raises a number of privacy and legal issues. Other companies also make wearable technology, but Meta’s high-profile partnership with sunglasses brands Oakley and Ray-Ban has garnered a lot of attention and scrutiny.
The company told USA TODAY it was still “considering its options” regarding facial recognition, citing a previous statement that said “users are responsible for using Ray-Ban MetaGlass safely and respectfully, in compliance with all applicable laws,” according to its terms of service.
The glasses, which allow users to send texts, make calls, listen to music, and even translate texts, have LED lights that Mehta says will let you know when the device is recording. Others say the lights can be easily overlooked or disabled.
Is voyeurism allowed with meta glasses?
Whether someone can record someone without their consent and post the video online depends largely on where the person is located and the broader circumstances of the situation, said Woodrow Herzog, a professor at Boston University School of Law.
“People often say there is no such thing as privacy in public spaces, but the truth is more complicated,” said Hartzog, who works in privacy and technology law.
Some states require the consent of all participants to record their conversations. And even if the exchange took place in public, there are several ways to sue in civil court for invasion of privacy. Hartzog said people could be held liable if they publicly reveal certain personal facts, portray someone in a false light, misuse their likeness for commercial purposes, or invade seclusion in a way that would be considered “highly offensive to a reasonable person.”
“Like any recording device, it should not be used for harmful activities such as harassment, violating privacy rights, or obtaining confidential information,” Mehta said in a statement.
As technology advances, Hartzog said the law is starting to catch up, albeit slowly. In February, a California state senator introduced a bill that would specifically ban covert recordings by wearable devices such as smart glasses in businesses and require recording lights to be visible at all times.
Smart glasses are also banned in certain locations, including courtrooms in Philadelphia and public areas on some cruise ships. The Air Force says airmen cannot wear it while in uniform. The University of San Francisco also issued a public safety warning to students after a man wearing Ray-Ban Meta sunglasses allegedly filmed a woman for the purpose of posting the video online.
It’s unclear how often problems actually occur when using this technology. Julian Sarafian, a lawyer for influencers and content creators, said he has never handled legal issues related to hidden camera videos, even though most creators don’t make video performers sign waivers giving them the right to use and monetize their footage, as media companies often do.
“Some people try to argue that their copyright has been violated and that they need compensation, but I’ve seen very little success with that,” he said.
Why smart glasses are so hard to find
Smart glasses come in a variety of styles and can be difficult to tell apart because they look very similar to regular glasses. Even if you find a pair correctly, it can be difficult to determine if they are recording.
Eyewear giant EssilorLuxottica says glasses made by Meta, in collaboration with Oakley and Ray-Ban, are the most common, with more than 7 million pairs sold in 2025. Google has announced that it will collaborate with Samsung, Gentle Monster, and Warby Parker to launch its own AI-powered glasses.
One tool that can help you identify them is an app that uses Bluetooth data to discover nearby smart glasses. According to author Yves Jeanrenaud, more than 100,000 people have downloaded Nearby Glasses.
Jeanrenaud stressed that he’s not a professional developer, so the app isn’t perfect (for example, false positives can occur if VR headsets made by the same manufacturer are nearby). Also, it does not prove that someone is secretly recording the video. Not all smart glasses have cameras, and the wearer may be using the glasses for other purposes.
Still, he hopes the app will give people some peace of mind.
“Many people are affected by this type of technology. As scholars have repeatedly shown, women and various minorities, especially queer people, are the main targets of such privacy-invasive technologies,” said Jeanrenot, a professor at Osnabrück University of Applied Sciences whose research focuses on gender and STEM.
Metaglass has an LED light in the corner opposite the camera lens that automatically turns on when the user is shooting. But that light can be difficult to spot, especially for people with visual impairments, and can be covered or disabled with the help of tutorials available online.
Toluwa Omitwoju learned how difficult this technology is to detect after she was secretly recorded by a stranger while waiting at a Washington, D.C., airport late last year. Omitwoju, who owns a pair of Metaglasses himself, said he noticed the man was wearing smart glasses, but didn’t remember seeing any lights indicating they were recording.
The video was posted on social media and friends as well as strangers started asking her about it.
“This man put me in a place where I felt like people could come up to me and shove things in my face,” she said. “So I felt very violated.”
Omitwoju said he still believes there is value in smart glasses and that they can help people like his grandfather who are visually impaired. But the incident highlighted a potential danger.
“We need to think more about how we protect people, protect our rights, but also especially women in terms of our images being used without permission,” she said.
Facial recognition technology amplifies privacy concerns
The New York Times reported in February that Meta was planning to integrate facial recognition technology into its smart glasses, drawing even more scrutiny from advocates and lawmakers.
Sens. Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley and Edward J. Markey warned that the company’s widespread access to personal information makes the technology “extremely dangerous” and that its introduction “undermines long-standing expectations of privacy in public spaces.”
“In the wrong hands, this technology could be an extremely powerful and dangerous tool,” the senators wrote in a letter to Meta Chairman and CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
Hartzog said lawmakers need to create more specific rules for the unique threat posed by the combination of facial recognition and nearly undetectable surveillance technology before it becomes widespread. These laws need to cover not just the people using the technology, but also the companies behind that technology, he said.
“A lot of these conversations tend to focus on, ‘Is it OK to use these glasses or this tool to monitor other people?'” he said. “What often gets lost in this conversation is, ‘Is it OK for companies to design highly socially hostile tools in ways that are foreseeable to lead to large-scale privacy violations?'”
