In the quiet spaces of everyday life — gyms, grocery stores, college campuses — a new kind of surveillance has taken root, not from governments or corporations, but from strangers wearing fashionable frames. Meta's smart glasses, designed to dissolve the boundary between technology and lived experience, have instead sharpened an older tension: the conflict between individual freedom to record and another person's right to move through the world unwatched. As the company commands nearly 70 percent of a rapidly expanding market, the question being asked is not merely legal or technical, but deep
Meta's Smart Glasses Face 'Pervert Glasses' Backlash Over Covert Recording
Individuals are being recorded and filmed without consent at gyms, social venues, and public spaces, with footage monetized on social media platforms without their knowledge or permission.
It's weird to monetise off people who don't know they're being recorded
Mark
Why does a device with a light that signals recording become a problem? Isn't the indicator supposed to solve this?
Mimi
The light works if people follow the rules. But some users are paying others to drill into the frames and disable it. Once that light is gone, the glasses look like regular eyeglasses, and no one knows they're being filmed.
Mark
So the issue isn't the technology itself—it's how people are choosing to use it.
Mimi
Partly. But Meta designed a product that's easy to modify and hard to detect once modified. That's a design choice that enabled the misuse. The company is fixing it now, but the damage to trust is already done.
Mark
What's the actual harm here beyond embarrassment?
Mimi
The videos are being monetized. People are being turned into content without consent, without payment, sometimes while being harassed. It's not just embarrassment—it's exploitation. And it's happening in spaces where people should feel safe: gyms, malls, college campuses.
Mark
Why would Meta let this happen?
Mimi
They didn't anticipate it, or they underestimated how quickly people would find ways around the safeguards. The company says privacy was built in from the start, but the reality is that a determined user can disable it. Now Meta is playing catch-up.
Mark
Is this going to kill the product?
Mimi
Probably not. But it's going to change how people feel about wearing them in public. Some users are already avoiding social events because they don't want to explain they're not recording. That hesitation spreads.
Mark
What happens when Apple and Google release their glasses?
Mimi
They'll face the same questions immediately. The privacy concerns aren't unique to Meta—they're inherent to the technology. Every company entering this space will have to prove they've thought about it.
O Pulso
- Users are deliberately disabling the glasses' recording indicator light — physically drilling it out — to film strangers covertly, with the resulting videos going viral and turning a consumer gadget into what critics are calling 'pervert glasses.'
- The backlash has crossed from social media into mainstream culture, with comedian Jimmy Kimmel mocking the devices on national television, singer Lorde denouncing them at concerts, and businesses like Seattle's 5 Point Cafe posting outright bans.
- Meta has responded by patching the tampered-camera vulnerability and removing offending content through Instagram, while the ACLU and over 70 organizations are pressuring the company to abandon planned facial recognition features entirely.
- Even well-intentioned users are feeling the social cost — creators who wear the glasses for music and hands-free calls report being treated with suspicion at social gatherings, as the device's reputation reshapes how people read the technology on someone's face.
- With Apple, Google, Samsung, and Snap all developing rival smart glasses, the privacy crisis Meta is navigating now is less a company problem than an industry-wide reckoning arriving just ahead of schedule.
In the quiet spaces of everyday life — gyms, grocery stores, college campuses — a new kind of surveillance has taken root, not from governments or corporations, but from strangers wearing fashionable frames. Meta's smart glasses, designed to dissolve the boundary between technology and lived experience, have instead sharpened an older tension: the conflict between individual freedom to record and another person's right to move through the world unwatched. As the company commands nearly 70 percent of a rapidly expanding market, the question being asked is not merely legal or technical, but deeply human — who owns the moment when two people meet?
Meta's smart glasses were conceived as a seamless extension of daily life — a way to capture moments, field calls, and consult an AI without ever pulling out a phone. Instead, they have become the center of a growing privacy storm, one loud enough to draw celebrity condemnation, judicial warnings, and civil liberties petitions.
The company holds roughly 69 percent of the smart glasses market, a space that more than tripled in value over the past year. Sold through major retailers and promoted by celebrities including Kylie Jenner and Jennie from Blackpink, the glasses range from $225 to $800 and have been aggressively positioned as mainstream fashion. But a troubling use case has emerged: some users have been secretly recording women in malls, on campuses, and outside nightclubs — often framing the footage as pickup attempts or pranks — and uploading it to Instagram and YouTube for views and monetization.
What makes the covert recording possible is a design vulnerability. Meta's glasses include a small white indicator light that activates during recording, but some users have paid to have the light physically disabled, stripping away the only visible signal that a camera is running. Gaby Luisa encountered this firsthand when a man approached her outside an Arizona dance club. Days later, she found the interaction posted to YouTube without her knowledge. 'It's really weird to monetise off of people, and they're not even aware that they're being recorded,' she said.
The outcry has moved well beyond social media. Jimmy Kimmel mocked the devices on national television. Lorde told her concertgoers that smart glasses are 'not sexy.' A Los Angeles judge warned courtroom attendees to remove them during a high-profile trial, worried about juror identification. The ACLU and more than 70 organizations wrote to Meta in April urging the company to abandon any facial recognition rollout, calling it a serious threat to civil liberties. Meta has since patched the tampered-camera vulnerability and says it will approach any future facial recognition features with transparency — though no final decision has been announced.
The social fallout is already reshaping behavior. Legitimate users report avoiding the glasses at social events to sidestep uncomfortable questions. The University of San Francisco issued a safety advisory after a man wearing Meta Ray-Bans was reported approaching women with inappropriate comments. And an app called Nearby Glasses, built specifically to alert users when smart glasses may be in the vicinity, has accumulated roughly 110,000 downloads since launching in February.
Whether the backlash will meaningfully slow sales is uncertain, but analysts warn it could erode trust with mainstream buyers at a moment when the tech industry is already navigating fragile public confidence. The deeper challenge is structural: Apple, Google, Samsung, and Snap are all developing their own smart glasses, meaning the privacy questions Meta faces today will soon belong to the entire industry.
Meta's smart glasses were supposed to be the next big thing—a sleek piece of wearable technology that lets you capture moments, take calls, and talk to an AI assistant without reaching for your phone. Instead, they've become something else entirely: a tool for recording strangers without their knowledge, and the backlash is growing loud enough that celebrities are weighing in and businesses are posting bans.
The company dominates the smart glasses market with roughly 69 percent market share as of the first quarter of this year, and the global market for certain types of smart glasses more than tripled in value over the previous twelve months. Meta sells the glasses online and through major retailers like LensCrafters and Best Buy, with prices ranging from about $225 to $800 depending on the model. The company has been aggressive about distribution, opening Meta Lab stores in Los Angeles and other cities, and partnering with Ray-Ban, Oakley, and celebrities including Kylie Jenner and Jennie from Blackpink to push the product.
But a particular use case has emerged that's turned the glasses into a liability. Some users have been secretly recording interactions with women—often pickup attempts or what they frame as pranks—and uploading the videos to social media platforms like Instagram and YouTube. The videos show people being approached in malls, grocery stores, on college campuses, and on sidewalks, often looking uncomfortable or telling the strangers to leave them alone. What makes this possible is a design flaw that's become a feature for bad actors: while Meta's glasses include a white light on the frames to signal when they're recording, some users have hired people to drill into the eyewear and disable the indicator, turning them into what critics have started calling "pervert glasses."
Gaby Luisa learned this the hard way. She was standing outside a dance club in Arizona when a man wearing what appeared to be Meta glasses approached her with a pickup line. She declined his interest and went about her evening. Days later, she discovered the interaction had been recorded and posted to YouTube without her consent or knowledge. "It's really weird to monetise off of people, and they're not even aware that they're being recorded," she said. Her experience is far from isolated. The outcry has spread beyond social media into mainstream culture—comedian Jimmy Kimmel called the devices "pervert glasses" on national television, and singer Lorde told concertgoers that smart glasses are "not sexy."
The privacy concerns have prompted concrete action. Meta updated its glasses last month to disable cameras if they've been tampered with, and the company says it plans to strengthen these protections as the technology becomes more capable. Instagram, which Meta owns, has been removing accounts and taking down videos that violate the platform's rules against harassment and bullying. Some physical spaces have taken matters into their own hands: the 5 Point Cafe in Seattle, which previously banned Google Glass, has now banned Meta glasses from its diner and dive bar, posting on Instagram that they "serve privacy, not side-eye surveillance."
Judges and civil liberties organizations are also paying attention. During a high-profile social media addiction trial in Los Angeles in February, a judge warned people in the courtroom to remove any smart glasses, concerned that jury members could be identified. The American Civil Liberties Union and more than 70 other organizations sent a letter to Meta in April urging the company not to release facial recognition features in smart glasses, calling such technology a "serious threat to privacy and civil liberties." Meta said no final decision has been made on facial recognition but that it will approach any rollout thoughtfully and transparently.
The backlash is already affecting how people use the product. Ben Cook, a New York creator who uses Meta smart glasses to listen to music on runs and take hands-free calls, said he doesn't wear them to social events because he doesn't want to have to explain that he's not recording anyone. Family and friends have asked if his "spy glasses" are recording. Even the University of San Francisco issued a safety advisory last year about a man wearing Meta Ray-Ban sunglasses who was approaching women with unwanted comments and inappropriate dating questions, suggesting he was trying to post pickup videos on social media.
Whether this backlash will actually slow sales remains unclear. Jitesh Ubrani, a director at market research firm IDC, noted that a headline cycle like this could dampen momentum with mainstream buyers, even if early adopters aren't deterred. The tech industry is at a sensitive moment, according to Jacob Bourne, a technology analyst at eMarketer, as it tries to preserve consumer trust while AI and new hardware continue to advance rapidly. Meanwhile, competitors like Apple, Google, Samsung, and Snap are working on or planning to release their own smart glasses, which means the privacy questions Meta is facing now will soon become an industry-wide problem. Some people are already preparing for that future: Yves Jeanrenaud created an app called Nearby Glasses to alert people if smart glasses might be nearby, and since its release in February, it has accumulated roughly 110,000 downloads on Android, mostly in the United States and Canada.
Citações Notáveis
A headline cycle like this is exactly the kind of thing that could slow momentum with mainstream buyers, even if early adopters don't blink.— Jitesh Ubrani, director at market research firm IDC
It's a social problem that we encounter—that we don't value privacy, that we feel entitled to use others for our entertainment or our private gain, and technology amplifies that.— Yves Jeanrenaud, creator of Nearby Glasses detection app
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em thestar.com.my ↗
Technology