Across New York City, London, and Washington, DC, advertisements for Meta’s smart glasses have been defaced with satirical posters from activist groups. One guerrilla ad labels the devices “the biggest advancement in pervert technology since the trenchcoat.” Another superimposes the words “mass surveillance predator glasses” over influencer Kylie Jenner’s face, condemning her endorsement of the product. The message is unambiguous: these glasses pose a serious threat to privacy, and the question lingering in the air is—can anyone trust Meta?

Meta’s response has been reactive at best. For years, the company’s privacy strategy for its smart glasses rested almost entirely on a single LED indicator light and a vague policy of “don’t be a jerk.” That approach has proven woefully inadequate. Over the last three years, numerous incidents have emerged of wearers—dubbed “glassholes”—filming unsuspecting individuals, often in sexualized contexts, sometimes with the LED disabled. In a recent interview with The Verge, Meta’s VP of wearables, Alex Himel, admitted the company has seen a rise in tampering. This acknowledgment came alongside the announcement of a mandatory software update that disables the camera if the privacy light is physically interfered with. Additionally, Instagram head Adam Mosseri stated that the platform would remove videos captured with Meta glasses that depict harassment. While these moves appear positive, they come after years of inaction, raising doubts about Meta’s commitment to safeguarding users.

The Core of the Privacy Problem

Experts argue that Meta’s fundamental approach is flawed. “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. She emphasizes that the burden of awareness falls on the person not wearing the glasses, which is impractical. The social stigma around smart glasses is compounded by a broader distrust of Big Tech. Ananthakrishnan notes that during the early smartphone era, the public gradually adapted to new norms, but today’s climate is different. “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.”

Another critical distinction is the shift in privacy calculus. With smartwatches, users accept personal health data risks for clear benefits. But with smart glasses, the wearer becomes a potential violator of others’ privacy. This changes the dynamic entirely. “You’re the person risking others’ privacy, possibly without consent—the perpetrator,” says Ananthakrishnan. This psychological barrier may be insurmountable for many potential buyers.

Meta’s Serial Missteps

The current crisis is not a single blunder but a series of poor decisions. First, a New York Times report revealed Meta was exploring facial recognition technology for the glasses while privacy advocates were distracted. Then Wired disclosed that Meta had silently shipped—but not activated—that technology to existing devices. Most recently, the Financial Times alleged Meta wants the glasses to record 24/7. These revelations have been accompanied by tone-deaf executive comments, such as the claim that people who eschew smart glasses will be at a “cognitive disadvantage.” Meta also removed the option to opt out of voice recordings for AI training, further eroding trust.

Moreover, despite legitimate privacy fears following high-profile misuse, Meta continues to seed glasses to influencers and launched a glittering campaign with Kylie Jenner—a polarizing figure whose association does little to reassure skeptics. Activist Kendall Schrohe, executive director of the Attention Sphere, states, “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. 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.”

Historical Context and Competitive Landscape

Meta’s smart glasses journey began with the Ray-Ban Stories in 2021, followed by the upgraded Ray-Ban Meta in 2023. The company successfully made smart glasses stylish and affordable by partnering with EssilorLuxottica, the parent company of Ray-Ban. Google and Samsung are now following suit with partnerships with Warby Parker and Gentle Monster. However, Meta’s lead is fragile. Unlike Google Glass, which was loud and conspicuous, Meta’s glasses are discreet, making them more socially acceptable—but that very discretion is what enables covert recording.

Bose and Snap were earlier entrants in the audio and camera glasses space, but Meta executed the concept most effectively. Yet the company’s reputation as a data-hungry giant undermines its efforts. The same week Meta announced its privacy-focused software update, reports surfaced that it had lobbied to weaken state-level privacy bills. This contradiction is not lost on the public or regulators.

The Path Forward: Can Meta Recover?

Ananthakrishnan believes the moment for Meta to win trust has passed. “I think this moment has passed for them. Eventually, people may accept smart glasses, but it will be because of the overall ecosystem and external pressures like legislation or workplace mandates, not because Meta has convinced them.” She suggests that companies with better privacy records, such as Apple, might have a chance, but neither Google nor Meta can pull it off given their histories.

Barring a dramatic overhaul of its privacy policies and hardware design, Meta risks either ceding leadership to rivals or poisoning the well for the entire smart glasses industry. If Meta continues down the same path, it may find itself irrelevant in a market it helped create. The next move, whether it’s a radical shift to privacy-by-design or a doubling down on surveillance, will determine the fate of not just its glasses but the broader wearable category.

Activists are watching, and they are not backing down. Schrohe’s organization has already planned more campaigns. “We will continue to highlight the dangers of always-on recording devices worn in public,” he says. “The onus is on Meta to prove they can be responsible, and so far, they have failed spectacularly.”

The public remains skeptical. A recent poll by the Pew Research Center found that 72% of Americans are concerned about being filmed without consent in public places, and 61% say they would feel uncomfortable around someone wearing smart glasses. Without a fundamental change in approach, Meta’s smart glasses may become a cautionary tale rather than a breakthrough product.

Source: The Verge News