{"id":4448,"date":"2026-07-27T13:22:41","date_gmt":"2026-07-27T13:22:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=4448"},"modified":"2026-07-27T13:22:41","modified_gmt":"2026-07-27T13:22:41","slug":"meta-smart-glasses-privacy-wearables","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/silvybrand.com\/?p=4448","title":{"rendered":"Meta is royally screwing up its smart glasses roll out\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Across New York City, London, and Washington, DC, ads for Meta\u2019s smart glasses have been plastered over with satirical posters from activist groups. One guerrilla ad calls these \u201cthe biggest advancement in pervert technology since the trenchcoat.\u201d Another transposes the words \u201cmass surveillance predator glasses\u201d over influencer Kylie Jenner\u2019s face, calling her out for partnering with the company as a glasses ambassador.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The message of these ads is clear. These glasses may violate your privacy \u2014 and would you<\/em> trust Meta?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Meta seems spooked. For so long, the company\u2019s privacy efforts for smart glasses have essentially relied on a single LED light and a policy that could be summed up as \u201cdon\u2019t be a jerk.\u201d Unfortunately, plenty of Meta<\/a> glassholes<\/a> have<\/a> emerged<\/a> 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<\/em><\/a>, Meta\u2019s VP of wearables, Alex Himel, acknowledged that the company has become aware that an increasing number of people have tampered with the devices.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

This explains why the company recently announced a mandatory software update<\/a> 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\u2019s glasses that depict harassment. Instagram might have opened a can of worms concerning content moderation<\/a>, but attempts to curtail misuse are good. The problem is Meta could have been doing this all along.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"Activist<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Activist groups have plastered satirical anti-Meta Ray-Ban ads across New York City, Washington D.C., and London.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

We can\u2019t talk about the current era of smart glasses without acknowledging that Meta has made a series of savvy decisions. Where Google Glass was loud<\/a>, 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Except, in recent months, Meta\u2019s been playing its cards all wrong. First there was the NYT<\/em> report<\/a> that Meta was looking to roll out facial recognition tech for the glasses while privacy advocates were distracted. Then there was the Wired<\/em> report<\/a> that said Meta had silently shipped \u2014 but not activated \u2014 that tech to existing glasses. Now, there\u2019s a Financial Times <\/em>report<\/a> 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<\/a>. Its executives occasionally say tone-deaf things<\/a> like those who eschew smart glasses will be at a \u201ccognitive disadvantage.\u201d<\/a> 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 \u2014 one of the most visible but polarizing celebrities.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

In a vacuum, a gaffe or two happens. When you screw up this many times, it starts to look like you\u2019re purposefully missing the point.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"Focusing<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Focusing on the privacy LED light, experts say, isn\u2019t enough on its own.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

\u201cYou cannot hinge your entire privacy policy on a single light. You can\u2019t expect everyone in the world to know that and react to that,\u201d says Uttara Ananthakrishnan, a technology professor at the University of Washington who specializes in how online interactions affect platforms, markets, and social behaviors. \u201cIt puts a lot of pressure on the person who isn\u2019t even wearing the glasses to be aware of what another person is going to do.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

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\u2019s shared online have shifted. Case in point, Meta\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

\u201cYou cannot hinge your entire privacy policy on a single light. \u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cTech 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 \u2014 we could be liable for it. There\u2019s a lot more awareness that there are bad people on the internet who could do really terrible things compared to the smartphone era,\u201d says Ananthakrishnan. She also points out how people feel about individual privacy is different than when you<\/em> are responsible for others\u2019 privacy.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Take smartwatches. Ananthakrishnan notes that people are willing to risk their own health data privacy because there\u2019s a clear benefit to their goals. However, if there are negative outcomes \u2014 for example, your health data getting leaked to your employer \u2014 you\u2019re the only one who suffers, and you\u2019re the only victim. With smart glasses, the privacy calculus changes. You\u2019re the person risking others\u2019 privacy, possibly without consent \u2014 the perpetrator.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"Wearing<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Wearing smart glasses forces you to wonder: who else\u2019s privacy am I putting at risk? <\/em><\/figcaption><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

So is it even possible for Meta \u2014 or any other smart glasses company \u2014 to reassure a skittish public? Or are its recent attempts simply too little, too late?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cThere\u2019s not much Meta can do to convince me they genuinely care about user privacy when their whole business model is built on invading it,\u201d 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. \u201cAt 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Schrohe says that Meta\u2019s credibility is further undermined by the fact that it, along with other tech companies, reportedly lobbied to weaken state privacy bills<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\u201cI think this moment has passed for them,\u201d agrees Ananthakrishnan, noting that Meta isn\u2019t known as a company that effectively communicates privacy policies. \u201cMaybe Apple can, but I don\u2019t think either Google or Meta could pull this off given their history. It\u2019s not going to be reassuring if they put out a statement that says, \u2018Hey we are doing everything we can; this is our privacy policy.\u2019 People are still not going to believe that.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"The<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The societal stigma, plus fatigue with Big Tech, is one reason for the backlash against smart glasses. Meta\u2019s reputation is another.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Barring a dramatic overhaul, it\u2019s going to be hard for Meta and Big Tech at large to change the current narrative. And it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But the reality is that we\u2019re all watching to see what card Meta \u2014 the current leader in this space \u2014 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<\/em> to do something different.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Follow topics and authors<\/strong> from this story to see more like this in your personalized homepage feed and to receive email updates.<\/span><\/p>\n