It is not yet clear to what extent Meta’s new smart glasses will live up to the nickname of “pervert glasses” – bestowed in recognition of the obvious appeal of wearable cameras to voyeurs. The past week has seen rising criticism of the devices, which in the UK have been banned by the pub chain Wetherspoons and the theatre group ATG, as well as restaurants, schools and members’ clubs. These organisations deserve praise for standing up for privacy. By contrast, regulators appear once again to be on the back foot.
There have, inevitably, already been reports of women being mistreated. Earlier this year the BBC spoke to several who had been filmed without their consent, with footage subsequently uploaded to social media. In one case, the content creator demanded a fee to remove it. In the year to March 2025, image-based sexual abuse and cyberflashing were responsible for more than half of an 11% increase in reported sexual offences in England and Wales. Normalisation of smart glasses would, clearly, make such offences easier to commit.
Worrying as this is, it is not the only reason to be concerned. Privacy has much wider significance and most people, as the businesses banning smart glasses from their premises have recognised, do not want to be filmed as they go about their lives. While videoing in public is not illegal, this does not give smart glasses wearers the right to place others under involuntary surveillance. An LED light that blinks when the camera is in use, and cannot be disabled, is not an adequate safeguard, whatever Meta might think. Pubs, parks, beaches and workplaces are not film sets.
Having invested $80bn in its latest product, Mark Zuckerberg’s company is unlikely to give up easily on its ambition to make the glasses, which have been likened to face-mounted smartphones, as ubiquitous as the handheld kind. More than a decade after the first smart glasses, made by Google, flopped, Meta has bet heavily on making its latest version more stylish, functional and affordable – with UK prices starting at £269. The choice of Kylie Jenner to front this summer’s advertising campaign, and the slogan “Never miss a moment”, aimed at parents of young children, appear calculated to dispel fears about how the glasses will be used by sexually predatory men.
Like most digital devices, these ones can be helpful as well as harmful. As aids for people who are blind or visually impaired, smart glasses that can read text or describe images have been described as life-changing. Any restrictions, in the UK or elsewhere, should be crafted so as to enable such uses to continue – just as guide dogs are exempted from rules about pets. But while the benefits that smart glasses offer to groups of people with specific needs should be recognised, this must not be allowed to distract from their potential to cause harm.
Tech regulation is difficult. But given the UK government’s recent moves towards restricting smartphone use among young people, and the public outcry regarding sexualised AI imagery, it is disappointing that ministers have so far had almost nothing to say about the rollout of wearable hidden cameras. While the tech companies market their products as tools to be used, one of the key lessons of the last two decades is that users are rarely, if ever, as in control as they would like to be. Ministers and regulators should be active, not passive, as Meta intentionally blurs the line between looking and filming.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
