How Existing Laws Can Address Surveillance Fears About Smart Glasses

While smart glasses—eyewear with hands-free features including cameras, audio recording, and artificial intelligence (AI) integration—have been around for over a decade, Meta’s recently introduced Ray-Ban AI glasses, Snap’s AR spectacles, and Amazon’s Echo Frames have brought smart glasses into the wider consumer marketplace, with Apple, Samsung, and Google rumored to soon follow. Critics see the rise of smart glasses as a significant privacy threat. As the tech panic cycle predicts, there are already reactionary calls against smart glasses, such as a complaint in Germany arguing the glasses violate privacy laws and bans across British restaurants and facilities. Even worse, the European Data Protection Board is rumored to be drafting new rules addressing the technology, and there is a petition in the UK to ban the sale of smart glasses altogether. But demands for new regulations targeted at immersive technologies are premature since there are steps policymakers can take now to address most of the surveillance concerns about these wearable devices.

To a casual observer, smart glasses look like regular eyeglasses or sunglasses, but they include speakers, microphones, cameras, and sometimes, heads-up displays. Meta, in particular, has focused not only on making the glasses more stylish than past iterations, but also on making the technological components more “invisible.” In addition to everyday tasks like playing music without headphones, giving directions without having to look down at a phone screen, or providing information about a user’s surroundings, smart glasses have benefits for increasing accessibility. For example, smart glasses can use real-time translation to let a user “converse” naturally with someone speaking another language. Blind and low-vision users can ask their smart glasses to identify objects or warn them of hazards to navigate their surroundings safely.

However, critics argue that smart glasses, especially those with “always-on” cameras, subject people to recording or surveillance without their knowledge or consent. As a result of some people specifically using these glasses to record women and girls, some critics have started calling the devices “pervert glasses.”

To address this misuse, most smart glasses contain a recording light that stays on whenever the device is capturing video. In addition, companies like Meta have created a detection system that flags tampering: If the light is covered or altered, the device automatically disables recording. Unfortunately, a black market exists for accessories that block the light without triggering this detection.

Apple, whose smart glasses are rumored for release in 2027, recently filed a patent for an audio or haptic indicator, instead of a light, noting such an indicator may be more effective and would include embedded information to prevent malware from spoofing it, even if the perpetrator is the wearer. If this technology is successful at preventing individuals from misusing their smart glasses, other companies may take similar measures.

In the meantime, policymakers don't need new legal frameworks to respond. The Communications Act directs the FCC to ban the sale and use of radar jammers that interfere with GPS signals to impair communications or defeat police speed guns, and many states prohibit license plate covers and reflective coatings designed to defeat toll cameras. Policymakers could apply this same approach to target the use of accessories designed to circumvent smart glasses' safety systems.

Bad actors could just as easily livestream from their phones 24/7 without the same warning light. In fact, smartphone cameras faced similar criticism to smart glasses once, as did cameras themselves before that. Laws on recording conversations exist in all 50 states, many in place since the 1960s. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Security Rule governs transmission of electronic media in healthcare settings, which can provide a similar framework regarding smart glasses. In New York, courts bar visitors from wearing smart glasses inside courtrooms, but they ban recording video or taking photos with smartphones too. Again, these pre-existing frameworks can apply to smart glasses just as easily as they apply to other recording technologies.

Similarly, many also express concerns about law enforcement using smart glasses to surveil or harass. Smart glasses can capture real-time photos and video of crimes and evidence that lead the police to suspects or victims. When law enforcement began using body-worn cameras widely in the 2010s, the technology faced similar pushback. Today, public sentiment has largely shifted, as many recognize these cameras serve police officers by protecting them from false accusations and enabling footage review for training, while also providing the public a transparent record of interactions. Smart glasses may experience this same perception shift.

Facial recognition will likely be a key feature of smart glasses in the future. While useful as a memory aid to help re-identify the names of acquaintances, bad actors could also use this technology to covertly identify strangers, then combine the images from these devices with access to social media and public records to stalk or dox people. Law enforcement could also misuse these capabilities to discourage political expression, target vulnerable communities, or chill lawful dissent by identifying protesters without their consent. Policymakers can address these concerns through technology-neutral policies, such as enforcing laws on harassment, limiting police interference in lawful political activities, and requiring warrants to track the movements of individuals, including through biometrics.

Congress can also create new legislation by passing comprehensive federal privacy legislation. Though the Fourth Amendment grants a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” and many states already prohibit video surveillance in places like locker rooms and fitting rooms, federal legislation can protect privacy and give consumers more choice and transparency over their biometric data, instead of relying on a patchwork of state privacy laws.

Smart glasses could change how people access digital information, moving it from phone screens into their field of vision. Policymakers should consider the privacy implications now, rather than succumbing to bans or fearmongering, to promote adoption and innovation in the industry.