In all things privacy, Britain’s high streets, gyms and offices are about to be overrun with hidden cameras.
The latest generation of so-called smart glasses, particularly Meta’s Ray-Ban range, has become one of the fastest growing consumer electronics brands in history, and the world’s biggest tech companies are lining up to follow suit.
The commercial momentum is undeniable. Meta has now shipped more than seven million pairs of its Ray-Ban smart glasses, made in partnership with Franco-Italian eyewear company EssilorLuxottica, and the device accounts for more than 80 percent of the AI eyewear market, according to Counterpoint Research. Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s chief executive, told investors earlier this year that glasses are “one of the fastest-growing electronics in history”, a rare bright spot for a company that has spent tens of billions of dollars chasing the metaverse with limited returns.
But the same product line now sits at the center of a rapidly expanding privacy row that could shape legislation, workplace policy and consumer trust for years to come, and those British SMEs, from beauty salons to cafes, are already being forced to think about it.
Camera in every frame
The appeal of the device, on paper, is straightforward. Ray-Ban’s model features an almost invisible camera in the frame, small speakers that are open to the ears on the arms, and an indicator light. Wearers can take a photo, shoot a video, make a call or summon the Meta’s AI assistant by tapping on the temple. For startups like Mark Smith, a partner at consulting firm ISG, attraction is the norm rather than the future. She wears hers every day, she says, because they let her take a phone call or listen to a podcast while she’s in the shower without blocking the room, and they keep her from pulling out her phone to snap a photo while she’s out and about.
The problem, as Smith himself admits, is that no one close to the wearer can tell. The recording light is dim during the day and easily missed. To the casual observer, the glasses look like any other Wayfarers.
That ambiguity is now creating uncomfortable headlines. Women have reported being approached on beaches, in shops and on the streets by men wearing glasses, recording their reactions to scripted lines or disturbing questions and uploading the clips to click. Victims often only find the images available once they are infected – and any subsequent abuse with them. As photography in public places is widely legal in the UK, legal access is limited. One woman who asked to have her video taken down told the BBC she was told by the poster that the takedown was a “paid service”.
Cases, content moderators and Kenyan flashpoint
The reputational pressure on Meta has been compounded by the working conditions of those training the AI behind the product. Content moderators in Kenya, tasked with reviewing images taken from the glasses to create training data, were allegedly required to view graphic material involving sexual acts and people using the toilet. Two lawsuits followed from the owners of the glasses themselves: one group said they didn’t know such videos had ever been filmed, and the other didn’t realize the video was being shared back on Meta for public review.
The company pointed to its operating principles, arguing that it is possible to review individuals in certain circumstances and disclose them. A spokesperson for Meta, Tracy Clayton, told the BBC: “We have teams dedicated to reducing and combating misuse, but as with any technology, the onus is ultimately on the individual not to exploit it.”
That defense will not satisfy the regulators now circling the division. Meta is reportedly preparing to add facial recognition to an upcoming version of the glasses, according to the New York Times, a feature that would allow wearers to not only record passers-by, but identify them in real time.
The rest of Silicon Valley is piling up
For all the controversy, every Big Tech sees a market it can’t afford to miss. Apple is reportedly developing its own smart glasses, and Bloomberg suggests that it will be launched as soon as next year. Snap has confirmed a new, lighter pair of its 2026 specs. Google, more than ten years since the spectacular failure of Google Glass, which was pulled less than two years after its launch amid an aggressive backlash, is preparing another attempt under its Android XR platform.
Citigroup analysts and researchers at UC Berkeley think that as many as 100 million people could be wearing AI-powered glasses within a few years. For investors, that points to a truly new product category, the first since the smartwatch. For regulators, civil society organizations and small businesses, it raises a very difficult question: how do you apply existing laws against filming in courts, hospitals, locker rooms, museums, cinemas and bathrooms where a reasonable proportion of people are wearing a camera on their face?
David Kessler, who leads the US privacy practice at international law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, says corporate clients are already fighting it. “There are dark places we can go here,” he said. “I am not against technology by any means, but as a public issue… I will need to think [of being recorded] When do I go public?”
What it means for British SMEs
For owner-managers in the UK, this is no longer a Silicon Valley curiosity. Cases are increasing of clients and staff caught off guard: internet influencer Aniessa Navarro recounts feeling “sick” when she noticed during a treatment that her beautician was wearing Meta glasses. The specialist stressed that they could not be charged or recorded, and were required for prescription lenses – but the damage to the salon’s reputation is obvious.
Small businesses in tourism, retail, health care, fitness and personal services should expect to revisit their acceptable use policies, customer-facing signage and employee training. Under the UK GDPR, the private recording of identifiable individuals in a business environment may fall to the operator and the wearer once those images are processed for any purpose other than personal use. Insurance companies and trade associations are likely to start asking questions.
Meta markets the product under the tag line “Designed for privacy, controlled by you”, and tells wearers not to record objectionable people and to turn off the glasses completely in sensitive areas. Those suggestions, by the company’s own admission, are more revered as a breach than a celebration. A growing genre of “prank” content sees guys in Ray-Bans get store staff to smell foul-smelling candles, get members of the public to sign fake petitions, or film themselves snapping food as they walk past.
Time for Google Glass, or tipping point?
Andrew Bosworth, Meta’s chief technology officer, was asked on Instagram about “the stigma of people who wear smart glasses every day”. His answer depends heavily on sales figures, arguing that the volume change “suggests that these are widely accepted”.
Not everyone is convinced. David Harris, a former Meta AI researcher who now teaches at UC Berkeley and advises policymakers in the US and the EU, believes that this category is headed for the same wall that flattened Google Glass. “Technology like this is an invasion of privacy and is increasingly facing backlash,” he said.
The signs are there. In December, a New York man posted a clip complaining that a woman he was filming on the subway broke his Meta glasses. The internet didn’t cause it. He crowned him the hero of mankind.
For Meta, for Apple, for Snap and for Google, the commercial reward for owning a face is huge. But in an industry that has spent the past decade trying to rebuild public trust, betting the next platform on a device that most viewers won’t say is a camera could prove to be the costliest miscalculation of all.
