The Verge’s senior wearables reporter Victoria Song has published a compelling deep dive into what she calls the “wearable surveillance state” — the growing ecosystem of AI-powered smart glasses, rings, pendants, and pins that can record audio and video with alarming discretion. The piece, titled “I spy”, uses Netflix’s A Man on the Inside — where Ted Danson plays a widower secretly recording retirement home residents with smart glasses — as a jumping-off point to explore the real-world privacy crisis brewing around these devices.
Meta’s Smart Glasses Push Reignites Privacy Debate
Two weeks ago, Meta launched cheaper smart glasses without Ray-Ban branding, this time partnered with Kylie Jenner as brand ambassador. The move was meant to broaden the appeal of its Ray-Ban Meta glasses line, which has exceeded expectations since launching in 2023. But instead of generating excitement, the launch sparked a fresh wave of backlash on social media. On Threads — Meta’s own platform — posts calling the glasses “for perverts” have racked up tens of thousands of likes.
The sentiment is not new. Investigations by The New York Times and Wired have revealed that Meta is mulling over facial recognition features for its glasses, reigniting concerns that smart eyewear could become a surveillance tool in the wrong hands.
The Discomfort of Being a Wearables Reviewer
Song’s article draws from her own months-long experience testing AI wearables including the Ray-Ban Meta Optics, Meta Glasses, and the Vocci AI note-taking ring. She describes the internal conflict of using devices that are, by design, discreet to the point of being covert. While recording interviews at tech conferences with the Vocci ring proved invaluable for her journalism, she also found it disturbingly easy to surreptitiously record friends and family without their knowledge.
“These past few weeks, I’ve been testing the Ray-Ban Meta Optics, the new Meta Glasses, and Vocci, an AI note-taking ring,” Song writes. “These posts ring in my head as I wear and use these devices in public.”
What Makes These Different From Smartphones?
Defenders of smart glasses point out that smartphones have cameras and microphones too. But Song argues the difference is one of perception and practicality. Smart glasses and AI rings are worn continuously, making their recording capabilities less visible and harder to detect. While AirTags at least have Apple’s unwanted tracking alerts to mitigate misuse, AI wearables currently lack equivalent safeguards. LED recording lights — meant to signal when devices are active — are easy to overlook in bright conditions, can be tampered with, and are often not bright enough.
Can Privacy Be Designed Into Smart Glasses?
The piece explores potential solutions, including modular camera attachments (like Xreal’s), physical shutters, and mandatory audible recording cues. Meta’s VP of wearables, Alex Himel, acknowledged the company is aware of attempts to tamper with privacy lights and promised “more robust privacy updates soon.” However, he resisted the idea of modular designs, arguing they’d make the glasses “heavier, clunkier, and wouldn’t look as good.”
A Crossroads for AI Wearables
Song concludes that the AI wearable surveillance state is not inevitable — but the industry is at a crossroads. Private venues are already beginning to restrict Meta glasses wearers, and Zenni Optical is selling anti-facial recognition lenses. Legislators are circling, and public sentiment is shifting.
“If they won’t be proactive, legislators will eventually catch up,” Song writes. “Even if you have the best intentions, it feels pretty lousy being entrusted with strangers’ privacy.”
The full piece is well worth a read for anyone considering buying smart glasses or AI wearables — and a sobering reminder that the age of discreet, always-on recording devices is already here.