The overwhelming case against Meta's Rayban Display glasses
And why choosing not to buy a pair doesn't protect you.
What do you see when:
You go to the toilet?
You bath your child?
You change a tampon?
You get dressed in a changing room?
If you have been an early adopter of Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses, whatever you see could also be what one of Meta’s subcontracted workers sees when they are reviewing footage captured by your glasses to “improve the experience.”
Your private life just became public
This is not a hypothetical privacy concern. It is happening now.
A joint investigation by Swedish newspapers Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten, published last week, revealed that contract workers responsible for reviewing footage captured by Ray-Ban Meta glasses have been exposed to video of people using the bathroom, people getting undressed, and people having sex. Here’s what one worker told the reporters.
“In some videos, you can see someone going to the toilet, or getting undressed. I don’t think they know, because if they knew, they wouldn’t be recording.”
These are not full-time Meta employees with employment protections and whistleblower rights. These are subcontracted workers (“data annotators”), reviewing intimate footage of strangers as part of their jobs, who say they feel unable to question their assignments for fear of losing them.
One contractor told reporters: “You understand that it is someone’s private life you are looking at, but at the same time, you are just expected to carry out the work. You are not supposed to question it. If you start asking questions, you are gone.”
This is the company you are handing your life footage to.
I have written previously about why Meta cannot be trusted with this level of access to our lives. What has happened since makes that piece look understated.
But I didn’t buy these glasses, so I’m safe…right?
If that’s what you think, then you need to read this next bit….
Designed for privacy, controlled by you…
…that’s what Meta assures us. We’ve got the LED after all: a small white light on the right temple of the glasses that illuminates when the camera is recording. The idea: people nearby can see it and know they are being filmed. Meta is very reassuring:
“You’re in control of your data and content”
“When you use your glasses camera for AI features, we take steps to protect people’s privacy, such as removing key identifiable information”
But despite these reassurances, Meta also feels the need to advise its users against using these glasses maliciously:
“Show others how the Capture LED works so they know when you’re recording”
“Obey the law. Don't use your glasses to engage in harmful activities such as harassment, infringing on privacy rights or capturing sensitive information such as pin codes.”
“Power off in private spaces. Turn off your glasses in sensitive spaces such as the doctor’s surgery changing room, public toilets, school or places of be respectful of people nearby.”
And thankfully Meta has built in a safeguard:
“If the Capture LED is covered, you’ll be notified to clear it before taking a photo or video or going live”
Doth Meta protest too much?
Methinks.
Because for anyone who doesn’t want you to know they are recording, there are people who will charge you $60 to physically disable the LED indicator while leaving the camera fully operational. No light. Still recording.
Don’t want to spend $60? For a third of that, you can now buy LED blockers on Amazon. Marketed openly. Described in product listings as “super discreet” and being perfect for “concerts, meetings”.
The “safeguard” Meta built into these glasses has spawned a thriving accessory market.
Small personal benefit. Everyone else pays the price.
Let us be honest about what these glasses actually offer the person wearing them.
Hands-free video calling. A first-person camera without a helmet mount. Real-time translation subtitles. AI-assisted descriptions of surroundings. These are the use cases. And every single one of them has a purpose-built alternative that does not require feeding your surroundings - and everyone in them - into Meta’s data infrastructure.
What these glasses are primarily used for is lifestyle content and novelty. That is the benefit being weighed here.
On the other side of the scale: every person within camera range of the wearer is being recorded without consent. Their intimate moments, their private spaces, their daily lives - captured, uploaded, and reviewed by strangers employed by a company that has demonstrated, repeatedly, that it treats user data as a commercial asset.
The wearer opts in. Nobody else gets a choice.
This is not a cost borne by the person wearing the glasses. It is a cost imposed on everyone around them. The wearer is taking the liberty of consenting on behalf of everyone they see when wearing the glasses.
So what can we do about Meta’s Rayban Displays?
I am not opposed to smart glasses as a category. I am opposed to this product, from this company, operating under this framework, in the absence of any meaningful regulation.
What needs to happen is straightforward.
Covert recording - filming with a disabled or obscured indicator - should be illegal. Not a terms of service violation. Not a community guideline breach. Illegal. The sale of products designed specifically to facilitate covert recording should carry the same status.
Voyeuristic recording - intimate footage captured without consent - is already illegal in many places. The law needs to catch up with the hardware. Regulators need to stop treating smart glasses like a software product and start treating them like what they are: always-available cameras worn on the face, capable of capturing everyone in their field of view, feeding data to some of the most powerful and least accountable companies in the world.
Until that happens, my position is simple.
You may not wear your Meta Ray-Ban glasses in my home.
Find out more about my AI for business leaders offerings.