Social media users have dubbed Meta’s glasses “pervert glasses” A debate that feels like a meme about privacy protection
The growing spread on social networks of videos made with smart glasses – especially those by Meta, produced in collaboration with the EssilorLuxottica group – is raising some discontent in certain user niches. In particular, many are wondering whether recordings made more or less discreetly through the micro-camera integrated into the frame, and later shared online, may in some cases constitute a violation of the privacy of the people being filmed.
@_brycepeters_ People and more specifically men who wear Ray-Ban meta glasses in public, I will automatically label you as a pervert the moment I see you in them. There is no instance at all where those are acceptable to wear in a gym, and I will automatically think that you’re secretly filming people even if you’re not. There’s only 2 types of people who wear those in public and especially to the gym, perverts and losers #metaglasses original sound - Bryce Peters
On Instagram and TikTok, numerous videos are circulating in which ordinary people are filmed without being truly aware of it, becoming involuntary subjects of short interviews, pranks, or similar content. This is a practice that has long sparked criticism and debate, and which the arrival of smart glasses seems to have intensified. The issue is so strongly felt that recently smart glasses have been nicknamed by some as “pervert glasses”.
Is the smart glasses camera too hard to notice?
@hopeyoufindyourdad Stay safe out there ladies
original sound - Andra
Smart glasses often have an appearance indistinguishable from that of ordinary glasses: the microcamera, perfectly integrated into the frame, measures only a few millimeters and is therefore difficult to detect, especially in versions with darker finishes.
For example, in the terms of service of Meta’s smart glasses, which has developed two models in collaboration with Ray-Ban and Oakley, it is clarified that the glasses should not be used for harmful behavior – such as harassment, privacy violations, or the collection of sensitive data. The company also specifies that during recording a LED turns on, specifically designed to signal to those nearby that the camera is in operation.
However, this transparency mechanism appears to be rather easy to bypass: the light can be covered without much difficulty, for example using stickers designed for this purpose and easily available online; moreover, there are numerous tutorials showing how to disable or make the LED less visible. For this reason, it is not surprising that detailed guides have begun circulating online on which clues to look for to understand whether the person you are talking to is wearing smart glasses or not.
Are there any laws to protect "smart glasses victims"?
meta glasses are mankind’s worst invention https://t.co/UQqW8Q47vM
— fahmeedx (@fahmeedx) April 2, 2026
To date, in most of the world there are no explicit rules prohibiting filming people in public places without their consent. In English-speaking countries, for example, this practice is generally allowed, unless it amounts to behavior that can be traced back to actual forms of harassment.
The situation is more complex when videos are distributed online: in these cases, one can rely on laws regarding privacy and personal data protection, particularly if the content has commercial purposes. However, enforcing these protections is quite difficult, due to a regulatory framework that is not always easy for ordinary citizens to apply.
In much of the European Union, anyone who appears in a video without having given consent has – at least in theory – the possibility to request its removal. In practice, however, this option is rarely pursued, because it often requires skills and financial resources that not everyone has. Individual digital platforms still offer tools that allow users to report content in which they appear without consent – however, removal procedures are often slow and the outcome is not always guaranteed.
