Somewhere out there, a Meta executive is having a very bad week. German human rights group HateAid has filed a criminal complaint against Meta, Ray-Ban, Oakley, and several retailers, arguing that selling glasses with discreet built-in cameras violates German privacy law. Specifically, HateAid points to the Telecommunications, Digital Services and Data Protection Act, claiming the covert recording capabilities make the sale of these devices a criminal offense. The nonprofit also wants restrictions on where the glasses can record, drawing comparisons to existing rules around dashcams and bodycams.
Meta’s response was predictable. A spokesperson told Politico EU that the glasses were “built with privacy safeguards from the ground up that go beyond what any smartphone offers.” That’s a bold claim. The glasses do have an LED that lights up during recording, and Meta’s software blocks the camera if it detects that LED has been physically covered. But aftermarket accessories are already on the market specifically designed to suppress that light without tripping Meta’s detection system. So much for the safeguard.
The complaint matters because Germany tends to set the tone for privacy enforcement across Europe. If HateAid’s argument gains traction, it could push regulators in other countries to take a harder look at wearable cameras in public spaces. This isn’t a fringe concern either. Smart glasses are no longer a novelty product worn by early adopters. They’re increasingly affordable, increasingly capable, and increasingly hard to distinguish from ordinary eyewear at a glance.
But the LED debate is almost a distraction from the deeper problem. Meta’s privacy settings mostly protect the person wearing the glasses. They do nothing for the people around them. Those bystanders haven’t agreed to anything. They haven’t read a privacy policy. Some probably don’t even know glasses like these exist. That asymmetry is exactly what HateAid is pointing at, and it’s a legitimate concern that Meta’s spokesperson didn’t meaningfully address.
The history here also doesn’t help Meta’s case. In June, the company quietly removed dormant facial recognition code from the glasses’ companion app after Wired discovered it sitting there. That’s not the kind of thing you stumble onto and feel reassured by.
Then there’s what happens after footage leaves the glasses. Standard photos and videos stay on the device unless the user opts into cloud storage. But AI features work differently. When a wearer asks Meta AI about something they’re looking at, data about their surroundings gets sent to Meta’s servers for processing. Third-party contractors then review and label some of those interactions for AI training purposes. And according to a Swedish newspaper report from earlier this year, some of those contractors in Kenya encountered genuinely disturbing material captured through the glasses, including nudity, bathroom footage, sexual acts, credit card numbers, and other sensitive information.
That is not a theoretical privacy risk. That already happened. And the people captured in that footage had no idea.