The law won’t save us from Meta’s ‘pervert glasses’. The only solution is mockery | Jonathan Liew
Guardian columnist Jonathan Liew argues that Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses, dubbed "pervert glasses" by critics, threaten public life by normalising covert filming, and that legislation alone cannot fix this. He contends the devices let wearers record people without consent, with weak safeguards against disabling the recording indicator, while Meta focuses on marketing reassurances rather than addressing the underlying design flaws. He argues the harm goes beyond obvious misuse by "creeps and perverts" to a deeper erosion of trust and personal agency, since even well-intentioned filming without consent amounts to a violation.
Liew notes around nine million Ray-Ban Meta glasses are already in circulation, turning public spaces into zones of constant, unregulated, mobile surveillance unlike fixed CCTV cameras. He points out that because wearables are marketed as fashion items rather than surveillance tools, legal responses tend to be reactive and insufficient, citing Denmark's attempt at regulation as one example. His proposed remedy, previewed in the piece, is social mockery and shaming as a more immediate check on the technology's spread than the law.
- Meta's smart glasses enable covert filming, eroding public trust and privacy.
- About nine million Ray-Ban Meta glasses are already in use worldwide.
- Author says law is too slow; public mockery could deter misuse better.
New here? Start with this
Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses look like ordinary eyewear but include a camera and can record video. Meta makes them with Ray-Ban, and the small recording light is meant to alert people nearby when filming is under way.
The debate is about how these wearable cameras affect people who may be recorded without knowing or agreeing. Unlike fixed CCTV, they can move through streets, shops and other shared spaces with the wearer, raising questions about privacy and trust.
Governments can set rules on recording, but laws may struggle to keep pace with devices sold as fashion accessories and used in many different settings. The wider issue is how people and communities respond when new technology changes what feels acceptable in public.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Liew’s case is that discreet, mobile cameras can make people feel watched in ordinary public spaces, weakening trust and control over when they are recorded. If indicators can be bypassed and the glasses are sold as fashion, legal rules may struggle to keep pace; social disapproval could offer a more immediate deterrent and reinforce consent norms.
The case against
A reasonable counterargument is that smart glasses have legitimate uses, including accessibility, hands-free communication and documenting events, and that misuse should not define the technology. Clearer privacy rules, enforceable safeguards and public education may address covert recording more fairly than mockery, which could stigmatise wearers regardless of their conduct and leave the underlying design unchanged.