Victoria Song has spent months wearing “spy glasses” and always-listening gadgets. Living in what she calls “the wearable surveillance state.” And honestly? It feels lousy holding other people’s privacy in your hands.
She’s been reviewing wearables for a while, but a Netflix show made it click. In A Man on the Inside, Ted Danson plays a widower who takes a private investigator gig. He uses Ray-Ban Meta glasses to spy on an entire retirement home. The show frames him as a charming grandpa solving a crime — but the uncomfortable truth is he’s invading everyone’s privacy, and nobody notices the glasses’ LED privacy light.
That internal conflict? Song feels it too.
Meta has been cranking out smart glasses since the Ray-Ban Meta line exceeded expectations in 2023. Last fall they released their first pair with a display. And just two weeks ago, they launched cheaper glasses without Ray-Ban branding, partnering with Kylie Jenner.
The internet reacted predictably. “We all agree that the Meta glasses are for perverts, yes?” wrote one bestselling author on Threads, to 30,000 likes. Some posts suggest women buy them to surveil harassers. Others suggest violence, snatching glasses, or public shaming.
Meta glasses users are confused by the backlash. They point to accessibility use cases, filming kids or vacations hands-free. Some say they hadn’t thought about privacy at all until the controversy hit.
Both sides have a point. Battery life isn’t good enough for 24/7 surveillance — about an hour of continuous recording. But the fact that you can mod them or take short stealthy clips is unsettling enough. Especially since recent NYT and Wired investigations found Meta is exploring facial recognition features.
Social media isn’t built for nuanced debate. Threads rewards rage bait. But these posts capture a real cultural tension. Smart glasses are here. The question is whether we’re ready for what that means.
