Expert Comment: Meta glasses’ privacy protections neglect those being watched

As Kylie Jenner and other celebrities sign on to promote the newest Meta glasses, you may be intrigued; you may think the whole thing sounds a bit creepy or dystopian; you may decide you don’t want to shell out a few hundred pounds for a pair - but these glasses may affect you anyway.

Meta’s smart glasses appear to be selling well, with more than 7 million pairs reportedly sold last year, but the company is now prototyping a version designed to capture the world around the wearer continuously, all day, rather than only when someone chooses to activate it. This move is Meta’s bet on a future in which discreet, AI-powered smart glasses normalise constant recording whilst making it chic. And Meta is not alone. Other companies across the globe, including Apple and Google, are also rushing to invest in their own ‘surveillance sunnies’.

Meta is no stranger to privacy violations and this time they’ve come prepared for the backlash. Or so they think. The company claims that privacy has been built from ‘the ground up’, explaining that recordings will remain private unless they are shared by the user. But what about the privacy of those being recorded? Their only hope is that they notice a small flashing LED that lights up when the user is recording.

Consider this in light of a growing trend of sharing ‘nightlife content’ - referring to the surreptitious recording of women in public spaces as they go about their life. In particular, the focus is on capturing and revealing intimate moments such as adjusting their skirts. These videos are then shared online, without the women’s knowledge or consent, quickly followed by an influx of misogynistic comments. The availability of super-discreet recording devices in the hands of malicious actors like these is alarming.

This highlights the fact that privacy has a definition problem. It is often talked about as an issue of individuals (not) having control over their personal data. That’s certainly a part of privacy, but this definition ignores the fact that with nearly ubiquitous recording devices like smartphones, wearables, and digital doorbells, we increasingly have access to the personal data of other people – bystanders. This makes it impossible for an individual to always have control of their own privacy. For this reason, privacy researchers have refined the definition to privacy being equivalent with the ‘appropriate flow of information’.

By assuming privacy can be handled by merely giving its users control, Meta is missing the mark when it comes to understanding what privacy from ‘the ground up’ is supposed to look like. And they are not alone in this. Research has shown that bystanders are rarely acknowledged or considered in company privacy policies.

This neglectful approach to privacy means that bystanders are left with two options: they can vigilantly ‘watch their own backs’ or simply trust that users will respect their privacy.

The problem with relying on others to respect our privacy is that even well-intentioned people don’t always have the same idea of what is ‘appropriate’. In a recent paper, I showed how our norms around sharing video footage are shaped by factors such as our social class status and whether we are also owners of a similar device or not.

And watching your own back in a world of increasing surveillance is a near-impossible proposition. In the case of Meta’s glasses, the flashing LED indicating recording can be hard to spot. It’s not possible for bystanders to interpret exactly what is being recorded and how it is being processed. Even if bystanders know they might be recorded, it feels like a ‘social faux pas’ to ask the user to stop or change what they are doing.

Researchers have proposed that these types of sneaky cameras could respond to gestures that bystanders could use to opt out. Another idea is that bystanders could attempt to block secretly filmed footage from being shared online by playing copyrighted music. But again, these solutions put an unfeasible expectation on bystanders to protect their own privacy. And Meta itself claims that it is ‘simply not practical’ for them to design better protections for bystanders that would make privacy more tangible, such as an audible shutter sound.

It’s not all doom and gloom, though. The glasses have faced severe pushback, with reports stating that some users are choosing to leave them at home. Public response online has also been less than favourable - with the flashy specs being branded ‘pervert glasses’. Whilst it’s not certain if Meta’s attempt at making surveillance cool will work out, it’s encouraging to see people fight back.

Who knows, maybe casual surveillance will become the next social faux pas.

For more information about this story or republishing this content, please contact [email protected]