When Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg strolled into court last week to go on trial for an ongoing case of social media addiction, his entourage made a statement with their choice of eyewear, and it technically had nothing to do with fashion. Naturally, the crew was rocking Meta’s smart glasses, which was a problem, because, uh, it’s a courtroom.
According to tech journalist Jacob Ward, who hosts the “Rip Current” podcast, a judge was none too pleased with the decision to wear camera-clad eyewear, telling CBS News that, “The judge upbraided the Meta team and said if you guys have recorded anything, you have to dispose of it, or I will hold you in contempt.”
It seems like a dumb move on Zuckerberg’s part, but maybe it wasn’t altogether ignorant. I’m going to assume that he and his entourage considered the implications of bringing a recording device into court, since, as far as I know, they’re fully aware of the Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses‘ capabilities. But maybe, instead of saying “we better not,” they went with the old adage: “no such thing as bad press.” The thing is, I’m not sure the press that Zuckerberg is getting for the little stunt is exactly what he was looking for. Sure, we’re all talking about Meta’s smart glasses, but we’re also talking about how they’re basically a liability.
If there’s one thing 2025 showed us in the tech world, it’s that smart glasses are becoming more of a thing, and with that rise in popularity comes some important questions. One of the most important is: what does this mean for everyone’s privacy? If you talk to the College Board or some cruise liners (both of whom have banned smart glasses in some capacities) or women who have been recorded unconsenually on the street, I’m willing to wager that the feelings towards the future of smart glasses as they pertain to privacy aren’t great.
The fact of the matter is, smart glasses make it easier to record people without their knowledge, and even if there’s an LED indicator on the front that lets people know when the camera on a pair of smart glasses is activated, lots of people can miss it, or they may not even know what it means in the first place. Sometimes that POV content can be fun to watch—like in the case of this crypto bro who rushed the field during Super Bowl LX. Sometimes, though, it’s downright gross.
It’s clear some people and institutions are ready to talk about how and when we should use smart glasses, but Meta has seemingly not been one of those institutions—and for good reason. Conversations around privacy and smart glasses are tough to have because, as I’ve covered before, there are inherent problems that could bubble up. There are potential issues with wearing smart glasses in courtrooms, as we’ve already established, but also even more private places like public restrooms or in certain occupations, like the person doing your waxing or doctors.
And for a company like Meta, where privacy is already a bit of a touchy issue because of, oh, I don’t know, quite a few reasons, it’s probably best to steer clear of anything that could encroach on private lives or, in the case of smart glasses, can record people discreetly without their consent. Yet, here we are, talking about smart glasses and their potential to do Bad Things—Bad Things in a courtroom, with a judge present. So, maybe this whole thing was a ploy to gin up interest, but for most of us (and at least one judge), it comes off as one giant red flag.
Read the full article here
