70 organizations warn Meta: facial recognition glasses threaten violence victims

More than seventy human rights organizations have sent an open letter to Meta demanding that the company abandon development of facial recognition features in Ray-Ban and Oakley Smart Glasses. Among the signatories are ACLU, EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) and Fight for the Future. The authors warn that the technology would turn wearable devices into a surveillance tool that abusers, stalkers and harassers would immediately exploit.

The organizations' concerns are not abstract. In autumn 2024, two Harvard students published a demonstration project called I-XRAY, which showed how Ray-Ban glasses with live streaming capability, combined with reverse image search, allow real-time deanonymization of passersby — obtaining a stranger's name, home address and phone number in seconds. Meta was forced to publicly comment on the experiment, but facial recognition never appeared in the company's official products.

Now, apparently, the situation is changing. According to information in the coalition's letter, Meta is considering built-in facial recognition as one of the key features of the next generation of glasses. Human rights advocates insist that any implementation of this technology in wearables is fundamentally different from surveillance cameras or smartphone apps.

Glasses look like a normal fashion accessory — the person nearby has no idea they are being scanned, identified and possibly entered into a database. In practice, this means any wearer of such glasses becomes an inconspicuous surveillance agent operating among an unsuspecting crowd. The letter authors highlight several categories of people for whom the feature poses a direct safety threat.

Victims of domestic violence and stalking who have changed their address and job can be discovered by pursuers right on the street. Undocumented immigrants risk being identified and handed over to authorities. LGBTQ+ people who have not yet publicly revealed their identity can be "outed" against their will.

Sex workers and survivors of sexual violence would be at risk of re-victimization by those who know their face but don't know their current location. Particularly concerning is the fact that Meta already possesses one of the world's largest facial databases. The company spent years collecting biometric data through Facebook and Instagram until regulators in several states and European countries forced it to stop the practice and pay substantial fines.

Connecting the existing database with identification functionality in wearable glasses would not be technically difficult. Yet those whose faces enter the field of view of such devices never consented to the processing of their biometric data. The coalition is demanding that Meta publicly commit to never implementing facial recognition in smart glasses or any other consumer wearable devices.

In parallel, human rights advocates are calling on the U.S. Congress to pass a federal law on biometric privacy — analogous to laws in Illinois, Texas and Washington states, which require companies to obtain explicit user consent before collecting biometric data and permit private lawsuits against violators.

Without such a law, those harmed are deprived of a legal mechanism for protection. Meta has not yet commented on the appeal. The company continues to develop its smart glasses line: Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses became one of the few truly commercially successful wearables in recent years, and the partnership with Oakley opens access to the sports audience.

Built-in AI assistant and camera have already made the glasses a tool for passive observation — facial recognition would be the next logical step, but this is precisely what human rights advocates call a red line, beyond which surveillance becomes a weapon against vulnerable people. The Meta story is part of a broader discussion about the limits of biometric surveillance in public spaces. No major technology company has yet implemented facial recognition in mass-market wearables, but competitive pressure makes this scenario increasingly realistic.

The time to establish rules — before the technology becomes ubiquitous — is rapidly running out.