Smart glasses are already causing havoc in India
Shubnam was packing boxes for a move into a new home when their friend sent them an Instagram video. The footage had only been up for a few hours, but it was days old, recorded at a Delhi protest this spring against a bill that would have narrowed the legal recognition for transgender people in….
Smart glasses are wearable devices with built-in cameras and screens, designed to look like regular eyeglasses. In India, their use is growing rapidly, with companies like Meta and Reliance Jio introducing affordable models. Meta’s latest smart glasses cost $420 in India, while Reliance Jio plans to launch a version priced under $105 later in 2026. These devices allow users to record videos and take photos discreetly, as they resemble ordinary glasses. However, their inconspicuous design raises significant privacy concerns, particularly in a country where covert recording and nonconsensual sharing of images are already widespread issues. The article highlights how these glasses are being misused to target marginalized groups, such as transgender individuals, and are also being adopted by law enforcement for surveillance purposes, further complicating privacy debates.
Shubnam, a 38-year-old transfeminine graphic designer and educator, experienced firsthand the harm caused by smart glasses. During a protest in Delhi against a bill targeting transgender rights in spring 2026, a content creator recorded Shubnam without consent using Meta smart glasses disguised as ordinary Wayfarers. The footage was edited into a mocking video that went viral, accumulating millions of views and triggering transphobic abuse, reaction videos, and AI-generated memes. The video spread across platforms like Instagram, X, and YouTube, where copies remain accessible today. For Shubnam, the incident undid years of personal progress, leaving them feeling exposed and vulnerable. They have since avoided wearing a sari outside their neighborhood, fearing further exposure. This case illustrates how smart glasses can amplify harm when used to record and share private moments without consent.
Privacy risks associated with smart glasses are particularly acute in India due to weak legal protections and low digital literacy. India’s laws against voyeurism and nonconsensual sharing of intimate images were designed for more traditional forms of abuse, such as secretly filming someone undressing or in a private setting. These laws offer limited protection when someone is recorded in an ordinary public space and the footage is used to humiliate them. Social media platforms in India have up to 36 hours to act on complaints about harmful content, a delay that can allow videos to be downloaded, copied, and widely circulated before removal. Experts warn that the lack of clear regulations and the normalization of covert recording create an environment where marginalized groups, including women and transgender individuals, face disproportionate harm.
Smart glasses are being used both by individuals and law enforcement in India, raising ethical and legal concerns. In June 2026, Delhi police allegedly used Meta smart glasses to continuously record student protesters for weeks, including during breaks for food and rest. The footage was reportedly used to threaten protesters by sending videos to their parents and colleges. A petition filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union president Aishe Ghosh alleged that police violated protesters’ privacy, but India’s solicitor general dismissed the case as "luxury litigation." Instead of investigating the allegations, police opened 10 criminal investigations against the protesters for offenses like rioting and damage to public property. This case highlights how smart glasses can be weaponized for surveillance, particularly against vulnerable groups.
Meta claims its smart glasses include safeguards to protect privacy, such as an LED light that blinks when recording is in progress. The company states that the LED cannot be turned off and that covering or damaging it disables the camera. However, tutorials and modifications, such as disabling the LED or removing it entirely, have been demonstrated, making covert recording easier. Meta argues that users are responsible for complying with privacy laws, placing the burden on bystanders to notice the LED. Reliance Jio, which plans to launch a rival product, did not respond to requests for comment on privacy safeguards. Experts criticize this approach, noting that India’s weak understanding of consent and low digital literacy make these safeguards insufficient to prevent harm.
The risks of smart glasses are expected to grow with the introduction of AI features in future models. Internal prototypes of new Meta glasses reportedly include AI that continuously photographs and listens to the wearer’s surroundings, enabling the glasses to recall what they saw or heard. Unlike active recording, these AI features would not trigger the external LED light, making it impossible for bystanders to know when their information is being collected. Meta states that it intends to keep the LED for active capture but not for AI features that interpret surroundings, arguing that a constantly blinking light could become unnoticeable. Critics argue that this approach risks normalizing constant surveillance, leaving society unable to adapt to the threats posed by these technologies.
India’s legal system has not kept pace with the challenges posed by smart glasses. Current laws offer limited protection against nonconsensual recording in public spaces, and social media platforms’ response times for removing harmful content can be too slow. The Internet Freedom Foundation, a digital rights organization, highlights that India’s laws against voyeurism and sharing intimate images were not designed for scenarios involving ordinary public settings. Meanwhile, law enforcement’s use of smart glasses for surveillance complicates efforts to regulate these devices. Experts emphasize that the lack of clear regulations, combined with low digital literacy, creates an environment where marginalized groups are disproportionately affected by covert recording and nonconsensual sharing of footage.
