US Senators Ron Wyden and Edward Markey have sent Mark Zuckerberg a rather scathing letter over Meta’s camera glasses. They’ve accused the company of launching a product “tailor-made for invading the privacy of its users and bystanders.” And looking at the incidents they cite, it’s not hard to understand why. Meta has until November 25 to respond.
Meta knew about the risks before launching its glasses
According to the senators, Meta’s own human rights assessment identified risks to women, children, and other vulnerable people back in 2021, before its first Ray-Ban glasses went on sale. The company went ahead anyway. The examples in their press release are disturbing. In 2025, 404 Media reported on men secretly filming women while soliciting sexual services, with the recordings eventually reaching millions of views on social media.
The letter also cites reports of overseas contractors reviewing intimate footage, including people undressing and having sex. More than 70 plaintiffs have sued Meta, alleging sensitive recordings were shared without consent. The senators describe “exposing unsuspecting individuals’ intimate moments to strangers for AI training” as an invasion of privacy. Meta’s commitment to preventing intimate-image abuse, they add, “rings hollow” without meaningful safeguards.
They want answers about who can access recordings, how they’re used for AI training, whether recording lights can be bypassed, and how people can get their data deleted. Markey had already questioned Meta’s reported facial-recognition plans in March.
The world is growing uncomfortable with camera glasses
Norway is preparing restrictions on AI glasses in public spaces, while Oslo has already banned them in schools. Courts in England, Wales, and New York have also imposed restrictions. Australia is considering a ban in government workplaces. California tried introducing penalties for secretly recording people in private spaces, but Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill over its broad definition of wearable devices.
Meta has introduced safeguards that disable recording when the camera’s warning light is obstructed. A welcome improvement, yes. But I still struggle to see how a tiny blinking light protects someone once their private footage has already been recorded and potentially shared with strangers.
RELATED COVERAGE: