Smart glasses are already causing havoc in India | MIT Technology Review

You need to enable JavaScript to view this site.

Skip to ContentMenuMIT Technology ReviewMIT Technology ReviewThe Big StoryArtificial intelligenceBiotech & healthClimate & energy10 Breakthrough TechnologiesEmTech Future live eventThe Kids issueMenuMIT Technology ReviewMIT Technology ReviewThe Big StoryArtificial intelligenceBiotech & healthClimate & energy10 Breakthrough TechnologiesEmTech Future live eventThe Kids issueHumans and technologySmart glasses are already causing havoc in IndiaAnd the chances of a crackdown are slim, as the authorities spy opportunities for surveillance.
By Anuj Behalarchive pageSeptember 23, 2026Photo Illustration by Sarah Rogers/MITTR | Photos GettyEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 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 India.  There, a content creator known for rage-bait videos had approached Shubnam, a 38-year-old transfeminine graphic designer and educator. Shubnam, who uses a single chosen name, was dressed in a green sari with a shaved head, and the creator asked why they were wearing “female clothing.” Shubnam told him to back off. Only when the video arrived did they realize he had recorded the exchange on Meta smart glasses, styled to look like ordinary Wayfarers.  Edited into a mocking reel, the footage drew millions of views, along with transphobic abuse, reaction videos, and AI-generated memes. It spread from Instagram to X and YouTube. Copies remain online today.  For Shubnam, the video has caused huge harm. “All it took was one unconsented video to rewind two decades of progress that I made all on my own,” they told MIT Technology Review. “For a moment, it felt like this entire adult life I had lived was just a long lucid dream, and I was going to wake up as that clueless queer child again.” They haven’t worn a sari outside their neighborhood since.
Experts warn that many others will experience similar ordeals as smart glasses go mainstream. And they say privacy problems are becoming especially acute in India, where covert recording and the circulation of images without consent are already pervasive. Cases of cyberstalking, sextortion, deepfakes, and other forms of online abuse are growing in the country. And the chances of a crackdown on technologies such as smart glasses are slim, given that Indian law enforcement authorities are themselves increasingly adopting AI-powered surveillance tools, including facial recognition systems and their own AI-enabled smart glasses.
Related StoryInside Anduril and Meta’s quest to make smart glasses for warfareRead next An unequal burden Smart glasses are among the fastest-growing devices in India’s wearables market, according to the International Data Corporation, a research firm. And Reliance Jio, one of the country’s largest telecommunications companies, says that later this year it’s set to launch a sub-$105 rival to Meta’s glasses, the latest model of which have a $420 price tag in India.  The core privacy issue is that these cameras don’t look like cameras, so targets may not notice they’re being recorded. Yet Meta rejects the idea that it’s responsible for protecting people from intrusions, says Janusz Świerczyński, an Oxford Saïd Business School researcher who studies privacy and emerging technology. “More and more, the expectation is being placed on bystanders to look out for themselves,” he says. That means it’s up to them to spot a small LED in the glasses frames that activates when recording is in progress. Meta also relies on wearers to behave responsibly, says Świerczyński. Reliance Jio did not respond to our request for comment on privacy issues related to its upcoming glasses.  Creators have already demonstrated ways to circumvent the recording light on Meta’s glasses. Tutorials show users how to cover or otherwise obscure the LED while continuing to record. Back in March, Wired documented a market for “stealth mode” modifications that physically disable the light or remove it entirely.  All that makes covert recording easier, and the risks are not borne equally. Świerczyński says women and other marginalized groups face greater harm when inconspicuous devices capture and circulate footage without consent—as happened to Shubnam. The bigger problem, however, is that in India smart glasses aren’t just being used to turn ordinary people into targets of viral “pranks.” They’re also being adopted as a tool of police surveillance.  In June, when thousands of young demonstrators gathered to protest problems with the country’s education system, Delhi police used Meta smart glasses to record them. In fact, a petition filed by former Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union president Aishe Ghosh before the Delhi High Court alleged that police had filmed protesters continuously for weeks, including while they were eating and resting. It also alleged that the police had threatened to send footage of student demonstrators to their parents and colleges.

In July, India’s solicitor general dismissed the case in court as “luxury litigation.” Instead of investigating the students’ complaints, police turned on the students themselves, opening 10 criminal investigations for offenses including rioting, assault on public servants, and damage to public property. Some of the protesters, who spoke to MIT Technology Review on condition of anonymity, say they never saw the LED on the Meta AI glasses police wore during the demonstrations.  Filming without consent Meta maintains that its safeguard works. The company told MIT Technology Review, “Every pair has a capture LED that blinks when you take a photo or video that you can save or share; it can’t be turned off, and if someone covers or damages the LED, the camera is disabled.” The company also says users are responsible for complying with the law and respecting people’s privacy. That approach is risky, especially in India, where norms around filming and consent are still highly disputed and digital literacy is still uneven, says Sameer Parmar, a counselor at Meri Trustline, a safety partner working with Meta and YouTube to support people harmed by online content.  “The hardware is improving, but the country’s weak understanding of consent gives an invisible camera far more room to cause harm,” he says. Simply being in a public place is often treated as implicit consent to be photographed or filmed. He says the help line has been seeing an uptick in cases involving covert recording and nonconsensual footage. “Violations of this access have increased significantly and are expected to rise further in India,” he says. People are recorded in medical settings, during private encounters, and in public spaces. Those with less power to object are particularly vulnerable, he adds. “It’s either trolling or it’s playing pranks on them and then recording them” he says. Abusers “do target people who are a little more unaware or susceptible to how this technology-facilitated harm works.” The law in India has not caught up with this new kind of harm, says Apar Gupta, a lawyer and founder-director of the Internet Freedom Foundation. “India’s laws against voyeurism and the sharing of intimate images were designed largely around more recognizable forms of abuse,” he says, citing offenses such as secretly filming someone undressing, using a toilet, or engaged in a sexual act. “[The laws] offer limited protection when someone is secretly filmed in an ordinary public setting and the footage is then used to humiliate them,” he says.
Social media platforms’ rules do offer another route to removing harmful content filmed with smart glasses, but it’s not an immediate remedy. “Under India’s current rules, platforms can have up to 36 hours to act on certain complaints—a window that can be long enough for a video to be downloaded, copied, and circulated elsewhere,” he says. The problem of filming without consent seems set to grow. According to the Financial Times, some internal prototypes of new Meta glasses include AI features that continuously photograph and listen to the wearer’s surroundings, enabling the glasses to later recall what they saw or heard. These functions wouldn’t activate the external recording indicator, making it impossible for bystanders to know when information about them is being collected.
Meta told us it intends to keep the LED for active capture, such as taking photos or recording video, but not for AI features that interpret the wearer’s surroundings. Its argument is that a constantly blinking light could eventually become so commonplace that people stop noticing it. But that logic risks putting society in a perpetual game of catch-up, says Woodrow Hartzog, a professor of law at Boston University. “Tech companies have an incredible ability to push these tools out faster than society can meaningfully acclimate to the threat,” he says. “By the time society catches up, there’s already a degree of normalization.” For Shubnam, the danger is not just that people may become accustomed to being recorded. It is that they will become accustomed to seeing versions of themselves that they never chose to put out into the world.  “Being comprehended along the lines of a narrative that I didn’t compose or consent to—that imposed recognition makes you feel like you’re powerless in how people know you,” they say.  by Anuj BehalShareShare story on linkedinShare story on facebookShare story on emailPopularA fundamental flaw leaves LLMs strikingly vulnerable to attackWill Douglas HeavenAI’s recursive self-improvement might not come so quickly after allMichelle KimHere’s why AI agents lie and cheat to reach their goalsGrace HuckinsThese startups are chasing the next big thing in LLMsWill Douglas HeavenKeep ReadingMost PopularA fundamental flaw leaves LLMs strikingly vulnerable to attackIt makes it easy to trick them into doing things they shouldn’t, such as telling you how to sabotage an aircraft’s navigation system.
By Will Douglas Heavenarchive pageAI’s recursive self-improvement might not come so quickly after allAI agents are not yet creative enough to carry out genuinely innovative open-ended AI research, it seems.
By Michelle Kimarchive pageHere’s why AI agents lie and cheat to reach their goalsThe misbehavior is called reward hacking. This is what you need to know.
By Grace Huckinsarchive pageThese startups are chasing the next big thing in LLMsMeet the new kids nipping at the heels of the AI giants.
By Will Douglas Heavenarchive pageStay connectedIllustration by Rose WongGet the latest updates fromMIT Technology ReviewDiscover special offers, top stories,
upcoming events, and more.Enter your emailPrivacy PolicyThank you for submitting your email!Explore more newslettersIt looks like something went wrong.
We’re having trouble saving your preferences.
Try refreshing this page and updating them one
more time. If you continue to get this message,
reach out to us at
customer-service@technologyreview.com with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.The latest iteration of a legacyFounded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1899, MIT Technology Review is a world-renowned, independent media company whose insight, analysis, reviews, interviews and live events explain the newest technologies and their commercial, social and political impact.READ ABOUT OUR HISTORYAdvertise with MIT Technology ReviewElevate your brand to the forefront of conversation around emerging technologies that are radically transforming business. From event sponsorships to custom content to visually arresting video storytelling, advertising with MIT Technology Review creates opportunities for your brand to resonate with an unmatched audience of technology and business elite.ADVERTISE WITH US© 2026 MIT Technology ReviewAboutAbout usCareersCustom contentAdvertise with usInternational EditionsRepublishingMIT Alumni NewsHelpHelp & FAQMy subscriptionEditorial guidelinesPrivacy policyTerms of ServiceWrite for usContact uslinkedin opens in a new windowinstagram opens in a new windowreddit opens in a new windowfacebook opens in a new windowrss opens in a new window

Smart glasses present significant privacy and social challenges in India, exemplified by personal experiences of nonconsensual recording and the growing threat of surveillance, though the likelihood of immediate legal crackdowns remains low. An incident involving a graphic designer who was recorded without consent using Meta smart glasses, which was subsequently circulated in mocking reels, demonstrated the profound harm caused, leading the individual to feel that two decades of personal progress were nullified, highlighting how unconsented footage can impact personal identity and autonomy. Experts warn that as smart glasses become mainstream, similar ordeals are likely to affect many more people, emphasizing that privacy issues are particularly acute in India, where covert recording and image circulation without consent are already widespread in contexts involving cyberstalking, sextortion, and deepfakes.

The core privacy concern with smart glasses lies in their design; because the cameras do not resemble traditional cameras, targets may not be aware they are being recorded, which complicates accountability. Meta posits that responsibility lies with bystanders to monitor the glasses for an activation light, and that users must behave responsibly. However, this framework is insufficient given the technological landscape and existing societal norms. Creators have demonstrated methods to circumvent the recording light through modifications, indicating that covert recording is technically feasible. Furthermore, this dynamic disproportionately impacts women and marginalized groups, who face greater harm when inconspicuous devices capture and disseminate footage without consent.

The scope of the issue extends beyond individual harassment to state-level surveillance. In India, smart glasses are being utilized by law enforcement, as demonstrated when Delhi police used them to record protests. Allegations arose that these recordings were used to justify criminal investigations against demonstrators, indicating a shift where technology facilitates surveillance and subsequent punitive action against the populace rather than protecting them. This situation is complicated by legal vulnerabilities; the existing Indian laws concerning voyeurism and image sharing were designed around older forms of abuse and are deemed inadequate to address the harm caused by covert filming in public settings. Legal experts suggest that this lack of established norms surrounding consent grants technology-facilitated harm increased latitude.

Social media platforms offer limited remedies, as their timelines for action are often too protracted for rapidly circulated content, allowing videos to spread before intervention occurs. Looking toward future developments, internal prototypes of technology are being developed that integrate artificial intelligence features capable of continuous recording and listening, which would not require an external indicator, effectively removing the ability for bystanders to know when information is being collected. This advancement raises a concern that the pace of technological development outstrips society's ability to adapt, risking normalization of pervasive recording technologies. The ultimate danger, as articulated by those affected, is not merely being accustomed to being recorded but experiencing an imposed narrative of recognition that the individual did not consent to, leading to a sense of powerlessness regarding how others perceive them.