The irony was unmissable: how is Ms. Jenner, who was once so worried about privacy, now promoting a device that enables surveillance? Because of her fame, images of her wearing the glasses filled social media, as did videos of her teenage self lamenting the lack of privacy she was afforded.
In June, reality star Kylie Jenner posted her latest collaboration on social media — a new design for Meta’s line of AI-powered “smart glasses”.
Built-in speakers help you listen to music and an integrated camera enables you to capture photos or videos through the lenses. Meta describes these glasses as “normal-looking eyewear with discreetly integrated glasses technology. Hidden from the naked eye, these glasses contain “tiny speakers, microphones, [and] a lightweight camera. The tech giant isn’t shying away from how inconspicuous these features are; rather, it is flaunting it.
These glasses allow you to see and answer calls, messages, and notifications via voice command, according to Meta.
Stickers that claim to completely cover the LED recording indicator are also widely available. Yet, workarounds are just a Google search away. The glasses also make a shutter sound when they start and stop recording, but this is not a strong indicator that you are being recorded. Further, Meta argues that the glasses are “designed for privacy, controlled by you. This means entire movies can be recorded, university lectures can be taped, confidential documents scanned, and patient information collected. It also means that even those who are not intentionally engaging in malpractice could invariably do so — by capturing something private in the frame’s periphery, for example. Ultimately, these glasses allow for the extensive, non-consensual collection of data. Following the landmark K.S. Puttaswamy vs. This means that people, even in public spaces, don’t generally expect to be captured in detail. But the DPDPA excludes information that is made publicly available. The Act’s scope is diluted further since there are minimal indicators that you could be in someone’s frame, unlike someone recording on their phone.
Because the Act does not regulate how someone is being recorded in public, hence, the reasonable expectation of privacy granted by Puttaswamy is not met. In India, the glasses, which have been advertised everywhere, retail at around ₹25,000. These risks are compounded by the glasses’ battery life, offering 4-9 hours of active use. Union of India 2017 judgment, reasonable expectation of privacy was recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21.
Meta says that if the LED is covered, the glasses will block the recording until the sticker is removed. But this “control” is limited to the wearer, and not the recorded subject, such as requiring additional verification before use.
