In the penultimate scene in the 2008 Christopher Nolan film Batman: The Dark Knight, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) builds technology to turn every cell phone in Gotham into a surveillance device. He then asks CEO of Wayne Enterprises, Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman) to use it to help him catch the Joker before his next terrorist attack. Fox calls the technology “unethical, dangerous, wrong, and too much power for one person.”
What was mere science fiction in 2008 is science reality less than two decades later. Enter Kylie Jenner, Meta, and the new Meta glasses. Except Meta isn’t framing its new glasses as a last ditch effort to prevent terrorism--but as a fun new device for influencers creating content. And ironically, that casual approach to mass surveillance makes this new technology even more dangerous than what a movie contemplated decades ago. Let’s Address This.
Influence or Intrusion?
The one-minute ad for the new Meta glasses designed and marketed with Kylie Jenner shows the day in the life of the biggest influencer on the planet. She sorts through fan mail, directs her employees, and decides what to wear—all with sleek black sunglasses on her face. (Never mind that she’s indoors for half of it.) The glasses are certainly cooler-looking than previous iterations of this type of tech, and if the output quality is to be trusted, the video they capture is smooth and immersive.
But any creator who thinks this new device can level up their content game should hit pause and look into the eyes of the two actors playing Kylie’s assistants. Did the people they’re meant to represent consent to being recorded by their boss? By anyone as they go about their lives and jobs? What about pedestrians Kylie passes by as she goes shopping? What about people eating next to her at a sushi dinner? These glasses are far more dangerous than a “smart” fashion accessory with a camera inside: They’re surveillance devices turned toward the public, manufactured by corporations, and paid for by consumers.
Kylie made an ad for personal data exploitation, and she and Mark Zuckerberg hope you’ll buy it.
Nefarious Purposes
It’s not hard to imagine how these devices could be used for nefarious purposes. ICE agents have already been spotted with Meta Ray Bans in multiple states, and DHS even has plans to manufacture its own glasses. Women, children, and marginalized groups are already the most vulnerable to the consumer versions; anyone can wear these glasses to a playground, use them to spy on their neighbors, or stalk an ex. When the 2014 iteration of the technology, Google Glass, hit the market consumers met it with resistance, and raised serious privacy concerns. We’ve already had this conversation. Google Glass was a resounding flop.
But the technological, cultural, political, and regulatory environment today is quite different than it was 12 years ago. More and more, our government and private corporations are able to watch, listen, and track us as we move through our lives. We also offer up our own data in the form of photos, tweets, texts, and location sharing, across platforms in order to keep in touch with friends and family. Our data is already out there, and it’s hard to avoid adding more to the pile. Keeping our private data private almost feels impossible. Meta’s glasses have launched into a climate of constant streaming, scrolling, and digital connection. What’s a little more video into the void?
We Can Resist, Again
But privacy surrender is not a foregone conclusion. Already, the public has proven that we can push back. When Amazon Ring advertised a feature leveraging its partnership with surveillance technology company Flock, viewers flew to the internet with outrage. “Search Party” claimed it was taking videos of your neighbors to help a lost puppy find its way home; we knew that its real goal was far more disturbing. Amazon scrapped the feature, and ended its deal with Flock.
Public opinion matters, especially when it comes to consumer devices. Apple is reportedly putting cameras into the next iteration of its Airpods to help Siri “see” its surroundings—including anyone who might happen to walk by. More digital surveillance tech is coming. We must send a message to corporations that we won’t buy these devices. We must tell our representatives that regulations are necessary to make the companies stop being able to sell them.
No one trusts Meta. (Even its own employees.) This is a company complicit in genocide due to its abuse of technology. Does anyone honestly think a company with such low ethical standards should be empowered with even more surveillance power?
Conclusion
Engaging a celebrity with millions of fans to push their technology is a savvy move; any good creator can recognize the strategy. But just because it’s the right move for the company doesn’t mean it’s the right move for creators and consumers, much less, democracy. It’s understandable that some may be tempted to follow the younger’s Kardashian sister’s lead and use the devices to capture content. The glasses look cute, the process looks easy, the results look great. But Meta’s new product is asking consumers to pay to build the company’s surveillance.
Qasim Rashid is a human rights attorney, author, and host of Let’s Address This—a platform dedicated to human rights, accountability, and the fight against the disinformation and hate that corporate media refuses to name. Subscribe, share, and let’s remain relentless in our mission for a more perfect Union.
REMINDER: Rather than a monthly subscription, you can make a one-time contribution to support our human rights platform at any amount that fits your budget.
Flock shades.... Filming without consent. We need a counter device or app that DETECTS surveillance in your proximity! Nip it , nuc it... in the bud! Tit for tat devices need to be available! Can we do that please?
Yes most all inventions have been created out of an idea of doing good I bet. But always someone has to twist it to do evil greedy crap. And I sure don’t trust corporations to ever monitor or govern themselves to do the right thing. It’s always about $$$!