Smartglasses, a type of wearable device, have evolved rapidly since the pioneering yet ill-fated Google Glass received social backlash in 2013. Early adopters were nicknamed “Glassholes”, and the product never reached commercialisation. No one could understand why people would want a weird-looking computer on their face taking photos and recording videos, and getting in the way of social interaction.
This is in stark contrast to the design and functionality of new and emerging smartglass technologies, such as Meta’s Ray-Ban Wayfarer Smart Glasses. These are almost indistinguishable from non-computerised eyewear. And while they are not the first to enter the commercial market, their second-generation tech has contributed to a surge in sales in the past year.
However, existing research into smartglasses tends to overlook the broader social risks and perceptions of them. Our new research begins to address these gaps. It examines how these devices are used in everyday contexts – and reveals the diverse and polarised perceptions Australians have towards them.
We found smartglass owners roam in packs and think they’re pretty cool – but non-owners are more likely to see the devices as endangering their privacy and facilitating anti-social behaviour. While the two groups did have some common ground, our results make the need for regulation clear.
Owners and non-owners
Meta’s Ray-Ban smartglasses are a type of miniature, head-worn computer. They look like regular glasses but allow users to record videos, listen to music, make calls and livestream directly to Facebook. The latest version also has inbuilt artificial intelligence technology.
The glasses are considered a precursor to the commercialisation of fully augmented reality (AR) eyewear. The augmentations are overlays that allow wearers to see and hear computer-generated information that appears responsive to the world around them.
By 2034, the virtual and augmented reality headset industry is expected to be worth US$370 billion.
We surveyed 1,037 adult Australians to understand their views about smartglasses.
Younger Australians are more likely than older groups to take up the technology. Interestingly, a significant majority (95.6%) of smartglass owners know someone else who owns smartglasses. This suggests the technology already has “in-groups”.
Younger device owners use their glasses more often than older owners. They also report higher instances of risky behaviours such as using the device while driving or in anti-social ways such as filming people without their consent.
This underscores the importance of enhanced regulation that prioritises safety and mitigates risky behaviours.
While owners indicate their smart glasses align with their self-image and social status, non-owners express greater anxieties about privacy and anti-social risks.
Non-owners are particularly concerned about appropriate and safe use in shared spaces. They are much more likely to believe wearing and using the device in public is “rude, inappropriate, or offensive”.
Importantly, there are some shared views. For example, both groups recognise the potential benefits of smartglasses and feel similarly that the devices can help people. This bodes well for a future where technology might step in when our human senses are less able.
Potential bias
On face value, the findings reflect growing smartglass adoption, with more than half (58.6%) of participants reporting they own one of these devices. But this almost certainly doesn’t reflect smartglass ownership by the general public.
We used Facebook to advertise our survey, as millions of Australians use this social media platform. But the platform may have introduced bias by pushing the survey to smartglass enthusiasts. It’s also likely owners of smartglasses would be more inclined to answer a survey about the technology.
The market-leading position of Ray-Ban Meta devices may also mean some survey respondents are deeply embedded in the Meta technology ecosystem and are more likely to find the technology (and its many uses) acceptable.
Growing concerns, better regulation
Overall, our study underscores the need for robust regulation of smartglasses to ensure safe and beneficial use. Non-owners’ strong concerns about anti-social outcomes and the potential for misuse highlight the need for further research into how these devices are being used in public spaces.
The ability to surreptitiously record video and take photos has previously caught the attention of Australia’s privacy commissioner. But more recent concerns have emerged with students in the United States successfully installing advanced facial recognition software into a pair of Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses.
These concerns are set to grow as smartglasses become more sophisticated.
For example, in September, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took to the stage of the company’s annual “Meta Connect” conference, sporting the company’s cutting-edge AR glasses.
The ethical and privacy implications of the widespread use of smartglasses give rise to serious concerns about data privacy, heightened surveillance and monitoring. This ultimately impacts public safety and wellbeing. Policymakers must closely monitor smartglass technology and establish frameworks that ensure privacy, security, and fundamental rights while promoting innovation.
