Cinemas, educational institutions, and ICE are all prohibiting the use of Meta smart glasses.

      Cinemas became the newest institution to take action against Meta smart glasses on Thursday. The UK Cinema Association announced that many operators are implementing policies to limit the use of camera-enabled eyewear. It cited two main reasons: film piracy and customer privacy.

      On its own, this illustrates a trade body managing risk. However, considering the last two weeks, it suggests a larger trend. Various entities, including American school districts, a federal immigration agency, a hacker conference, NBA arenas, and a British pub chain, have all drawn similar conclusions regarding the same product, though their reasons differ significantly.

      The association stated that operators are “mindful of the privacy and film piracy issues” associated with the technology. Many now have policies “to prohibit and/or restrict the wearing of camera-enabled smart glasses in their venues.” They are not aware of any outright bans by their members yet. This body represents over 90% of UK cinema operators in terms of both number and market share.

      Accessibility adds complexity to this issue, as the association pointed out. Smart glasses can provide customized subtitles and assist viewers with sight or hearing impairments.

      The cinema policy has been in place for twelve years. Interestingly, the association did not mention that it has already drafted this rule. The text still appears on the trade body’s website under its key issues, dated 2014 and last updated in January 2023.

      The association advises cinemas to request that customers do not bring image-recording devices into auditoriums at all, regardless of whether a film is showing. Staff should ask anyone wearing such devices to remove them and may request that they leave the venue.

      This policy was originally formulated for Google Glass when the organization was known as the Cinema Exhibitors’ Association. The current chief executive, Phil Clapp, has held the position since October 2007, so he is still leading the body that initiated the rule.

      Clapp explained his reasoning to The Register in June 2014 when Glass had just launched in Britain at a price of £1,000. “We believe it is generally more challenging to detect when they are recording, so our approach is precautionary,” he stated.

      The policy has remained unchanged since then. Glass did not proceed beyond the beta stage, and Google subsequently withdrew it from consumer sales. In 2021, Meta released its glasses, priced at £359, which have since become some of its best-selling hardware.

      The concern surrounding schools is the most pressing. A recent report from Futurism's Maggie Harrison Dupré detailed numerous videos captured inside middle and high schools using smart glasses, predominantly Meta's, which were then uploaded to TikTok and Instagram.

      A teenage boy filmed all of the videos mentioned in the publication. His actions were largely directed at girls, following them and mocking their appearances. Futurism chose not to link to any footage since many minors were featured.

      Both TikTok and Instagram failed to catch the content, which remained online until Futurism reported it. Following this, Meta removed most of the videos, and TikTok addressed those brought to its attention.

      On August 17, TNW reported a similar trend. Instagram had blocked relevant search terms, yet its algorithm continued to recommend the videos.

      A phone ban does not address face-mounted devices. One notable incident involved a student who filmed himself putting his smartphone into a pouch designated for confiscated devices, all while still wearing the camera on his face.

      “These are way more discreet than I thought,” one teacher remarked after catching a student filming.

      Andy Liddell from the EdTech Law Center in Austin commented to Futurism that classrooms differ significantly from public spaces. “Traditionally, classrooms have been private spaces that not everyone can access, and therefore, there is an expectation of privacy,” he noted. “In fact, school is the last place these glasses ought to be.”

      Districts in Florida, California, and Nevada have implemented explicit bans. Meta stated that schools are best positioned to understand their students' needs and respect their authority to set regulations, while also acknowledging that some students with disabilities may benefit from the technology.

      Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) prohibited employees from wearing Meta smart glasses at work this week, treating them as body-worn cameras.

      Acting director David Venturella noted in a memo reported by the New York Times that the devices “could unintentionally capture, record or transmit sensitive information, potentially compromising privacy and legal protections.” The ban applies to all personnel in federal workplaces, not just law enforcement officers.

      An ICE spokesperson was more straightforward in comments to The Register: “This isn’t news; nothing has changed.” They added that personally owned body-worn cameras have always been forbidden.

      Two points stand out in this context. In April, the Department of Homeland Security sought $7.5 million to develop its own smart glasses prototype, which could “enable biometric identification of illegal aliens.” That same month, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to Meta signed by 77 organizations, urging