Toggle search
Toggle menu
5.5K
6.1K
231
53.7K
VR & AR Wiki
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Privacy in virtual and augmented reality

vrarwiki.com · VR & AR Wiki
More actions

Privacy in virtual and augmented reality covers the personal data that virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) hardware collects, what that data can reveal about the wearer and about people nearby, and the technical, corporate and legal responses to those risks. A head-mounted display or a pair of camera-equipped smart glasses continuously senses head and hand motion, eye movement, facial muscles, the wearer's voice and the shape of the surrounding room, and many devices also carry outward-facing cameras that record bystanders who never agreed to be captured.

Peer-reviewed work has shown that these sensor streams identify people. A 2020 Stanford study identified 95% of 511 participants from head and hand tracking alone,[1] and a 2023 UC Berkeley study identified users among a pool of more than 50,000 with 94.33% accuracy from 100 seconds of motion.[2] Bystander concerns go back to Google Glass in 2013 and returned with the Ray-Ban Meta glasses; between 2025 and 2026 Meta Platforms issued three firmware updates to stop wearers from defeating the glasses' recording light,[3] and its reported plans for facial recognition on the glasses drew a letter from 75 civil liberties groups and a proposed class action under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.[4][5]

By October 2026 camera glasses had become a regulatory issue in several countries. New York State's courts barred recording-capable eyewear from their buildings in July 2026 and courts in England and Wales began confiscating Meta smart glasses at the door in August 2026,[6][7] California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill on 30 September 2026 that would have required recording indicators on wearable cameras,[8] Norway's government proposed on 5 October 2026 a temporary ban on "AI glasses" in selected public places,[9] and on 13 October 2026 the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted a statement on the data protection challenges of smart glasses.[10]

Reviewed 14 October 2026. The October 2026 additions: 2026 contractor-footage reporting, class action, ICO/Kenya inquiries and Sama contract end; CNIL alert, EDPB statement, New York and HMCTS court bans, California SB 1130 veto, Norway proposal, Dutch developments, Austrian court ruling and the 2026 timeline table, each against its cited source. About review dates.

Data collected by XR devices

VR and AR systems need sensor data to function: inside-out tracking cameras map the room so the headset knows where it is, eye tracking drives foveated rendering and gaze input, and face tracking animates an avatar. The privacy problem is that the same streams carry information well beyond what the feature needs. Roesner, Kohno and Molnar argued in 2014 that the security concerns AR systems pose should be addressed before the systems became widespread.[11] A 2024 systematization of 74 VR privacy publications by Garrido, Nair and Song concluded that sensitive personal information can be observed from small amounts of telemetry, while VR lacks many of the defenses users take for granted on the web.[12]

Data stream Why the device collects it What research or policy documents say it can reveal
Head and hand motion (6DoF pose over time) Rendering the view and tracking controllers or hands Identity across sessions: 95% of 511 users (Stanford, 2020)[1] and 94.33% of 55,541 users from 100 seconds (Berkeley, 2023).[2] Height, wingspan, age and gender among more than 25 attributes inferred in a purpose-built game.[13]
Eye images and gaze Gaze input, foveated rendering, iris authentication Biometric identity, gender, age, ethnicity, body weight, personality traits, drug consumption habits, emotional state, skills, fears, interests and sexual preferences, plus indicators of physical and mental health conditions (Kröger, Lutz and Müller).[14]
Face images and expression weights Avatar expressions Meta's Quest Pro notice describes the output as generic expressions such as a broad smile or frown; the raw images are deleted on the headset.[15]
Spatial data (room mesh, walls, objects, depth) Mixed reality placement and guardian boundaries Meta defines it as the size, shape and location of walls, surfaces and objects in a physical space; apps must ask permission and "enhanced spatial services" send it to Meta servers.[16]
Voice Wake-word assistants on AI glasses On Meta AI glasses, transcripts are stored by default and voice recordings can be kept for up to one year.[17]
Outward camera and microphone Photos, video, livestreams, visual AI queries Bystanders' faces and conversations; bystanders interviewed in 2014 objected to the subtlety and ease of recording.[18]

Research

Identification from motion

Miller, Herrera, Jun, Landay and Bailenson recorded 6DoF head and controller poses from an HTC Vive while 511 participants watched 360-degree videos, a task with no identifying purpose. A random forest classifier trained on less than five minutes of data per person identified 95% of participants correctly.[1] Nair and colleagues at UC Berkeley scaled the result to 55,541 real users: after training on five minutes of head and hand motion per person, a user could be picked out of the whole pool with 94.33% accuracy from 100 seconds of motion and 73.20% accuracy from ten seconds.[2] The same group showed that an "innocent-looking" escape room game could infer more than 25 attributes from 50 players within minutes, including height, wingspan, age and gender, and argued that such active attacks are more dangerous than passive observation because people reveal themselves through their responses to specific stimuli.[13]

Eye tracking

Kröger, Lutz and Müller reviewed the literature on what gaze data discloses. Drawing on studies across disciplines, they found that recorded eye activity may implicitly contain a person's biometric identity, gender, age, ethnicity, body weight, personality traits, drug consumption habits, emotional state, skills and abilities, fears, interests and sexual preferences, and that some measures can reveal cognitive processes or support diagnoses of physical and mental health conditions.[14] Steil, Hagestedt, Huang and Bulling surveyed 124 people about which gaze data they would share, and with whom, then built a differentially private VR interface. On a 20-participant dataset it prevented user re-identification and hid gender while keeping gaze-based document classification accurate.[19]

Bystanders

Denning, Dehlawi and Kohno ran 12 field sessions in cafes in 2014 and interviewed 31 bystanders about a co-located AR device. Reactions split between indifferent and negative; participants said the subtlety and ease of recording changed the bystander experience, and they were interested in being asked permission before being recorded and in recording-blocking devices.[18] Corbett, David-John, Shang, Hu and Ji's BystandAR (2023) used on-device processing, the wearer's gaze and spatial awareness to separate the person the wearer is interacting with from other people in view. In a 16-participant test it protected 98.14% of bystanders while keeping 96.27% of intended subjects visible at 52.6 frames per second.[20]

Perceptions and defenses

Adams and colleagues interviewed 20 VR users and developers in 2018, surveyed VR privacy policies and ran an ethics co-design study. Users worried about privacy, security and psychological and physical well-being; the study found deficiencies in existing VR privacy policies, and the developers produced a VR code of ethics.[21] De Guzman, Thilakarathna and Seneviratne's survey of mixed reality security and privacy approaches noted a lack of implementation and evaluation of data protection methods in the field.[22] On the defensive side, Nair, Garrido and Song presented an "incognito mode" for VR at UIST 2023: a Unity plugin that applies local differential privacy to motion data, adding noise where it matters most, which degraded replicated versions of the known VR profiling attacks.[23]

Platform policies

Meta Quest

When Meta launched the Meta Quest Pro in October 2022 it stated that eye tracking and Natural Facial Expressions are off by default, can be paused from Quick Settings, and that images of the eyes and face never leave the device and are deleted after processing; users must also authorize each app separately.[24] The Eye Tracking Privacy Notice (effective 5 September 2025) says the headset turns infrared eye images into "abstracted gaze data", an estimate of where the eyes are looking; the raw images are processed in real time on the headset and deleted, are not stored on Meta servers, and are not shared with apps even when the user grants an app access to gaze data. Apps that do receive abstracted gaze data handle it under their own privacy policies.[25] The matching face-tracking notice makes the same promise for raw face images.[15] Spatial data is gated by a runtime permission (com.oculus.permission.USE_SCENE) that covers the Scene Model and depth data; the app shows a one-time explainer followed by a consent dialog.[26] Users can delete spatial data sent to Meta servers and clear the headset's physical space history from the Privacy and safety settings.[16]

Apple Vision Pro

The Apple Vision Pro authenticates the wearer with Optic ID. Near-infrared light illuminates the eye, the eye cameras capture iris images, and the Secure Enclave (with a protected portion of the Neural Engine) turns them into a mathematical representation. Apple states that Optic ID data is encrypted, accessible only to the Secure Enclave, never leaves the device and is never backed up to iCloud; apps learn only whether authentication succeeded.[27] Gaze is handled separately: "Eye-tracking information is not shared with Apple, third-party apps, or websites",[27] and Apple's eyes and hands privacy page repeats that eye input is not shared with apps, websites or Apple, while an app must request permission before it can access the approximate size, shape and movements of the hands. Eye and hand setup measurements do not leave the device, although on visionOS 26 or later the setup data is saved to iCloud.[28] Apple's Vision Pro privacy overview, summarized by AppleInsider in February 2024, adds that visionOS processes eye movements at the system level and does not tell apps where the user is looking, and that camera and LiDAR data about the surroundings is processed on the device.[29]

Meta AI glasses

On 29 April 2025 Meta emailed Ray-Ban Meta owners that AI features were now on by default and that voice recordings would be stored for up to one year to improve its products, with no opt-out other than deleting each recording in the companion app.[30] The AI Glasses Voice Privacy Notice in force since 22 July 2025 says text transcripts and related data are stored by default, that recordings and transcripts are otherwise kept for up to one year (false activations are deleted within 90 days), and that users can turn storage off, in which case recordings are deleted immediately after processing, or delete items from the Voice Activity Log in the Meta AI app.[17]

In late February 2026 the Swedish newspapers Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten reported that contractors in Kenya who label data used to train the AI behind Meta's glasses, including the Ray-Ban Meta Wayfarer (Gen 2), the Ray-Ban Display and the Oakley Meta HSTN, saw footage that one worker said ranged from "living rooms to naked bodies", and that workers had also seen credit card numbers and financial documents. Meta responded that "When people share content with Meta AI, like other companies we sometimes use contractors to review this data" and that the data "is first filtered to protect people's privacy."[31] On 4 March 2026 two consumers filed a proposed class action against Meta Platforms and Luxottica of America in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco. It alleges that the companies did not disclose that footage was sent to servers and then to the subcontractor Sama, where human reviewers labeled it, and calls Meta's privacy promise "false"; the plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction.[31][32] The UK Information Commissioner's Office wrote to Meta in early March 2026 asking how data from the glasses is processed, stored and reviewed, and Kenya's Office of the Data Protection Commissioner announced an investigation. Meta then ended its contract with Sama, which issued redundancy notices to 1,108 employees on 16 April 2026; Meta said Sama did not meet its standards, while Sama said it had not been told of any performance shortfalls.[33]

Bystanders and camera glasses

Google Glass

Google Glass made bystander recording a public issue in 2013. After a congressional privacy caucus wrote to Google in May 2013 asking about facial recognition, Google announced, as Slate reported on 3 June 2013, that "we won't be approving any facial recognition Glassware at this time" and said it would not add such features without strong privacy protections.[34]

Ray-Ban Stories and the recording LED

Facebook and EssilorLuxottica released Ray-Ban Stories on 9 September 2021 at US$299 with "a hard-wired capture LED" that "lights up to let people nearby know when you're taking a photo or video".[35] Eight days later Ireland's Data Protection Commission and Italy's Garante said it had not been demonstrated that field testing showed the "very small" indicator to be an effective means of giving notice, and asked Facebook Ireland to prove the LED worked and to run a public information campaign.[36][37] The successor Ray-Ban Meta glasses, announced on 27 September 2023 from US$299 with a 12 MP camera and on sale from 17 October 2023, added livestreaming and the Meta AI assistant.[38]

In October 2024 two Harvard students, AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio,[39] demonstrated I-XRAY: Ray-Ban Meta glasses livestreamed to Instagram, a program watched the stream for faces, the PimEyes reverse image search found web pages showing the person, and a large language model pulled names, addresses and phone numbers from them. Nguyen said the goal was "NOT to release any product or code" but to raise awareness.[40] In early October 2025 the University of San Francisco's Department of Public Safety warned its community about a man in Ray-Ban Meta sunglasses who approached women with unwanted comments and posted the encounters to TikTok and Instagram.[41]

A sequence of firmware updates followed. Meta's firmware v12.0 (January 2025) tried to detect a blocked LED; in July 2026 firmware v26.0 made second-generation Ray-Ban Meta glasses disable the camera when the LED was physically tampered with or destroyed, and Meta said it was removing Facebook Marketplace listings for LED-removal services.[3][42] On 31 July 2026 Engadget's Karissa Bell reported that a clip-on blocker with a notched clear layer and a black sticker (sold at US$16.99 per dozen) hid the light on second-generation Ray-Ban Meta and Oakley Meta Vanguard glasses outdoors without ever triggering the tamper warning; Meta replied that such products and people "violate our policies" and that it was exploring stronger detection.[43] On 28 August 2026 Meta's VP of AR Alex Himel announced continuous monitoring: "The camera will now stop working if the light is covered during a recording."[44] IPVM tested the resulting firmware v128 on first- and second-generation glasses and found that recording stops within about five seconds of the LED being obstructed and that glasses with an irreversibly damaged LED lose the camera permanently.[3] Fortune, citing the Financial Times, also reported that Meta was testing "super-sensing" prototypes that capture continuous audio and a photo every few seconds, and that executives had discussed not lighting the LED for those features, while raw footage would not be stored or user-accessible.[42]

The Meta Ray-Ban Display glasses, announced on 17 September 2025 at US$799 with the Meta Neural Band wristband and sold in the United States from 30 September 2025, put cameras and microphones in the same form factor as a full-color display; the wristband reads muscle signals with electromyography, a further biometric stream.[45]

Facial recognition on glasses

On 13 February 2026 The New York Times reported that Meta planned to add facial recognition to its glasses as early as 2026 under the internal name "Name Tag", letting wearers identify people through the Meta AI assistant. An internal memo quoted by the paper read: "We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns." Meta had shelved a similar idea in 2021.[46] On 13 April 2026 a coalition of 75 organizations led by the ACLU, the ACLU of Massachusetts and the New York Civil Liberties Union asked Meta to halt and publicly disavow the plan; Kade Crockford of the ACLU of Massachusetts said "Stalkers and scammers would have a field day with this technology."[4][47] In June 2026 WIRED found dormant NameTag code in the Meta AI companion app; a security researcher who reviewed it said no biometric data was being sent to Meta's servers. Spokesperson Ryan Daniels said the code was "evidence of that exploration", that nothing had shipped to consumers and that Meta was "not building a central face database".[48]

Regulation

European Union

In the European Union, Article 9(1) of the GDPR prohibits processing "biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying a natural person" unless one of its exceptions applies.[49] The EU AI Act's Article 5 prohibitions have applied since 2 February 2025. They ban AI systems that "create or expand facial recognition databases through the untargeted scraping of facial images from the internet or CCTV footage", systems that infer emotions in workplaces and education (outside medical or safety uses), biometric categorisation that deduces race, political opinions, religious beliefs or sexual orientation, and, with narrow law-enforcement exceptions, real-time remote biometric identification in publicly accessible spaces.[50]

National regulators began issuing guidance on camera glasses in 2026. On 11 May 2026 France's data protection authority, the CNIL, published an alert on connected glasses and launched an action plan. It cited an online poll of 2,128 adults run from 22 to 29 January 2026 in which 67% of respondents said connected glasses pose a risk to privacy, and it warned that bystanders often cannot tell they are being filmed because the glasses look like ordinary eyewear and indicator lights are limited or sometimes absent. The CNIL said the GDPR and the French Data Protection Act apply in principle, pointed to Article 226-1 of the French Criminal Code (up to one year in prison and a €45,000 fine for capturing a person's image in a private place without consent), asked users to tell people nearby when they use the glasses, and said it would bring the subject to the EDPB.[51]

On 13 October 2026 the EDPB adopted an initial statement on smart glasses, described as preliminary guidance for users, manufacturers and service providers, and published a commissioned report, "The connected gaze. Video recording, surveillance and administering evidence in the age of smart glasses", written by a digital sociologist through its Support Pool of Experts programme after a proposal from the French authority (the board notes that it did not produce the report and that the views in it are the author's own). The statement says a wearer's GDPR obligations depend on use: a wearer who posts a photo or video to a public social media account, or uses the glasses for official, professional or political activities, is a data controller, while filming family or friends or using the glasses for private translation falls under the household exemption, although criminal, civil and labour law may still apply. It adds that manufacturers and the providers of linked apps and services cannot transfer their own obligations to users, and names transparency toward bystanders as a main challenge. EDPB Chair Anu Talus said that smart glasses "should make their recording obvious", for example with bright LED lights, audio signals or voice activation cues, privacy-friendly smartphone notifications or unique designs, and that such warnings "need to be reliable, hard to ignore, and always up to date." The statement also encourages industry standards and awareness-raising measures.[10]

United States

In the United States the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) is the main litigation vehicle. In September 2026 Illinois resident Francisco Alvarez, California resident Jeremy Wahl and their minor children filed the proposed class action Alvarez et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that Meta extracted faceprints from Facebook and Instagram photos to train NameTag and its Emu and Muse Image models. The Illinois claims cite BIPA Section 15(a), which requires a public retention and destruction policy, and Section 15(b), which requires written notice and informed consent before collecting biometric identifiers; the complaint also raises California publicity and constitutional privacy claims.[5][52]

Courts also restricted the devices. Under a July 2026 memo, the New York State Unified Court System prohibited eyewear or headwear with a camera, microphone, computer or other technology able to record video or audio, prescription or not, inside all of its facilities from 20 July 2026. Jane Manning of Women's Equal Justice said the policy protects sensitive witnesses such as sexual assault survivors and child victims; the ACLU said it had not taken a position on the ban.[6]

California's SB 1130, by State Senator Eloise Gómez Reyes, would have made it an offence to disable any light, sound or other indicator showing that a wearable recording device is capturing sound or video, and to use such a device to record a person without explicit consent inside a place of business where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with a fine of up to US$1,500, up to one year in county jail, or both. From 1 January 2028 it would also have barred the sale of wearable recording devices without an indicator "sufficiently prominent so that a reasonable person in the vicinity would be alerted" (civil penalty of up to US$2,500 for a knowing violation), and it separately banned selling, buying or using technology built to switch the indicator off.[53] Consumer Reports supported the bill; TechNet, whose members include Meta, Google and Amazon, said it "is not the right approach to addressing these concerns."[8] Newsom vetoed it on 30 September 2026. His veto message said the bill "defines several terms too broadly or imprecisely" and that its broad definition of a wearable recording device "could lead to significant confusion and unintended consequences", while noting that California law already criminalizes recording a person where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.[53]

United Kingdom

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), which runs criminal, civil and family courts in England and Wales, told The Guardian in August 2026 that Meta smart glasses would be "confiscated on entry" to court buildings and returned when the owner leaves. Smartphones remain allowed as long as they are not used to record, with no equivalent exception for the glasses; a spokesperson said "There are clear restrictions on taking images or videos within courts and tribunals".[7][54] Legal Cheek also recalled an earlier High Court case over the directorship of a property development company, in which the judge found that a litigant had been "assisted or coached" through smart glasses during cross-examination and excluded his evidence; he denied being fed answers.[54] Outside the courts, the pub chain Wetherspoon restricted use of the glasses over covert recording concerns.[55]

Norway

On 5 October 2026 Norway's government announced that it would propose a temporary ban on "AI glasses" in selected places while an expert group advises on permanent national rules for wearable technology. Torgeir Micaelsen, Minister of Digitalisation and Public Administration, said he was worried that "new, powerful technology is being introduced where people risk being photographed, filmed or audio recorded" without their knowledge (Road to VR's translation).[56] The places named include parks, beaches, museums, shopping centres, amusement parks, playgrounds, schools, kindergartens, youth clubs, events for children, and health institutions and gyms with changing rooms and showers; universities and colleges were under consideration. The government said it was not proposing a full ban: private use would remain allowed, with exemptions for vulnerable groups and limited socially useful uses. The ban needs a bill passed by the Storting, which the government said it would present as quickly as possible. Norway's Data Protection Authority (Datatilsynet) had asked the Storting during the summer to consider halting sales until rules were in place.[9][57] Road to VR noted that it was unclear whether audio-only glasses would be covered.[56]

Netherlands

In September 2026 the Dutch data protection authority, the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP), warned that videos showing identifiable people generally cannot be shared or published without their permission, which is hard to obtain in public places.[55] On 1 October 2026 NL Times reported that hundreds, possibly thousands, of Dutch women and girls had been secretly filmed with Meta camera glasses in recent months, with footage circulating on Telegram groups and "creepshot" sites; the anti-abuse group Offlimits and the Firewall Foundation demanded that Meta stop selling the glasses, and the online retailer Wehkamp stopped selling them. State Secretary for Justice and Security Claudia van Bruggen said she was not considering a ban, arguing that "the use of camera glasses is not inherently undesirable" and that action should target misuse.[58] She told parliament that the AP had received six reports and one complaint about the glasses, and the government said it was waiting for the EDPB's report.[59] On 2 October 2026 the optical chain Hans Anders suspended sales of Ray-Ban Meta glasses in the Netherlands and Belgium, citing "the ongoing public and political debate surrounding smart glasses". Its parent Nexeye, owned by KKR, runs 776 stores in five countries and does not sell the glasses in Germany, Austria or Sweden. The consumer organisation Consumentenbond said it would take Meta to court unless the glasses were changed to comply with privacy law. Meta said the light on its camera models blinks while recording, "can't be turned off, and the camera is disabled if someone covers or tampers with it".[55] According to TNW, the Consumentenbond's own test used a sticker that hid the recording light from the front but let in light from the side, which the group said defeated Meta's LED update.[59]

Austria

Austria's Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, case W224 2346501-1) decided on 3 August 2026 to overturn the expulsion of a Vienna pupil who had repeatedly refused teachers' requests to stop wearing Ray-Ban Meta glasses with a Meta wristband in class; the judgment records an attention disorder and a medical certificate saying he needed to wear that pair at school. The Vienna education authority (Bildungsdirektion für Wien) had excluded him in June 2026 after several suspensions. The court accepted that teachers and classmates were unsettled and worried about being recorded, but held that this was not enough on its own: there was no evidence that anyone had been recorded, although there were grounds for suspicion, and the authority had not established concrete incidents of serious misconduct. It did not decide whether wearing smart glasses in class could ever justify exclusion, and it did not admit an ordinary appeal. The ruling was reported in October 2026.[60]

Timeline of 2026 responses to camera glasses

Date Jurisdiction Body Action Status as of 14 October 2026
11 May 2026 France CNIL Public alert on connected glasses and action plan Guidance; no new legal rule[51]
20 July 2026 New York State, United States Unified Court System Recording-capable eyewear and headwear prohibited in all court facilities Policy effective 20 July 2026[6]
August 2026 England and Wales, United Kingdom HMCTS Meta smart glasses confiscated on entry to court buildings Policy announced August 2026[7]
3 August 2026 Austria Federal Administrative Court Overturned a pupil's school expulsion over Ray-Ban Meta glasses Decided; reported October 2026[60]
September 2026 Netherlands Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens Warned that videos of identifiable people generally need their permission to be shared Guidance[55]
30 September 2026 California, United States Governor Vetoed SB 1130 (recording indicators on wearable cameras) Vetoed[8]
5 October 2026 Norway Government Proposed temporary ban on AI glasses in selected places Proposal; needs a bill passed by the Storting[9]
13 October 2026 European Union EDPB Initial statement on smart glasses and commissioned report Adopted guidance[10]

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Miller M R, Herrera F, Jun H, Landay J A, Bailenson J N (2020). "Personal identifiability of user tracking data during observation of 360-degree VR video". Scientific Reports, vol. 10. pp. 17404. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-74486-y. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7567078/.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Nair V, Guo W, Mattern J, Wang R, O'Brien J F, Rosenberg L, Song D (2023). "Unique Identification of 50,000+ Virtual Reality Users from Head & Hand Motion Data". 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23). pp. 895-910. https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity23/presentation/nair-identification.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 "Meta Finally Fixes Ray-Ban LED Bypass (Tested)". IPVM. 2026-09-03. https://ipvm.com/reports/meta-ray-ban-led-bypass-fix-tested. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 "ACLU and 75 Organizations Sound Alarm on Meta's Plan to Add Facial Recognition Technology to Ray-Ban and Oakley Eyeglasses". American Civil Liberties Union. 2026-04-13. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-and-75-organizations-sound-alarm-on-metas-plans-to-add-facial-recognition-technology-to-ray-ban-and-oakley-eyeglasses. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Anthony Kimery (2026-09-07). "Meta sued over alleged facial recognition training for smart glasses". Biometric Update. https://www.biometricupdate.com/202609/meta-sued-over-alleged-facial-recognition-training-for-smart-glasses. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Nicole Neuman (2026-07-16). "Smart glasses set to be banned in New York courts". Spectrum News 1 State of Politics. https://nystateofpolitics.com/state-of-politics/new-york/politics/2026/07/16/ny-unified-court-smart-glasses-ban. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 Lawrence Bonk (2026-08-11). "England and Wales ban Meta Glasses from courtrooms". Engadget. https://engadget.com/2234606/england-and-wales-ban-meta-glasses-from-courtrooms. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Sophie Austin (2026-09-30). "Newsom vetoes measure that would have penalized the use of smart glasses to secretly record people". ABC News (Associated Press). https://abcnews.com/US/wireStory/newsom-vetoes-measure-penalized-smart-glasses-secretly-record-136907178. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 NTB (2026-10-05). "Regjeringen vil ha midlertidig forbud mot AI-briller på utvalgte steder" (in Norwegian). Tek.no. https://www.tek.no/nyheter/nyhet/i/kvJBxk/regjeringen-vil-ha-midlertidig-forbud-mot-ai-briller-paa-utvalgte-steder. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 "EDPB publishes statement on the data protection challenges of smart glasses". European Data Protection Board. 2026-10-13. https://www.edpb.europa.eu/news/edpb-publishes-statement-on-the-data-protection-challenges-of-smart-glasses_en. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  11. ↑ Roesner F, Kohno T, Molnar D (2014). "Security and privacy for augmented reality systems". Communications of the ACM, vol. 57, no. 4. pp. 88-96. doi:10.1145/2580723.2580730. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2580723.2580730.
  12. ↑ Garrido G M, Nair V, Song D (2024). "SoK: Data Privacy in Virtual Reality". Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, vol. 2024, no. 1. pp. 21-40. doi:10.56553/popets-2024-0003. https://petsymposium.org/popets/2024/popets-2024-0003.php.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 Nair V, Garrido G M, Song D, O'Brien J F (2023). "Exploring the Privacy Risks of Adversarial VR Game Design". Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, vol. 2023, no. 4. pp. 238-256. doi:10.56553/popets-2023-0108. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.13176.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Kröger J L, Lutz O H-M, Müller F (2020). "What Does Your Gaze Reveal About You? On the Privacy Implications of Eye Tracking". Privacy and Identity Management. Data for Better Living: AI and Privacy (IFIP AICT 576), Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-42504-3_15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42504-3_15.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 "Natural Facial Expressions Privacy Notice". Meta. Meta Platforms. 2025-09-05. https://www.meta.com/legal/quest/natural-facial-expressions-privacy-notice/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 "Spatial data settings". Meta Quest Help. Meta Platforms. https://www.meta.com/help/quest/articles/accounts/privacy-information-and-settings/spatial-data-settings/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 "AI Glasses Voice Privacy Notice". Meta. Meta Platforms. 2025-07-22. https://www.meta.com/legal/ai-glasses/voice-controls-privacy-notice/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Denning T, Dehlawi Z, Kohno T (2014). "In situ with bystanders of augmented reality glasses: perspectives on recording and privacy-mediating technologies". CHI 2014, ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. pp. 2377-2386. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557352. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2556288.2557352.
  19. ↑ Steil J, Hagestedt I, Huang M X, Bulling A (2019). "Privacy-Aware Eye Tracking Using Differential Privacy". ETRA 2019, ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. doi:10.1145/3314111.3319915. https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.08000.
  20. ↑ Corbett M L, David-John B, Shang J, Hu Y C, Ji B (2023). "BystandAR: Protecting Bystander Visual Data in Augmented Reality Systems". MobiSys 2023, ACM International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications and Services. doi:10.1145/3581791.3596830. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3581791.3596830.
  21. ↑ Adams D, Bah A, Barwulor C, Musaby N, Pitkin K, Redmiles E M (2018). "Ethics Emerging: the Story of Privacy and Security Perceptions in Virtual Reality". Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2018), USENIX. pp. 427-442. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2018/presentation/adams.
  22. ↑ de Guzman J A, Thilakarathna K, Seneviratne A (2019). "Security and Privacy Approaches in Mixed Reality: A Literature Survey". ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 52, no. 6. doi:10.1145/3359626. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3359626.
  23. ↑ Nair V, Garrido G M, Song D (2023). "Going Incognito in the Metaverse: Achieving Theoretically Optimal Privacy-Usability Tradeoffs in VR". UIST 2023, 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.05604.
  24. ↑ "Meta Quest Pro: Built with Privacy in Mind". Meta Quest Blog. Meta Platforms. 2022-10-10. https://www.meta.com/blog/meta-quest-pro-privacy/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  25. ↑ "Eye Tracking Privacy Notice". Meta. Meta Platforms. 2025-09-05. https://www.meta.com/legal/quest/eye-tracking-privacy-notice/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  26. ↑ "Spatial Data Permission". Meta Horizon OS Developers. Meta Platforms. https://developers.meta.com/horizon/documentation/unity/unity-spatial-data-perm/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 "About Optic ID advanced technology". Apple Support. Apple. 2025-10-21. https://support.apple.com/en-us/118483. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  28. ↑ "Eyes, Hands and Privacy". Apple Legal. Apple. 2026-09-14. https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/data/en/eyes-hands/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  29. ↑ William Gallagher (2024-02-13). "Apple Vision Pro privacy means apps can't access details of users' surroundings". AppleInsider. https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/02/13/apple-vision-pro-privacy-means-apps-cant-access-details-of-users-surroundings. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  30. ↑ Amanda Silberling (2025-04-30). "If you own Ray-Ban Meta glasses, you should double-check your privacy settings". TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2025/04/30/if-you-own-ray-ban-meta-glasses-you-should-double-check-your-privacy-settings. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 Catherina Gioino (2026-03-27). "Meta promised it wouldn't spy on you with its AI smart glasses. A lawsuit says humans are watching you, actually". Fortune. https://fortune.com/2026/03/27/meta-smart-glasses-filming-watching-workers-lawsuit-privacy/. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  32. ↑ Brian Ballou (2026-03-18). "The View From Your Smart Glasses Isn't Just Yours, According to Class-Action Lawsuit". Techstrong.ai. https://techstrong.ai/features/the-view-from-your-smart-glasses-isnt-just-yours-according-to-class-action-lawsuit/. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  33. ↑ Ana Maria Constantin (2026-05-01). "Meta cancelled the contract with the people who saw what its glasses see". TNW. https://thenextweb.com/news/meta-smart-glasses-sama-kenya-workers. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  34. ↑ Will Oremus (2013-06-03). "Google Glass Facial Recognition Ban: Privacy Concerns Prompt Crackdown, for Now". Slate. https://slate.com/technology/2013/06/google-glass-facial-recognition-ban-privacy-concerns-prompt-crackdown-for-now.html. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  35. ↑ "Introducing Ray-Ban Stories: First-Generation Smart Glasses". About Meta. Meta Platforms. 2021-09-09. https://about.fb.com/news/2021/09/introducing-ray-ban-stories-smart-glasses/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  36. ↑ "Data Protection Commission statement concerning Facebook View (glasses)". Data Protection Commission. 2021-09-17. https://www.dataprotection.ie/en/news-media/latest-news/data-protection-commission-statement-concerning-facebook-view-glasses. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  37. ↑ Natasha Lomas (2021-09-20). "Facebook warned over 'very small' indicator LED on smart glasses, as EU DPAs flag privacy concerns". TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/20/facebook-warned-over-very-small-indicator-led-on-smart-glasses-as-eu-dpas-flag-privacy-concerns/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  38. ↑ "Introducing the New Ray-Ban Meta Smart Glasses". About Meta. Meta Platforms. 2023-09-27. https://about.fb.com/news/2023/09/new-ray-ban-meta-smart-glasses/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  39. ↑ Maibritt Henkel and Anna A. Kremer (2024-10-19). "Could Strangers Become a Thing of the Past?". The Harvard Crimson. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/10/19/ai-glasses/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  40. ↑ Brian Heater (2024-10-02). "Ray-Ban Meta glasses hacked to dox strangers in real time". TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/02/ray-ban-meta-facial-recognition-terminator-vision-for-doxxing. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  41. ↑ Pesala Bandara (2025-10-06). "University Issues Warning Over Man Using Ray-Ban Meta Sunglasses to Record Women". PetaPixel. https://petapixel.com/2025/10/06/university-issues-warning-over-man-using-ray-ban-meta-sunglasses-to-record-women/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 Marco Quiroz-Gutierrez (2026-07-11). "Meta tightens Ray Ban smart glasses privacy while it tests 'super-sensing' AI prototype". Fortune. https://fortune.com/2026/07/11/meta-ray-ban-smart-glasses-camera-led-light-privacy-safeguard-super-sensing-ai-prototype-covert-recording-concerns/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  43. ↑ Karissa Bell (2026-07-31). "A $2 sticker let me bypass the Meta Glasses' anti-creep feature". Engadget. https://www.engadget.com/2227710/a-dollar2-sticker-let-me-bypass-the-meta-glasses-anti-creep-feature/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  44. ↑ Ben Schoon (2026-08-28). "Meta Ray-Ban update will block the most obvious loophole for disabling the privacy LED". 9to5Google. https://9to5google.com/2026/08/28/meta-ray-ban-smart-glasses-privacy-led-loophole-update/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  45. ↑ "Meta Ray-Ban Display: AI Glasses With an EMG Wristband". About Meta. Meta Platforms. 2025-09-17. https://about.fb.com/news/2025/09/meta-ray-ban-display-ai-glasses-emg-wristband/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  46. ↑ Aisha Malik (2026-02-13). "Meta plans to add facial recognition to its smart glasses, report claims". TechCrunch. https://techcrunch.com/2026/02/13/meta-plans-to-add-facial-recognition-to-its-smart-glasses-report-claims/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  47. ↑ Scott Hayden (2026-04-15). "Meta's Reported Plan to Add Facial Recognition to Smart Glasses Slammed by ACLU-led Coalition". Road to VR. https://roadtovr.com/metas-facial-recognition-ray-ban-smart-glasses-aclu/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  48. ↑ Ian Carlos Campbell (2026-06-04). "Wired found code for an unreleased facial recognition feature in Meta's AI app". Engadget. https://www.engadget.com/2187824/wired-found-code-for-an-unreleased-facial-recognition-feature-in-meta-s-ai-app/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  49. ↑ "Art. 9 GDPR Processing of special categories of personal data". gdpr-info.eu. Intersoft Consulting. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  50. ↑ "Article 5: Prohibited AI Practices". EU Artificial Intelligence Act. Future of Life Institute. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/5/. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 "Les lunettes connectées : la CNIL appelle à la vigilance" (in French). CNIL. Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés. 2026-05-11. https://www.cnil.fr/fr/lunettes-connectees-appel-a-la-vigilance. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  52. ↑ James Pero (2026-09-14). "Meta Faces a Class Action Lawsuit Over Planned Smart Glasses Facial Recognition". Gizmodo. https://www.gizmodo.com/meta-faces-a-class-action-lawsuit-over-planned-smart-glasses-facial-recognition-2000811258. Retrieved 2026-09-20.
  53. ↑ 53.0 53.1 Chris Steven (2026-10-02). "Newsom vetoes the bill that would have made disabling a glasses recording light a crime". MIXED Reality News. https://mixed-news.com/en/newsom-vetoes-sb-1130-smart-glasses-recording-indicator-bill/. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  54. ↑ 54.0 54.1 "Courts ban Meta glasses". Legal Cheek. 2026-08-13. https://www.legalcheek.com/2026/08/courts-ban-meta-glasses/. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  55. ↑ 55.0 55.1 55.2 55.3 Toby Sterling (2026-10-02). "Dutch eyewear chain Hans Anders halts sale of Meta glasses, citing privacy concerns". The Star (Reuters). https://www.thestar.com.my/tech/tech-news/2026/10/02/dutch-eyewear-chain-hans-anders-halts-sale-of-meta-glasses-citing-privacy-concerns. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  56. ↑ 56.0 56.1 Scott Hayden (2026-10-07). "Norway Proposes Temporary Ban on Smart Glasses in Public Places". Road to VR. https://roadtovr.com/norway-proposes-temporary-ban-on-smart-glasses-in-public-places/. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  57. ↑ "ノルウェー政府、AIグラスの一時禁止を提案へ 無断の撮影・録音を懸念" (in Japanese). Mogura VR News. 2026-10-07. https://www.moguravr.com/noreg-ai-glass/. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  58. ↑ "Hundreds of Dutch women, girls filmed with Meta glasses on creep sites; Lawsuit planned". NL Times. 2026-10-01. https://nltimes.nl/2026/10/01/hundreds-dutch-women-girls-filmed-meta-glasses-creep-sites-lawsuit-planned. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  59. ↑ 59.0 59.1 Ana Maria Constantin (2026-10-05). "Dutch eyewear chain Hans Anders stops selling Meta's Ray-Ban glasses". TNW. https://thenextweb.com/news/hans-anders-meta-ray-ban-glasses-netherlands-belgium. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 Chris Steven (2026-10-13). "An Austrian court threw out a school expulsion over Ray-Ban Meta glasses worn in class". MIXED Reality News. https://mixed-news.com/en/austrian-court-overturns-school-expulsion-ray-ban-meta-glasses/. Retrieved 2026-10-14.
Retrieved from "https://vrarwiki.com/index.php?title=Privacy_in_virtual_and_augmented_reality&oldid=51822"