The glasses already record everything. Now they want to identify everyone. In April 2026, the ACLU and 75 other civil liberties organizations sent an open letter to Meta demanding the company abandon plans to add facial recognition technology to its Ray-Ban and Oakley smart glasses line. The response was immediate and unambiguous: cancel the feature, or create a tool that enables mass surveillance at the consumer level. What Meta is planning Meta's smart glasses — already capable of recording video, taking photos, and live-streaming — are reportedly slated for an upgrade that would allow them to identify individuals in real-time using facial recognition databases. The company's argument, according to internal documents cited in the letter, is that the feature would help users "remember names" and "find friends in crowds." The coalition's counter-argument: the same capability enables stalking, doxxing, and warrantless identification of activists, protesters, and marginalized communities. Why 75 organizations signed on The coalition is not just the usual privacy suspects. It includes: The ACLU (lead signatory) Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Fight for the Future Access Now Reproductive freedom organizations LGBTQ+ advocacy groups Labor unions Faith organizations Their joint letter outlined specific harms: Stalking and domestic violence: An abuser wearing Meta glasses could identify and track a victim in public without their knowledge. Protest surveillance: Law enforcement or private actors could identify everyone at a political demonstration without consent. Workplace monitoring: Employers could require workers to wear glasses that identify customers, colleagues, or union organizers. Medical privacy: Glasses could identify people entering sensitive facilities — abortion clinics, addiction recovery centers, mental health providers. The legal landscape is shifting The Meta glasses fight sits at the intersection of multiple 2026 regulatory developments: The EU AI Act formally prohibits real-time biometric identification in public spaces for most purposes, with narrow law-enforcement exceptions. The "ICE Out of Our Faces Act" — introduced in the U.S. Congress in February 2026 — would ban ICE and CBP from using facial recognition and require deletion of all existing biometric data collected for identification purposes. The Facial Recognition Regulation 2026 report from Blurs documents a wave of new laws, bans, and court challenges across the U.S., EU, UK, and Australia. Multiple U.S. cities have now banned government use of facial recognition, including Portland, San Francisco, and Portland, Maine. What Meta says Meta has not formally responded to the open letter as of publication. The company's previous statements about smart glasses have emphasized user control and local processing — but facial recognition requires comparing live video against databases, which necessitates cloud connectivity and data retention. The ACLU's letter specifically challenges this framing: "Privacy cannot be an afterthought bolted onto a surveillance product." What you can do Don't buy surveillance wearables. Every purchase of Meta glasses funds the ecosystem that normalizes facial recognition. Support the ICE Out of Our Faces Act. Contact your representatives about S. 335 / H.R. 832. Check local ordinances. If your city hasn't banned government use of facial recognition, start the conversation. Use adversarial fashion. Clothing with high-contrast patterns can confuse some facial recognition systems (yes, really). The bottom line Facial recognition in consumer glasses is not a convenience feature. It's a normalization of biometric surveillance that requires no warrant, no consent, and no infrastructure beyond a $300 pair of sunglasses. Meta is betting consumers will accept it. The question is whether regulators — and buyers — will push back before the glasses become too common to regulate.