US police and federal agents are increasingly concerned that Meta's camera-equipped smart glasses could be used to secretly record them or aid in crimes and acts of terrorism, according to previously unreported documents reviewed by the Guardian.
In January, the New York Police Department's counterterrorism unit sent a memo warning officers about a new potential “security and counterintelligence” threat: Ray-Ban Meta glasses. The memo directed officers to “conduct thorough inspections of all eyewear permitted within inmate cells” and cautioned that arrested individuals could use the glasses, equipped with small cameras and microphones, to record inside police facilities. It cited two examples of such videos posted on social media.
“The ability to covertly record inside a law enforcement or detention facility, could result in a security risk if proprietary information about cell layouts, camera placements, or officer patrol/site protection routines are released,” the memo read.
Covert recordings in detention centers
One of the videos, taken with smart glasses and posted to TikTok in July 2025, offered a rare peek into a South Carolina detention center that had been the subject of a federal investigation over unsafe conditions. “Everyone here is trying to figure out what's going on with my glasses, why my light is blinking,” the user said about other detainees in the video. “People don't know about Meta glasses.” The footage showed a dingy shower, holding cells, an overcrowded cafeteria, and several detainees as they slept, ate, or walked, seemingly unaware of being recorded.
Detention facilities in the US typically confiscate devices capable of recording video, but some Meta smart glasses have gone unnoticed. The glasses are discreet and can pass as regular Ray-Bans or Oakleys, with a small blinking light in the corner of the frame activated when recording. The covertly recorded videos prompted the NYPD's intelligence and counterterrorism bureau, which works with the FBI, to send out the January memo to other police departments. The glasses “may appear as ordinary prescription eyewear”, the memo read.
Law enforcement concerns and agency bans
Documents obtained by Property of the People, a non-profit that works to increase government transparency, show law enforcement are as worried as everyday people about being filmed without their knowledge. Ryan Shapiro, the executive director of Property of the People, said the documents show law enforcement wants the exclusive right to use surveillance technology and cameras to monitor the public without those cameras being turned back on them. “These agencies surveil the public incessantly, but the moment we can watch them back, it's deemed a security threat,” Shapiro said. “When only the government is allowed to hold the camera, that's not security. It's impunity.”
“The potential for smart glasses to be used by residents and the general public to conduct surveillance and other nefarious activities has introduced additional risks and concerns in Department of Corrections and law enforcement facilities,” read a memo distributed in June 2026 by Maine's fusion center, a Department of Homeland Security surveillance hub. “Some smart glasses can leverage AI software including facial recognition, which could lead to doxing of publicly available information or connections to law enforcement officers,” the Maine document continued.
Other memos expressing concerns originated from the DHS's joint counterterrorism assessment team and fusion centers nationwide, including in San Diego, California, Tennessee, Virginia, Maine and New York. In August, the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency said smart glasses qualify as body-worn cameras, which means they can't be worn in the “federal workspace”, according to a memo the New York Times obtained. The “use of Meta Glasses or similar devices could unintentionally capture, record or transmit sensitive information”, the memo, written by ICE's acting director David Venturella, read.
Terrorism concerns and AI implications
Law enforcement agencies are also cautioning that these glasses may be used to aid in planning or “reconnaissance” for violent acts of terrorism or “hostile pre-operational surveillance”. A January 2025 NYPD memo cited the New Year's Day terror attack in New Orleans, when a man rammed his truck into a crowd on Bourbon Street, killing 14 and wounding 35 people. The FBI had alerted local agencies that the perpetrator biked around Bourbon Street twice at the end of 2024 wearing smart glasses, alleging “pre-attack target reconnaissance”. Officers should be aware of and report individuals “acting in a suspicious manner observed wearing what may be smart glasses”, the memo states.
Meta spokesperson Dina El-Kassaby said the glasses “are designed to be noticed”, with a bright white LED that blinks when a photo or video is taken, which cannot be turned off. She argued the perpetrator could have filmed the French Quarter with any other recording device including a phone. Evan Greer, executive director of digital advocacy non-profit Fight for the Future, said they're not surprised police are concerned. “Surveillance makes all of us less safe,” Greer said. “There's no such thing as Meta glasses that are only for the good guys.”
The concern over Meta's smart glasses is part of a broader concern expressed by law enforcement over how AI-backed technology may impinge on police activity, the documents show. In an August 2025 document, the NYPD wrote that while new AI technology could “significantly transform day-to-day police operations”, police would also need to address public fears about its use. The memo was a response to “AI 2027”, a paper by a former OpenAI researcher and other industry experts, warning that AI opposition could result in “anti-tech violent extremist activity” and civil unrest over job losses, deepfakes, and loss of trust in government and tech. Anti-tech violent extremist activity is not a formal DHS designation but has recently appeared in law enforcement messaging, and experts worry it could criminalize all anti-tech opposition and the constitutionally protected right to protest.
