Trade & LogisticsHardware & SemiconductorsRegulatory Policy
Who Can Sue Over Smart Glasses? Not the Person Being Recorded.
The Fourth Amendment runs through a company. The biometric statutes exclude the government. A camera on a federal agent's face misses both.
A federal budget request would put face-recognition cameras on immigration agents. The person being recorded has no clear way to sue. The Fourth Amendment's modern protection works by making the government go to a judge before a company hands over records, and a camera on an agent's face skips that step. The state biometric laws that would charge a private company thousands of dollars per person exempt government agencies outright, and the platform rules only give rights to the person wearing the glasses. The judgment here is that these protections limit how the data is used rather than banning the practice. The only measure with a documented record of changing this department's conduct is a privacy-paperwork requirement enforced by an inspector general. The same failure to categorize these devices shows up in a second system and a different decade. Asked in 2015 what one of them is, US Customs rejected the eyewear classification and found that no single component defined the product. It settled the question by taking whichever category came last in numerical order. Three companies have now reached face-worn cameras and each hit a different wall; the largest consumer entrant is reported to be still deciding whether its first pair carries a camera at all.
- DHS's FY2027 Science and Technology justification requests $7.5 million for a Detention and Removal Operations project whose deliverables include operational prototypes of smart glasses for biometric identification in the field, targeted for FY2027 Q4. The $7.5 million funds the project, not the glasses; there is no public dollar figure for the glasses; the component is S&T rather than ICE; and it is a request, with the department on record that no funds have been committed and no vendor selected.
- Chatrie v. United States (June 29, 2026) held that acquiring a person's Google Location History is a Fourth Amendment search, closing the argument that a short time window falls outside the Constitution. It was vacated and remanded, particularity and good faith are reserved, footnote 11 preserves exigent warrantless geofence searches, and while the judgment is 6 to 3 the opinion of the Court commanded five votes, with Justice Gorsuch concurring in the judgment only on a rationale that would likely yield no protection for a government-generated record.
- Eleven days later, Clements v. Gunnar Optiks (7th Cir., July 10, 2026) revived a BIPA claim over a consumer virtual try-on tool at the pleading stage. The two regimes moved in opposite directions on the same category of device, but BIPA's own text says a private entity does not include a government agency, and wiretap and two-party-consent law reaches aural acquisition rather than silent video, so it does not apply to a silent biometric camera at all.
- The remedy structure is the load-bearing finding. Damages against a federal officer require a Bivens action, which after Egbert v. Boule would require a court to recognize a new context it has called a disfavored judicial activity; the exclusionary rule does not generally apply in civil removal proceedings under Lopez-Mendoza; and the Privacy Act's own definition of "individual" reaches citizens and lawful permanent residents. Those are observations about statutory and doctrinal definitions, not policy positions.
- What has actually bound this department on adjacent sensor data is Section 208 of the E-Government Act and its own Privacy Impact Assessment process, enforced by an inspector general, which is a paperwork requirement rather than a right. The nearest dated markers are the California fiscal-committee deadline of August 14, 2026 for SB 1130 and the start of FY2027 on October 1, 2026.
- US Customs already ran a version of this experiment and wrote it down. In ruling N260535 (February 2, 2015) it rejected the eyewear heading for a face-worn camera and display because such a device does "not provide correction of vision defects or protection for the eyes," found that no single component gave the device an essential character, and resolved the classification by the rule of last resort for composite goods, the heading that occurs last in numerical order. A separate 2019 ruling on a different importer's audio-only frames, with no camera, went to telecommunications apparatus instead; only the 2015 ruling reached and rejected the eyewear heading. Two face-worn devices, four years apart, landed in different chapters depending on which sensors they carried. Customs rulings are article- and importer-specific, no current duty rate is asserted here, and classification is an ordinary administrative act implying no wrongdoing by anyone.
- The economics do not support the affordability story in either direction. Apple carries $44.6 billion of manufacturing purchase obligations as of March 28, 2026, of which $43.9 billion is payable within 12 months, against a display-less category IDC sizes at 13.6 million units for all vendors in 2026, so any leverage over a glasses bill of materials is borrowed from the phone's order book rather than produced by vertical integration. Apple's own filing names advanced semiconductors, NAND and DRAM as supply constraints it expects to intensify. Samsung, which owns all three, launched on Qualcomm's chip and Google's model. Meta absorbed a $4.03 billion operating loss on $402 million of Reality Labs revenue in a single quarter, which means whatever is deciding these sensor architectures is not the ability to absorb cost. Privacy positioning in this category is a business-model fact, not a manufacturing fact.
- The competitive picture is already constraining the product without any law changing. Snap's Specs ship this fall at $2,195 with a real on-device spatial stack, and a camera-free maker is reported to have raised outside capital as a business of its own. Bloomberg reported on July 26, 2026 that Samsung, with Google and Warby Parker, called the privacy question an "industry-shared problem," that courtrooms in New York and in parts of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have prohibited smart glasses, that a cruise operator has barred them from casinos, restrooms and children's areas, and that they are banned at some schools, gyms, hospitals and entertainment venues. Apple has announced nothing, and everything reported about its plans is one reporter's sourcing on an unannounced product.
Sensor Choice Decides the Regime, and No Instrument Says So
Four documents, published across eleven years, bear on the same object, and none of them mentions the others: a federal budget justification, a Supreme Court decision, a federal appeals court decision eleven days later, and a 2015 tariff ruling that found the taxonomy had no place for one of these devices. The institutions that have to live with the device are not waiting. Bloomberg reported on July 26, 2026 that courtrooms in New York and parts of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin now prohibit smart glasses, and that schools, gyms and hospitals have written their own rules. Each of those is a rule about the door rather than a rule about the device, which is what an institution does when it has no mechanism to reach the thing itself. The judgment here, rather than any court's or agency's holding, is that sensor choice decides which regime applies, and none of the US instruments in play was written with the sensor as the hinge.
- The Budget Line, Precisely. DHS's Science and Technology Directorate requested $7.5 million in the FY2027 President's Budget for a project called Detention and Removal Operations. The justification narrative states that the project "will deliver innovative hardware, such as operational prototypes of smart glasses, to equip agents with real-time access to information and biometric identification capabilities in the field," and the project-schedule table targets an operational prototype enabling biometric identification by the end of FY2027. Three things follow. The $7.5 million funds the whole project, not the glasses, and no public dollar figure exists for the glasses; the component is Science and Technology, the department's research arm, not Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and this is a request in a President's Budget, not an appropriation or a program of record. A DHS spokesperson told FedScoop that "[a]t this time, no funds have been committed to any form of 'smart glasses'", and no public document states that the prototype would query any named biometric repository.
- The Constitutional Decision, Precisely. In Chatrie v. United States, decided June 29, 2026, the Court held that "[p]olice officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie's location data from Google". The judgment is 6 to 3, but the opinion of the Court commanded five votes: Justice Kagan wrote it, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh and Jackson, while Justice Gorsuch concurred in the judgment only. The case was also vacated and remanded, so particularity, probable cause and good faith are all back before the Fourth Circuit, and footnote 11 preserves exigency, stating that "[t]oday's decision does not call into doubt, in such circumstances, a warrantless geofence search."
- The Private-Collection Decision, Precisely. In Clements v. Gunnar Optiks, decided July 10, 2026, the Seventh Circuit vacated a dismissal and revived a claim under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act over an eyewear retailer's virtual try-on feature. Judge Easterbrook held that the statute's health-care exclusion could not be resolved at the pleading stage, since "better-appearing glasses are not medical treatment". No The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, which gives individuals a private right of action with per-violation damages against private entities that collect biometric identifiers without consent. violation has been found and the defendant has been adjudged nothing. The person scanned was also the person operating the camera and choosing to be scanned, so the decision settles what a collector owes a consenting user and says nothing about a bystander.
- The Classification That Came First. In ruling N260535, dated February 2, 2015, US Customs and Border Protection examined a face-worn device with a display and a camera and rejected the eyewear heading, because it does "not provide correction of vision defects or protection for the eyes". Finding that no one component imparted an essential character, it applied the tariff schedule's rule of last resort, which sends such goods to "the heading which occurs last in numerical order." The device landed under measuring or checking instruments, at a rate the ruling states as 1.7 percent ad valorem for that article in 2015. Customs rulings are article- and importer-specific, so this one binds one importer on one 2015 device and says nothing about how any current product would be classified, and the durable point is the classification structure rather than any duty rate. Classification is an ordinary administrative act that implies wrongdoing by no one.
- The Competitive Picture, and Why the Price Ladder Is Inverted. IDC forecasts 13.6 million display-less smart glasses worldwide in 2026 across every vendor, at an average selling price of $376. The most sensor-capable consumer device announced so far comes from the smallest of the players: Snap's Specs, at $2,195, carrying two Snapdragon processors, one of them dedicated to computer vision. Set that against the company absorbing the largest losses in the category, $402 million of Reality Labs revenue against a $4.03 billion operating loss in the first quarter of 2026. Whatever is deciding these sensor architectures, it is not the ability to absorb cost. The control case is five days old: on July 22, 2026 Samsung, which makes its own memory and panels and owns a leading-edge foundry, announced Android XR eyewear running Qualcomm's Snapdragon AR1 Gen 1 and Google's Gemini. No company's prospects are assessed here.
The Only Regime That Has Moved an Agency Prohibits Nothing
Chatrie v. United States held on June 29, 2026 that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired location data from Google. The opinion of the Court drew five votes in a 6-3 judgment, and the case was vacated and remanded. What matters for a face-worn camera is the shape of the remedy, not the holding. Chatrie governs the government obtaining an existing record from a company that already holds it, and the protection is delivered by compelled production, with a magistrate standing between the government and a custodian. A camera worn by an agent has no custodian to serve.
The biometric statute misses for a different reason, and by design. BIPA's engine is a private right of action carrying $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, and it runs only against a private entity, a term the statute defines to exclude a state or local government agency. Clements v. Gunnar Optiks revived a BIPA claim on July 10, 2026 over an eyewear retailer's virtual try-on, but the person scanned was also the person holding the camera and choosing to be scanned. That decides what a collector owes a consenting user and says nothing about a bystander.
What is left is process. In OIG-23-61 the department's inspector general found that CBP, ICE and the Secret Service did not adhere to department privacy policies before procuring commercial telemetry, and recommended they stop until Privacy Impact Assessments were approved. The authority was Section 208 of the E-Government Act, which prohibits nothing and creates no right, and it is the only one of the three regimes that has actually moved an agency. Courtrooms in New York and parts of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have meanwhile banned the devices, a rule about the door rather than the thing. What would show that wrong: a court reaches the search question directly on a government-worn camera, rather than the first challenge arriving as an assessment dispute or an appropriations rider.
The constitutional protection is shaped like a door
Courts & Constitutional Law. Chatrie decides what happens when the government obtains an existing record from a company that already holds it, describing the harm as the government possessing "a virtual panopticon with which to scrutinize its citizens' activities". The mechanism that delivers that protection is compelled production, with a magistrate between the government and a custodian. An agent's camera has no custodian.
Public Administration. In OIG-23-61, the department's inspector general found that CBP, ICE and the Secret Service "did not adhere to Department privacy policies" before procuring commercial telemetry data, and recommended that components discontinue use until Privacy Impact Assessments were approved. The authority was Section 208 of the E-Government Act, a process requirement that prohibits nothing and creates no right, and the only one of the three regimes that has moved an agency.
The Fourth Circuit decides Schmidt v. City of Norfolk by holding that first-hand government capture in public is a search, with no custodian anywhere in the reasoning. The door would not be the mechanism.
On the constitutional side: the protection arrives through a custodian, so what does a court do with a record the government generates first-hand and already holds itself?
The biometric statute reaches the collector, and says who that is not
Regulatory Policy. BIPA's enforcement engine is a private right of action with liquidated damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per violation, and it runs only against a "private entity," which the statute defines to exclude "a State or local government agency". That is a deliberate scope choice rather than an oversight, and a state may not directly regulate federal operations.
Cybersecurity & Privacy. The statutes draw their line at the template, not the picture. BIPA defines a biometric identifier as a scan of face geometry and expressly excludes photographs. A template is a machine-comparable numeric vector, which is why identification is a property of the enrolled gallery rather than of the camera.
Illinois amends BIPA to reach a public agency, or a court holds that a stored photograph with no template derived triggers it. Either the exclusion or the template line was not a scope choice.
On the privacy side: the line is drawn at the template and not the picture, so what does the statute reach when a camera captures and a remote gallery does the matching?
Every existing remedy runs through an account holder
Strategy & Operations. Every remedy regulators have ordered in the camera-fleet cases, from refunds to deletion to safeguards on human review, is exercised by the account holder. The person in the frame has no settings page. The judgment here is that the private matching layer is the likeliest place liability could attach: a contractor that performs the face match is a private entity for BIPA purposes in a way the wearing agency is not. No court has tested that on these facts, and a contractor working to a federal agency's specification would have defenses an ordinary BIPA defendant does not, so this is a channel that may exist rather than one that has been established.
Hardware & Semiconductors. The indicator light is the entire bystander-facing control stack. In a CHI 2026 survey of 525 people, 41.3 percent of bystanders judged capture LEDs adequate; the authors recruited in China and flag generalizability. SB 1130 would require an indicator "sufficiently prominent so that a reasonable person in the vicinity would be alerted to the recording activity," an effectiveness standard rather than a presence standard.
A regulator or a court orders deletion or notice on behalf of a person captured who holds no account. A bystander-facing remedy would exist, and the account holder would not be the only route.
On the remedies side: every ordered remedy is exercised by an account holder, so what standing has a person in the frame to invoke one against a capture she cannot observe?
The Weave maps a single development across domains and across time. Each row follows one domain from where things stand now through the next eighteen months, and expands for the reasoning behind that trajectory.
- A device with no dominant component falls to a tie-breaker, not to a considered heading.
- Sensor choice, not the shape of the frame, is what decides which chapter applies.
- A ruling binds one importer and one article, so the structure is what carries forward.
- Every ordered remedy so far, from deletion to audits, is exercised through an account.
- A face-worn fleet inherits those failure modes and adds a subject with no controls.
- Design choices are where a liability question gets answered before any court reaches it.
- The shipping mass-market device is not the one the legal debate keeps describing.
- Mapping and spatial sensing sit in research rigs and in one high-priced consumer model.
- A claim about what glasses can do has to be made per vendor and per model, or not at all.
- No comprehensive federal framework exists, and no federal measure has moved past referral.
- The claim that states are legislating these devices is not borne out by bill numbers.
- The nearest enacted law on these devices cleared on road safety, not on privacy.
v1 · July 27, 2026Not One of the Dated Markers Is a Court Reaching the Question
Whether this stays a doctrinal curiosity or becomes a live compliance problem will show up in a small number of dated, checkable places over the next several quarters. None of them is a court deciding the question head-on, which is itself the finding.
- The California Deadline. SB 1130 sits in Assembly Appropriations, having passed the California Senate 30 to 8 on May 27, 2026 and been re-referred on July 2, 2026. Fiscal committees must report bills to the floor by August 14, 2026 or the bill dies for the session. Watch the indicator provision, a design mandate addressed to manufacturers and sellers.
- The Fourth Circuit, Twice. The same court now holds two pieces of this: the Chatrie remand, where particularity, probable cause and good faith are all still open, and Schmidt v. City of Norfolk. Schmidt is about cars, and it is the same doctrinal problem, government capturing data first-hand about people in public with no third-party custodian to serve. No argument date is on the docket, and we predict no outcome.
- The Classification Question, and Where It Gets Answered. If a current-generation camera-equipped face-worn device is presented for a binding tariff ruling, the reasoning already on the shelf is the 2015 one, and a new ruling requires nobody to sue and would arrive in writing with reasons attached. The rulings are article- and importer-specific, so a new one would bind its own importer and article, and this piece prints no current duty rate for any product.
- Apple, and What One Design Decision Would Settle. Bloomberg reported on July 26, 2026 that Apple has moved its first glasses to a June 2027 unveil, that it will emphasize on-device processing, and that two designs have been debated internally: one with no camera at all, and one with a full camera system not permitted to record photographs or video. Apple has announced nothing, the schedule has already moved once, and none of that is a fact about Apple. The second design matters most: a camera that feeds machine vision but cannot produce a stored recording would answer whether the sensor or the record is what matters. The judgment here is that what separates these products is what each company sells rather than what it can make, since the on-device inference being emphasized has been off the shelf to every competitor since June 2025. The counter-case is real: the largest buyer here discloses that advanced semiconductors, NAND and DRAM are supply constraints it expects to intensify, so the claim is that capability does not explain the divergence between these particular products, not that capability never binds.
- The Tell. The judgment here, checkable against events: if the first serious legal question about a government-worn biometric camera arrives as a A public analysis a federal agency must complete under Section 208 of the E-Government Act before collecting personal information in an information system. dispute, an inspector-general referral or an appropriations rider rather than as a suppression motion or a damages suit, the remedial read holds and the constraint is administrative rather than constitutional. If instead a court reaches the search question directly, the answer becomes the most consequential sentence in this subject for the next decade.
Every issue
- 01Intersection of the week
- 02Impact of the week
- 03The week in review
Wiiver Weekly
One free email, Saturdays at 7:00 AM ET.
Unsubscribe anytime.
Primary sources32
- Flock SafetyWhat the Supreme Court's Chatrie Decision Means for ALPR TechnologyJul 9Primary · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face?
- The Motley Fool (earnings-call transcript)Apple (AAPL) Q2 2026 earnings call transcript, April 30, 2026Apr 30Primary · Where Things Stand
- The Asia Business DailyDisplay chief executives on component-price pressure at K-Display 2026, Seoul, July 22, 2026Jul 22Primary · The Weave
- Reuters (via Investing.com)Snap CEO defends Specs as a long-term bet, pushes back against activist pressureJun 16Primary · Where Things Stand
- DHS Congressional Budget Justification (S&T, FY2027)Congressional Budget Justification Fiscal Year 2027, Science and Technology DirectorateApr 3Primary · Where Things Stand
- Supreme Court of the United StatesChatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (slip opinion, June 29, 2026)Jun 29Primary · The constitutional protection is shaped like a door · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face? · Where Things Stand · The Weave
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (via CourtListener)William Clements v. Gunnar Optiks, LLC, No. 25-1890 (7th Cir. July 10, 2026)Jul 10Primary · Where Things Stand · The Weave
- U.S. Senate (letter to DHS)Letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security on biometric smart glasses, May 14, 2026May 14Primary · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face? · The Weave
- Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14)740 ILCS 14, Biometric Information Privacy Act (definitions and right of action)Jan 1Primary · The biometric statute reaches the collector, and says who that is not
- California Legislature (SB 1130)SB 1130 (Reyes), Invasion of privacy: wearable recording devices, 2025-2026 sessionJun 25Primary · Every existing remedy runs through an account holder · Looking Forward
- California State Senate (2026 legislative deadlines)2026 Legislative Deadlines (Joint Rule 61)Oct 1Primary · Looking Forward
- Office of the Law Revision Counsel, U.S. House of RepresentativesPrivacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a (definitions at (a)(2); exemptions at (j) and (k))Dec 31Primary · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face? · The Weave
- Supreme Court of the United StatesEgbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), No. 21-147 (slip opinion), read with INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984)Jun 8Primary · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face?
- U.S. Department of Justice (Justice Manual)Justice Manual, Criminal Resource Manual 32: video surveillance is not covered by Title III, citing United States v. Torres, 751 F.2d 875 (7th Cir. 1984), and 18 U.S.C. 2510(2)Dec 19Primary · Where Things Stand
- Congressional Research ServiceFederal law and facial recognition technology, CRS R46541Sep 24Primary · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face?
- DHS Office of Inspector GeneralOIG-23-61: CBP, ICE, and Secret Service Did Not Adhere to Privacy Policies or Develop Sufficient Policies Before Procuring and Using Commercial Telemetry Data (redacted)Sep 28Primary · The constitutional protection is shaped like a door
- DHS Privacy Office (OBIM PIA-004(a))Privacy Impact Assessment: Homeland Advanced Recognition Technology System (HART), DHS/OBIM/PIA-004(a)Aug 14Primary · Where Things Stand
- U.S. Government Accountability OfficeGAO-23-105959, Biometric Identity System: DHS Needs to Address Significant Shortcomings in Program Management and PrivacySep 12Primary · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face?
- SAM.gov (federal opportunity notice)Sources Sought 70RDA126RFI000003, Enterprise License for Biometrics Matching SoftwareFeb 13Primary · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face? · The Weave
- CourtListener (Fourth Circuit docket)Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, No. 2:24-cv-00621 (E.D. Va.); on appeal as No. 26-1227 (4th Cir.), docketFeb 26Primary · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face? · Looking Forward · The Weave
- Congress.gov (FY2027 DHS appropriations)H.R. 9310, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2027, and H. Rept. 119-697Jun 11Primary · The Weave
- Office of the Texas Attorney GeneralAnnouncement of a Civil Investigative Demand concerning smart glasses, May 20, 2026May 20Primary · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face? · The Weave
- National Institute of Standards and TechnologyFace Recognition Technology Evaluation: one-to-many identification API and program documentationJan 1Primary · The biometric statute reaches the collector, and says who that is not · The Weave
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CROSS)Ruling N260535: tariff classification of a face-worn camera and display device, February 2, 2015Feb 2Primary · Looking Forward · Where Things Stand · The Weave
- U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CROSS)Ruling N307688: tariff classification of audio-only smart eyeglass frames, December 11, 2019Dec 11Primary · The Weave
- Apple Inc. (Form 10-Q)Apple Inc., Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2026, filed May 1, 2026May 1Primary · Looking Forward · The Weave
- Meta (Project Aria)Project Aria Gen 2: next-generation egocentric research glassesFeb 27Primary · The Weave
- Snap NewsroomIntroducing Specs, augmented reality glassesJun 16Primary · Where Things Stand · The Weave
- Biometric UpdateSmart glasses and the new DHS surveillance budgetApr 30Primary · The Weave
- TechCrunchMeta sued over AI smart-glasses privacy claims after contractors reviewed captured footageMar 5Primary · Where Things Stand
- 404 MediaResearchers wired facial recognition to off-the-shelf smart glasses to identify strangers in publicOct 2Primary · The Weave
- GSMArenaSamsung unveils intelligent eyewear powered by Android XRJul 22Primary · Where Things Stand · The Weave
Secondary sources, by sector14
- FedScoopICE smart glasses: wearable identity verification technology in the FY2027 requestMay 14Secondary · Where Things Stand
- Electronic Frontier FoundationSupreme Court says the Constitution protects people's location dataJun 30Secondary · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face?
- BloombergPower On: Apple's Smart Glasses Will Need to Overcome Meta's Privacy ReputationJul 26Secondary · Looking Forward · Where Things Stand · The Weave
- VR.orgApple smart glasses, WWDC 2027, and the privacy camera decisionJul 26Secondary · The Weave
- WIREDMeta Tapped a Pentagon Supplier to Prototype Face Recognition for Its GlassesJun 15Secondary · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face? · The Weave
- Meta NewsroomMeta's AI glasses: your questions answeredJul 7Secondary · Does the Fourth Amendment reach a camera on a federal agent's face?
- EngadgetQualcomm says its new AR1 chip can handle AI directly on smart glassesJun 10Secondary · Looking Forward · The Weave
- Wang, Peng, Yi & Li (CHI 2026)Mind the Gap: bystander and wearer perceptions of smart-glasses capture indicatorsMar 6Secondary · Every existing remedy runs through an account holder
- Mai, Cao, Yuen & Jain (IEEE TPAMI)On the Reconstruction of Face Images from Deep Face TemplatesMay 1Secondary ·
- Federal Trade CommissionFTC action over doorbell-camera privacy and security failures (order, May 31, 2023)May 31Secondary · Every existing remedy runs through an account holder · The Weave
- Meta Platforms (quarterly results)Meta Reports First Quarter 2026 Results, April 29, 2026Apr 29Secondary · Where Things Stand
- International Data CorporationSmart glasses surge: the XR market is rewriting its own rulesJun 15Secondary · Where Things Stand
- LG Display (quarterly results)LG Display announces second-quarter 2026 results, July 22, 2026Jul 22Secondary ·
- Associated PressInvestigation finds bodyguards' fitness-app data exposed movements of world leadersOct 28Secondary · Where Things Stand