We predicted this the moment Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses shipped. Put cameras on people's faces without obvious recording indicators, and you get exactly the privacy nightmare everyone warned about. Turns out, we were right.

Reports are flooding in of people using the glasses to record in bathrooms, locker rooms, gyms, and other spaces where filming is not just creepy - it's illegal. The glasses look like normal Ray-Bans. There's a tiny LED that's supposed to light up when recording, but it's barely visible, easily covered, and in bright environments, completely unnoticeable.

Meta's response has been predictably corporate: "We take privacy seriously" and "Users must follow local laws." Great. That'll stop the creeps.

Here's the fundamental problem: the technology works great. The glasses are lightweight, the camera quality is solid, and the integration with Meta's AI features is genuinely useful for things like identifying landmarks or translating signs. The question is whether anyone needs glasses that can secretly film strangers.

When Google Glass tried this a decade ago, the backlash was immediate. Bars banned them. People called wearers "Glassholes." Google eventually killed the product. But Meta looked at that failure and thought: "Let's try again, but make them look cooler."

The technical challenge of putting a camera in glasses frames has been solved. The social challenge of making people comfortable with face-mounted cameras has not. And now we're seeing why.

Gym owners are banning them. Some states are considering legislation to require obvious recording indicators. Privacy advocates are calling for recalls. And Meta keeps selling them, because the Ray-Ban partnership is profitable and shutting down the product would be admitting the whole concept was flawed from the start.

I've spent time in the startup world. I know how product decisions get made. Someone in a conference room said "wearable cameras are the future" and everyone nodded. Nobody asked just