IS IT WRONG TO STREAM YOU WITHOUT YOUR KNOWING, USING META'S GLASSES? Christopher Armitage on Substack

(COURTESY OF JOSH EDELSON / AFP) (Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images)

 

Christopher Armitage wore META'S GLASSES to stream a subject

He did it for research purposes saying, "I learned afterward that my wearing them on that stream was really distressing for the person I streamed with. I also learned there was a lot I was ignorant about and that these glasses come with serious creep and fascist baggage. You won't see me wearing them again."

Then, he apologized saying, "To be clear, I apologize for wearing a recording-capable device on our stream without telling them beforehand and giving them the chance to say no, and I apologize for being ignorant about what Meta does with everything these glasses capture.

As a result of wearing them Armitage further discovered what META is doing with the devices. After his study he and his team created a blueprint to stop META'S encroachment into our privacy. It's the  "MODEL WEARABLE RECORDING DEVICE PRIVACY ACT." The act can and should be introduced in state legislatures.

META'S STREAMING GLASSES

First Armitage points out that he wasn't filming. He was just wearing the glasses. That is a problem, and invasion of privacy. He clarifies in his article on Substack.

This is partly because Meta has been accused of recording audio and video even when people believed their devices weren't recording. The company's record makes the accusation credible.

META cannot be trusted and must be regulated 

Meta captured facial geometry from users' photos and videos without consent and paid 650 million dollars to Illinois class members in 2021 and 1.4 billion dollars to the State of Texas in 2024 for that conduct.

In April 2025 the company changed the glasses' default settings so that voice recordings are stored on Meta's servers for up to one year to train its AI, with no option to decline the storage.

What META'S glasses captured, even if the device was not streaming

Footage captured by the glasses, including video of people undressing, using the bathroom, and having sex inside their own homes, was sent to contractors in Kenya for human review and labeling, according to a February investigation by the Swedish newspapers Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten.

FEDERAL CLASS ACTION, Bartone v. Meta Platforms 

A federal class action filed on March 4, Bartone v. Meta Platforms, alleges that Meta never disclosed the human review pipeline and that reviewers saw identifiable faces and credit card numbers in the footage. The complaint describes a pair of the glasses left on a bedside table that kept capturing while the owner's partner changed clothes in front of them, unaware.

Dozens of influencers have used the glasses to covertly film women in public and post the footage for engagement, a BBC investigation found in January; in one case the video of a 21 year old reached 1.3 million views with her phone number attached.

There is now a small commercial market for drilling the recording light out of the frames.

The Wearable Recording Device Privacy Act

The team at the Existential Republic assembled the act out of law that already exists.

Its definitions come from the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, which has survived eighteen years of litigation. Its indicator requirement comes from Pennsylvania House Bill 2603. Its conduct rules extend California Senate Bill 1130 and follow the method of Louisiana's pending consent bill. Its authority to condition sale on hardware standards rests on California's smartphone kill switch and connected device security statutes, both enacted and both standing.

The act requires a working recording indicator on every device sold in the state and requires the device to shut off capture whenever that indicator is blocked, removed, or broken. It criminalizes selling the tools and services that defeat the light.

It makes cloud storage of recordings opt-in, requires disclosure of any human review, prohibits training AI on bystanders without their written consent, gives anyone captured by one of these devices a right to deletion within thirty days, and preserves in plain text the right to record police and public officials performing their duties in public.

The Act is actionable to reign in META

Behind all of it sits a private right of action worth 10,000 dollars per negligent violation and 25,000 dollars per intentional one, plus punitive damages, with the amounts drawn from the federal Wiretap Act and from the Texas statute Meta already paid 1.4 billion dollars under.

No device Meta currently sells complies. Under this act, none could be sold in your state until the company redesigns to the standard your legislature sets.

I understand if people are upset. I was ignorant on the subject, and I hear folks on this. I was wrong to ever wear this product and I apologize for the distress that caused.

State Legislatures should pass the act

This legislation can be passed at the state level, and it would prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future and ultimately would protect people.

The full text is on The Existenttialist Republic via Christopher Armitage's Substack. There you will find a source map so your legislator's counsel can verify every section.

What you can do 

Here is what we do with this act. Look up your state representative and your state senator at open.pluralpolicy.com/find_your_legislator, the Open States tool, which pulls their email and office contact from your street address. Email them this article, or copy and paste the bill text itself, which is easier from a PC browser. Ask them for two things: their thoughts on the act, and a public endorsement of it.

Then send it to your county Democratic party, your Indivisible chapter, and any organizing group you belong to. Ask the leadership to put it in front of their members, and ask the members to endorse it and share it.

---

MODEL WEARABLE RECORDING DEVICE PRIVACY ACT

Model legislation for introduction in any state legislature. Bracketed text indicates placeholders for state-specific citations and classifications. A source map for every operative provision appears in Appendix A so that legislative counsel can verify provenance and existing judicial construction.

SECTION 1. TITLE

This Act may be cited as the Wearable Recording Device Privacy Act.

SECTION 2. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

The Legislature finds as follows:

(a) Wearable recording devices that integrate cameras and microphones into ordinary eyewear and other worn articles are now mass-market consumer products. Unlike a handheld camera, these devices collapse the distinction between observation and capture, and bystanders frequently cannot perceive when recording is occurring.

To finish reading, go to Christopher Armitage's Substack                                                                             https://cmarmitage.substack.com/p/i-wore-metas-glasses-then-i-read?publication_id=5818316&post_id=205440540&triggerShare=true&isFreemail=true&r=70flt&triedRedirect=true