ICE bars smart glasses from federal workspaces, calling them body-worn cameras
In January, the New York Police Department’s counterterrorism bureau circulated a memo to other police departments warning that Ray-Ban Meta glasses posed a “security and counterintelligence” threat. The memo directed officers to “conduct thorough inspections of all eyewear permitted within inmate cells” and cautioned that people who had been arrested could use the glasses to record inside police facilities. 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 stated.
The NYPD action followed a video posted to TikTok in July 2025 that was taken with smart glasses inside a South Carolina detention center that had been the subject of a federal investigation over unsafe conditions. In the video, the user observed that other detainees were trying to figure out why his glasses’ light was blinking. “Everyone here is trying to figure out what’s going on with my glasses, why my light is blinking,” he said. “People don’t know about Meta glasses.” The footage showed a dingy shower, the inside of holding cells, an overcrowded cafeteria, and several detainees who appeared unaware they were being recorded as they slept, ate or walked.
Detention facilities in the United States typically confiscate any device capable of recording video footage, but some Meta smart glasses have gone unnoticed, according to the documents. The glasses are discreet and can pass as a regular pair of Ray-Bans or Oakleys, with a small blinking light in the corner of the frame as the main visual cue that recording is underway.
Ryan Shapiro, executive director of Property of the People, said the documents show that law enforcement wants the exclusive right to use surveillance technology without having cameras 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.”
Other memos expressing concern about Meta smart glasses originated from the Department of Homeland Security’s joint counterterrorism assessment team and fusion centers in San Diego, California, Tennessee, Virginia, Maine and New York. Fusion centers are DHS facilities spread across the country as surveillance hubs that collect and analyze what the DHS describes as “threat-related” information from local law enforcement, private companies and other state and federal agencies.
In June, Maine’s fusion center distributed a memo warning that “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.” The Maine document continued: “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.”
Federal agencies have moved to bar their own employees from using the glasses in the workplace. In August, acting ICE director David Venturella wrote in a memo that smart glasses qualify as body-worn cameras and therefore cannot be worn in the “federal workspace.” “The use of Meta Glasses or similar devices could unintentionally capture, record or transmit sensitive information,” the memo read.
Meta says its glasses are designed to be noticed. Spokesperson Dina El-Kassaby said: “Every pair has a bright white LED that blinks when a photo or video is taken for your gallery, it can’t be turned off, and if someone covers or tampers with the LED, the camera is disabled.”
Beyond the concern about being filmed without their consent, law enforcement agencies have cautioned that the glasses may be used to aid in planning violent acts. A January 2025 NYPD memo cited the New Year’s Day terror attack in New Orleans, in which 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 and alleged he was conducting “pre-attack target reconnaissance,” the memo stated.
Evan Greer, executive director of the digital advocacy nonprofit Fight for the Future, said surveillance tools do not distinguish between the people who use them. “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 law enforcement focus on the ways artificial-intelligence-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 the use of advanced technology in policing. The memo was a response to “AI 2027,” a paper written by a former OpenAI researcher and other industry experts about the potential future effects of AI development, which warned that AI opposition could result in “anti-tech violent extremist activity” and civil unrest over job losses, deepfake technology and loss of trust in government and tech companies.
The Guardian reported that “anti-tech violent extremist activity” is not a formal DHS designation for categories of terrorism but has recently appeared in law enforcement messaging about a broad spectrum of extremist opposition to AI. Experts worry, according to the outlet, that the term could serve to criminalize anti-tech opposition and the constitutionally protected right to protest.