内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/column/961707/smart-glasses-ai-wearables-meta-surveillance-privacy

内容总结：

AI可穿戴设备引发隐私争议：从《卧底老绅士》看智能眼镜的文化困境

近日，随着Netflix剧集《卧底老绅士》第二季热播，智能眼镜的隐私问题再次成为公众讨论焦点。剧中，泰德·丹森饰演的老年鳏夫查尔斯·纽文迪克戴着类似Ray-Ban Meta的智能眼镜潜入养老院调查珠宝失窃案，这一设定意外揭示了当前AI可穿戴设备面临的巨大文化矛盾。

从影视虚构到现实争议

该剧主角使用智能眼镜对毫无戒心的老人和工作人员进行秘密拍摄，剧中角色甚至从未注意到眼镜上的LED隐私指示灯。尽管观众因主角的善意目的（寻找珠宝窃贼）而对其行为产生同情，但这一情节恰恰映射了现实世界中智能眼镜引发的隐私焦虑。

Meta公司自2023年Ray-Ban Meta智能眼镜大获成功后，持续推出新品。最近发布的无品牌标识平价智能眼镜更是引发热议。《纽约时报》畅销书作家Namina Forna在Threads上发帖直言：“我们都同意Meta眼镜是给变态用的，对吧？”该帖获得超过3万点赞。

现实中的“可穿戴监控”困境

科技记者在实际测试中发现，无论是Meta眼镜还是AI记录戒指，这些设备为了保持有效性，必须设计得隐蔽且容易被忽视。然而，这导致一个核心矛盾：用户在使用设备时，完全依赖陌生人对他们“善意意图”的假设。

“当我戴着这些设备外出时，路人不会知道我是必须遵守严格道德准则的科技记者，”一位测试者表示，“他们不认识我，凭什么相信我？”测试发现，尽管电池续航有限（连续使用Live AI或录制10段3K视频不到1小时即耗电），但私密录制功能足以引发公众不安。

缺乏有效防护机制

与苹果AirTag相比，当前AI可穿戴设备缺乏类似的用户保护机制。AirTag通过实施非自愿跟踪警报、采纳家暴倡导者反馈不断改进系统，而Meta智能眼镜的LED指示灯在阳光下难以辨认、易被遮挡。专家建议引入类似日本手机强制快门声的物理标识，如可拆卸摄像头模块、物理快门等。

行业未来与用户选择

Meta可穿戴设备副总裁Alex Himel承认公司正在关注隐私灯被篡改的问题，但表示模块化设计会影响产品的美观和一体化。目前，部分私人企业和场所已开始限制智能眼镜进入，Zenni Optical甚至推出反面部识别镜片。

这场智能眼镜的隐私之争，正如剧中主角纽文迪克所悟：即便怀着最善良的意图，掌握他人隐私依然令人不安。在现实中，这种信任一旦被打破，很难像电视剧那样在季终时圆满解决。

中文翻译：

我长期以来一直认为，好莱坞既塑造了我们对智能眼镜的期待，又毁掉了这些期待。但在连刷两季 Netflix 的《卧底老绅士》后，这或许是我第一次看到好莱坞（或许是无意中）揭示了当前智能眼镜最大的文化问题。

我窥见

AI 可穿戴设备构建的监控社会，其核心在于用善意掩盖合理的隐私担忧。

若您通过 The Verge 链接购买商品，Vox Media 可能会获得佣金。详见我们的道德声明。

简而言之，泰德·丹森饰演查尔斯·纽文迪克，一位年长的鳏夫，在为一名私家侦探工作时找到了新的人生目标。他戴着一副类似雷朋 Meta 的眼镜，配有录音笔和智能手机，潜入一家养老院，在追查盗窃老人财物的珠宝贼的过程中，引发了一系列侵犯隐私的闹剧。可以说，纽文迪克的行为本应令人不齿。他利用智能眼镜（及其他设备）监视整个养老院中毫不知情的老人和员工。更可怕的是，似乎没人注意到眼镜上的 LED 隐私指示灯——你在第一集就能看到它亮起。

我猜想，大多数观众会将剧中的智能眼镜仅仅视为一种情节工具。这是一个离奇的前提，而剧情也让观众明白，纽文迪克是个好人。他只是一个无聊的祖父，试图破案——而不是像许多反智能眼镜人士所担心的那样，用眼镜骚扰女性或勒索不雅视频。他并不特别擅长隐蔽行动，这倒是个加分项。而且，在丹森以亲切魅力占据荧屏四十年后，你也很难不喜欢他那种显而易见的叔伯式魅力。但作为一名可穿戴设备专家，我注意到的是纽文迪克随着剧情推进所面临的内心冲突——那些他决定摘下眼镜或删除视频的沉默时刻；以及那些不那么安静的瞬间：当他的新朋友们因他的欺诈行为感到被背叛，不确定能否信任一个如此随意侵犯他们隐私的人。

这更像是我作为可穿戴设备评测者的亲身经历。最近几个月，我整日戴着“间谍眼镜”和始终在听的设备，生活在我称之为“可穿戴监控社会”的环境中。

两周前，Meta 推出了不含雷朋品牌、价格更低的智能眼镜。自 2023 年雷朋 Meta 眼镜超出预期以来，Meta 一直以稳定的速度发布新款智能眼镜。去年秋天，该公司甚至推出了首款显示眼镜，右镜片上有一个几乎看不见的屏幕，还有一个未来主义的可穿戴腕带用于手势控制。不过，这次发布有些不同。这次，Meta 与凯莉·詹娜合作，此后，在该公司类似 X 的社交媒体平台 Threads 上，各种热评不断涌现。

“我们都同意 Meta 眼镜是为变态准备的，对吧？”《纽约时报》畅销书作家纳米娜·福尔娜在 Threads 上发布了一条获得超 3 万个赞的帖子。

过去一周左右，此类帖子层出不穷。公平地说，值得指出的是，这些眼镜并不像一些发帖者声称的那样能够进行全天候的音频或视频监控。电池续航远不够好；使用实时 AI 进行连续视频拍摄、长时间通话，或录制大约 10 段 3K 视频，都会在一小时内耗尽电量（而且这还是在你充满电的情况下）。即便如此，你可以改装眼镜，或者拍摄短小隐蔽的片段，这一事实足以令人不安，在网上引发本能反应。一些帖子主张女性购买眼镜，以反击和监视那些骚扰她们的变态。另一些帖子则建议使用暴力、抢走他人的眼镜，或者通过大喊“恋童癖！”或脏话来公开羞辱 Meta 眼镜用户。还有少数帖子指责凯莉·詹娜是伪君子，因为她公开声称重视隐私，却成为了 Meta 的品牌大使。

另一方面，一些 Meta 眼镜用户发帖称，他们对突然出现的仇恨感到困惑。其实这并不突然——智能眼镜的争论在最近几个月重新燃起，这要归功于《纽约时报》和《连线》杂志的调查，这些调查发现 Meta 一直在考虑为眼镜添加面部识别功能。但智能眼镜的粉丝们则指出了无障碍使用的案例，或者他们购买眼镜是为了免手持地拍摄孩子、宠物或度假的私人视频。其他人则指出，他们之前根本没想过隐私影响，现在感到很矛盾。这个群体中更愤慨的发帖者辩称，智能手机（和其他设备）也是监控设备，没有人能在公共场合合理期待隐私。

社交媒体从来不是进行细致辩论的好地方，Threads 尤其如此，它极度奖励那些煽动愤怒的内容。话虽如此，这些帖子尽管粗鲁，却简洁地反映了围绕 AI 可穿戴设备的文化紧张局势。过去几周，我一直在测试雷朋 Meta Optics、新的 Meta 眼镜，以及 Vocci 这款 AI 笔记戒指。当我在公共场合佩戴和使用这些设备时，这些帖子在我脑海中回响。因为尽管智能眼镜处于隐私争论的前沿，但 AI 可穿戴设备已经是一个包含吊坠、胸针和戒指的类别，它们可以隐蔽地录制对话。大多数设备旨在用于商务会议或讲座——自动转录和 AI 摘要对讲师、律师、医生、学生和记者很有吸引力。问题在于，一旦一款录音设备到了我手里，我不必按设计用途使用它。

作为一名记者，在刚刚过去的科技会议季中，Vocci 戒指价值巨大。我能够进行有记录的采访和演示，而无需使用手机。这使得采访对象更自然一些，尽管我事先解释过我正在用戒指录音，并向他们展示了那个不够亮的录音指示灯。在报道“增强运动会”时，我用它来谨慎地记录语音笔记。按下按钮就能实时“高亮”采访中我觉得有趣的任何言论，这非常有帮助。让我感到安心的是，这不像我测试过的其他一些 AI 可穿戴设备那样是始终在线的录音设备。作为一款在获得同意后使用的有意为之的工作工具，这枚戒指非常出色。

不那么出色的是，我能够多么轻易地秘密录下我的配偶、值得信赖的朋友和同事，而他们毫无察觉。（这是为了测试目的。我事后总是会告知并立即删除任何此类录音，同时征求他们对 LED 录音指示灯的意见。）老实说，它太有效了，如果未来的间谍电影或《卧底老绅士》的后续季中不出现 AI 戒指，我反而会感到惊讶。

与查尔斯·纽文迪克或詹姆斯·邦德不同，我不是由魅力演员扮演的虚构角色。当我戴着这些可穿戴设备处理日常事务时，公众并不知道我是一名必须遵守严格道德准则的科技记者。对于路人来说，我如何获取同意，或者我花了多少时间思考如何尽可能合乎道德地测试这些设备，这些都无关紧要。我每次出门前都排练和准备好，如果有人就我佩戴的设备质问我时该说什么、做什么，这也无关紧要。他们不认识我，那为什么要相信我呢？在测试了这些可穿戴设备并报道了这个领域之后，如果有人把我误认为是间谍，我也不会责怪他们。

AI 可穿戴设备的核心矛盾在于，要发挥效用，它们必须隐蔽，在某种程度上甚至要隐秘。Meta 眼镜和 Vocci 戒指之所以有效，是因为它们容易被忽视。你戴着它们感觉很自在，并且知道你不是一个侵犯隐私的混蛋。但这完全取决于每个人都假定你心怀善意。另一个可悲的事实是，没有任何单个用户能做什么来增加人们对这些设备的信任。

我能想到的唯一“成功”的例子是 AirTag。关于隐私和安全的争论同样适用于 AirTag 和智能眼镜。监控设备已经存在了很久，但价格亲民和更强的可穿戴性是新的，因此令人担忧。诚然，绝大多数人用 AirTag 寻找丢失物品，用智能眼镜进行良性的内容录制和媒体播放。滥用这些设备的坏人是极少数——但他们确实存在，并且造成了不可否认的伤害。

主要区别在于，AirTag 有一个明显的杀手级应用场景，而且苹果通过实施不必要的跟踪警报来削弱这些设备的功能。这并不能防止滥用，但确实让滥用变得更难，吸引力也更低。在批评者指出警报不够强效后，苹果还采纳了来自家暴倡导者的反馈。而且，尽管很可怕，但社交媒体上已有视频显示，人们在伤害发生前确实发现有人可能在跟踪他们。

对于 AI 可穿戴设备，目前还没有类似的对等物。我不想老调重弹，但事实已经证明，LED 录音指示灯很容易被忽视，在阳光下会失效，并且可以被篡改。对我来说，显而易见的解决方案是牺牲一点风格，采用更难被忽略的标识。我指的是像日本智能手机那样强制要求可听见的快门声——这是法律要求的功能，旨在防止变态偷拍女性不雅照。甚至可以是物理快门或类似单反相机的微型镜头盖。我能想到的一个当前例子是 Xreal 的模块化摄像头附件。你可以在想拍照时装上摄像头，不想用时完全拆掉。

“我们考虑过[模块化]方案，”Meta 可穿戴设备副总裁亚历克斯·希梅尔在 Meta 眼镜发布会上告诉我，指出它确实有几个好处。例如，它可以减少所需的 SKU 和设计数量。人们可以轻松升级普通眼镜。希梅尔说，问题在于眼镜“就不会那么简洁或一体化。[它们]会更重、更笨拙，而且外观不好看。”他接着说，Meta 意识到篡改隐私指示灯的行为有所增加，并预计很快会有更强大的隐私更新。

在无意中当了几个月的可穿戴窥探者后，我确信 AI 可穿戴监控社会并非不可避免。这些仍然是利基设备。现在还处于非常早期的阶段。如果争议足够大，这一切可能会像纸牌屋一样轰然倒塌。（问问谷歌就知道了。）尽管 Threads 上充满了仇恨——哦，这场讨论发生在 Meta 自己的后院，真是极具讽刺意味——但科技巨头们仍有时间穿上大男孩的裤子，学学斯派克·李，做正确的事。毕竟，这符合他们自身的最佳利益。如果他们不主动行动，立法者最终会赶上来。私营公司和场所已经开始限制这些眼镜，并拒绝佩戴 Meta 眼镜的人进入。Zenni Optical 已经在销售防面部识别镜片。

但是，即使我偶尔觉得这项技术有用——有时甚至令人愉悦——我得出的结论也和查尔斯·纽文迪克一样。即使你有着最好的意图，被托付陌生人的隐私感觉也很糟糕。在电视喜剧中，宽恕来得容易，因为冲突总是在季终集里圆满解决。这在现实世界中是无法保证的。像纽文迪克一样，我只是在做我的工作。区别在于，我从不想成为一名间谍。

更正（7/6）：本文之前的一个版本称丹森在剧中佩戴的是雷朋 Meta 眼镜。虽然它们具有相似的特性和功能，但它们并非 Meta 眼镜。

英文来源：

I’ve long argued that Hollywood has simultaneously set and ruined our expectations for smart glasses. But after binge-watching two seasons of Netflix’s A Man on the Inside, this is perhaps the first time I’ve seen Hollywood, perhaps inadvertently, illustrate the biggest cultural problem with smart glasses as they stand today.
I spy
The AI wearable surveillance state hinges on good intentions masking legitimate privacy concerns.
If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.
In a nutshell, Ted Danson plays Charles Nieuwendyk, an elderly widower who finds a new purpose working for a private investigator. Armed with a pair of Ray-Ban Meta-like glasses, a voice recorder, and a smartphone, Nieuwendyk infiltrates a retirement home, and several privacy-infringing hijinks ensue as he hunts for the jewel thief robbing the retirees. Arguably, Nieuwendyk’s actions should be despicable. He’s using smart glasses — and other gadgets — to spy on an entire retirement home of non-consenting seniors and staff. Scarier still, no one ever seems to notice the glasses’ LED privacy light — which you can see in action during the first episode.
I suspect most viewers will view the smart glasses in this show as a mere plot device. It’s an outlandish premise, and the audience is made to understand that Nieuwendyk is a good person. He’s a bored grandpa trying to solve a crime — not, as many anti-smart glasses advocates fear, using glasses to harass women and ransom compromising footage. It helps that he’s not particularly good at staying covert, but after four decades of gracing our TV screens, it’s also hard not to fall for Danson’s palpable avuncular charm. But, as a wearables expert, what I noticed was the internal conflict Nieuwendyk faced as the show progressed — the quiet moments when he decides to leave the glasses off or delete footage. And the less-quiet moments when his new friends feel betrayed by his subterfuge, unsure whether they can trust someone who so casually invaded their privacy.
This felt more like a reflection of my own experience as a wearables reviewer. These days, I spend months decked out in “spy glasses” and always-listening gadgets, living in what I’ve dubbed “the wearable surveillance state.”
Two weeks ago, Meta launched cheaper smart glasses without Ray-Ban branding. Meta has been releasing new smart glasses at a steady clip ever since its Ray-Ban Meta glasses exceeded expectations in 2023. Last fall, the company even released its first pair of display glasses, complete with a nigh-invisible screen on the right lens and a futuristic wearable wristband for gesture controls. However, this launch was a bit different. This time, Meta partnered with Kylie Jenner, and ever since, the hot takes have been flowing on Threads, the company’s X-like social media platform.
“We all agree that the Meta glasses are for perverts, yes?” Namina Forna, a New York Times bestselling author, writes in a Threads post with over 30,000 likes.
Posts like those have been rampant over the past week or so. To be fair, it’s worth noting that these glasses aren’t capable of 24/7 audio or video surveillance as some posters allege. Battery life is nowhere near good enough; using Live AI for continuous video, taking long phone calls, or recording about 10 3K videos will drain the battery in less than an hour (and that’s if you start fully charged). Even so, the fact that you can mod the glasses or take short, stealthy clips is unsettling enough to inspire visceral reactions online. Some posts advocate that women buy the glasses to clap back and surveil the creeps harassing them. Others suggest violence, snatching people’s glasses, or publicly shaming Meta glasses users by yelling “Pedophile!” or expletives. A handful of posts point to Kylie Jenner as a hypocrite for publicly stating she values privacy while becoming a brand ambassador for Meta.
On the flip side, several Meta glasses users have posted that they’re bewildered by the sudden hate. It’s not sudden, really — the smart glasses debate has reignited in recent months thanks to recent New York Times and Wired investigations, which found that Meta has been mulling over facial recognition features for the glasses. But smart glasses fans point to accessibility use cases, or the fact that they bought the glasses to film private, hands-free videos of their children, pets, or vacations. Others note that they hadn’t thought about the privacy implications at all and are now conflicted. The more indignant posters in this camp have argued that smartphones (and other gadgets) are also surveillance devices and that no one can reasonably expect privacy in public spaces.
Social media is never a good place for nuanced debate, but that’s particularly true of Threads, which heavily rewards rage bait. That said, these posts are a succinct if crude snapshot of the cultural tension surrounding AI wearables. These past few weeks, I’ve been testing the Ray-Ban Meta Optics, the new Meta Glasses, and Vocci, an AI note-taking ring. These posts ring in my head as I wear and use these devices in public. Because while smart glasses are at the forefront of the privacy debate, AI wearables are a category that already encompasses pendants, pins, and rings that can stealthily record conversations. Most are intended for business meetings or lectures — automatic transcripts and AI summaries are appealing to lecturers, lawyers, doctors, students, and journalists. The catch is that once a recording gadget is in my hands, I don’t have to use it as intended.
As a journalist, the Vocci ring was immensely valuable this past tech conference season. I was able to get on-the-record interviews and demos without having to use my phone. It made interview subjects a bit more natural, even though I’d explained beforehand that I was using a ring to record them and showed them the not-bright-enough recording light. While covering the Enhanced Games, I used it to discreetly record voice notes. It was immensely helpful to press the button, which would “highlight” anything said in an interview that I found interesting in real time. It was comforting to me that this wasn’t an always-on recording device like some other AI wearables I’ve tested. As an intentional work tool, where I am obtaining consent, the ring was excellent.
Less excellent was how easily I could surreptitiously record my spouse, trusted friends, and colleagues without them noticing. (This was for testing purposes. I always disclosed and immediately deleted any such recordings afterward, while also asking for opinions on the LED recording light.) Honestly, it was so effective, I’d be shocked if AI rings didn’t feature in future spy movies or seasons of A Man on the Inside.
Unlike Charles Nieuwendyk or James Bond, I am not a fictional character played by a charismatic actor. When I’m going about my business wearing these wearables, the public doesn’t know that I’m a tech journalist who has to adhere to a strict ethics policy. To passersby, it doesn’t matter what I do to obtain consent or the hours I spend considering how to test these devices as ethically as possible. It doesn’t matter that I’ve rehearsed and prepared for what to do and say if someone ever confronted me about the devices I’m wearing every time I walk out the door. They don’t know me, and so why should they trust me? After testing these wearables and covering this space, I wouldn’t blame anyone for mistaking me as a spy.
The central conflict of AI wearables is that to be effective, they have to be discreet and, to a degree, covert. The Meta glasses and Vocci ring work because they’re easy to overlook. You feel comfortable wearing them, and you know you’re not being a privacy-invading glasshole. But this hinges on everyone assuming your good intent. The other sad truth is there’s nothing any individual user can do to increase trust in these devices.
The only “successful” example I can think of is the AirTag. The same privacy and security arguments apply to AirTags as smart glasses. Surveillance gadgets have existed for ages, but the affordability and increased wearability is new and, therefore, concerning. Sure, the overwhelming majority of people use AirTags to find lost items and smart glasses for benign content recording and media playback. The bad actors who’ve misused these devices are a tiny minority — but they exist and have done undeniable harm.
The main difference is that AirTags have an obvious killer use case, and Apple nerfed the devices by implementing unwanted tracking alerts. It doesn’t prevent misuse, but it does make it harder and less appealing. Apple has also taken feedback from domestic abuse advocates after critics pointed out the alerts weren’t robust enough. And as scary as it is, there have been videos on social media where people did find out someone was potentially stalking them before harm was committed.
There is no equivalent for AI wearables at this moment. Not to beat a dead horse, but it’s been proven that LED recording lights are easy to overlook, are washed out on a sunny day, and can be tampered with. The obvious solution to me would be to sacrifice a bit of style for harder-to-ignore signifiers. I’m talking audible shutter noises, like smartphones have in Japan — a feature required by law to prevent perverts from taking nonconsensual photos of women. Perhaps even physical shutters or miniature lens caps like DSLR cameras. One current example that comes to mind is Xreal’s modular camera attachment. You can insert the camera when you want to take photos and completely remove it when you don’t.
“We’ve considered [a] modular [approach],” Alex Himel, Meta’s VP of wearables, told me at the Meta Glasses launch event, noting that it does come with several benefits. For example, it’d reduce the number of SKUs and designs needed. People could upgrade regular glasses easily.
The problem, Himel says, is the glasses “wouldn’t be as clean or integrated. [They’d] be heavier, clunkier, and wouldn’t look as good.” He went on to say that Meta is aware of increasing attempts to tamper with the privacy lights and to expect more robust privacy updates soon.
After months spent as an unintentional wearable snoop, I’m convinced the AI wearable surveillance state isn’t inevitable. These are still niche devices. It’s still very early days. Enough controversy, and this could all come crashing down like a house of cards. (Just ask Google.) For all the hate on Threads — oh, the delicious irony of this discourse happening in Meta’s own backyard — there’s still time for Big Tech to put on their big boy pants, make like Spike Lee, and do the right thing. After all, it’s in their best interest. If they won’t be proactive, legislators will eventually catch up. Private companies and venues are already starting to restrict these glasses and deny entry to Meta glasses wearers. Zenni Optical is already selling anti-facial recognition lenses.
But even if I do occasionally find this tech useful — sometimes even delightful — I’ve come to the same conclusion as Charles Nieuwendyk. Even if you have the best intentions, it feels pretty lousy being entrusted with strangers’ privacy. In TV comedies, forgiveness comes easy because conflicts are always neatly wrapped up by the season finale. That’s not guaranteed in the real world. Like Nieuwendyk, I’m just doing my job. The difference is, I never wanted to be a spy.
Correction, 7/6: A previous version of this article said Danson wears Ray-Ban Meta glasses in the show. While they have similar features and functions, they are not Meta glasses.