Smart Glasses Face Ban in New York Nightlife Scene

It seems there’s a crackdown on “smart” glasses in trendy New York clubs. Following a summer packed with launches from companies like Ray-Ban and Oakley, some of the city’s hottest nightlife spots are implementing strict policies.

The new directive? Wearing Meta or Snap’s glasses—which have the capability to record and stream others without consent—could land you on a blacklist. It’s a serious trade-off: enjoy a night out in neon-lit venues or be banned for life.

The conversation about such bans gained momentum internationally after Norway announced on October 5 a temporary halt on these gadgets in gyms, healthcare facilities, and private event spaces, including clubs. Torgeir Micaelsen, the country’s Minister of Digitalization, emphasized the importance of personal space, stating, “We do not want a society where people are concerned about hidden audio recordings…”

New York previously became the first state in the U.S. to ban these surveillance glasses in various court settings. Now, private venues around the city are catching on.

Notably, Basement, an exclusive nightclub in Queens known for its peculiar vibe checks, declared last month on Instagram that guests wearing smart glasses would be asked to leave and possibly face a permanent ban. Similarly, Cocktail Bed Stuy in Brooklyn adopted a comparable stance after Meta’s initial plans for facial recognition technology ignited backlash.

James, an underground party promoter in Brooklyn, also voiced his concerns. He mentioned that his events, held at places like Honey’s, are closed to those with digital recording glasses after witnessing someone using them at Nowadays, another local hotspot. His discomfort was immediate, impacting his vibe on the dance floor.

“Getting filmed by a cellphone while dancing is one thing, but smart glasses can record secretly—it just feels, well, intrusive,” he reflected.

James pointed out that last spring, a group drew negative attention online for using smart glasses inappropriately, further showcasing the potential for misuse. This kind of behavior is especially unwelcome among New York club-goers who value their privacy in a space that’s often a reprieve from constant surveillance.

Seattle’s 5 Points Cafe has upheld a ban on Google Glass since 2013, recently reiterating its policy against newer styles. Across borders, Toronto’s Wiggle Room nightclub introduced a similar measure, even providing staff with an app to detect potential surveillance in their venue.

Is this an overreaction? For DJ Takin Nateghi, it’s essential. He noted that many professionals frequent his venue, valuing their privacy while enjoying a night out. Even when asked about potentially questionable behavior, he suggested, “As long as nothing harmful is happening… it’s none of our business.”

Even Meta is responding to concerns. They’ve announced updates to their glasses, including a software kill switch that halts recording when the indicator light is obscured, although experts argue this won’t fully address privacy concerns.

Dr. Roman Yampolskiy, an AI specialist, argues for stronger measures than just a single kill switch, advocating for tamper-proof recording lights and severe penalties for misuse to maintain public anonymity.

Many wonder if outright bans are necessary. Law professor Gautam Hans suggests that social practices might be more feasible for the time being, emphasizing the effectiveness of club policies in maintaining privacy without formal legislation.

Some enthusiasts remain undeterred, insisting they’ll continue wearing smart glasses despite potential bans. “I’m still wearing them,” insisted one Reddit user, unbothered by the rules. Others pointed out a nuanced debate—what happens when smart glasses also serve as prescription lenses? Nateghi indicated that accommodations could be made for individuals needing them for vision.

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the technology’s future, Nateghi understands the appeal of smart glasses but stresses the need for safe usage. Others, like James, are firmly against introducing more surveillance into spaces that should feel liberating and private. “It’s just very creepy,” he concluded.