We’ve been here before. Two decades ago in South Korea, people were taking photos of others on subways and in public places, which made others feel uncomfortable. They felt that the cameras on these new handheld devices could be used subtly enough to take photos, perhaps up people's skirts or simply without their consent. After a large amount of backlash, South Korea introduced a standard in 2004 requiring camera phones to make a shutter sound, which cannot be switched off even in silent mode. If you snap, you get snapped by the law.

This is a cultural difference that has not spread around the world. The UK is not full of snapping sounds when people take photos, at least not in London. But it does show how people feel they need to know whether they are being watched. While the level of concern may differ from person to person, it is undeniable that whenever a new technology rises up, there are people who want to preserve their privacy with the jealous attention of a grandma protecting their baking recipe.

The same is happening with smart glasses - or “pervert glasses,” as some have touted. There are now many cases of these glasses being banned across Europe, as well as globally. In the UK, pubs, theatres and cinemas are restricting their use, courts in England and Wales can now confiscate them, and global regulators are investigating this area. Take Hamburg, where the data protection regulator published a 53-page report finding the recording light hard to see outdoors, and in the Netherlands, where the national consumer association called for a Europe-wide ban. (I’ll definitely write more about this later).

So yes, there is a lot of clanger and noise. The media sharpens their linguistic pitchforks with fervour. But what I'm interested in is whether there is a peak to the privacy discussion of smart glasses; because at the end of the day, it is just a new product category. Mobile phones were new, and with some tweaks from country to country, they have now been socialised everywhere. The same goes for other “““societal ills””” (triple speech marks intended) that were socialised, ranging from heavy metal to the video nasties.

It’s a developing area, but I want to work out whether this is a new product that is just gaining interest, or whether this is something else entirely.

Firstly, it is crystal-clear that there is public pressure on privacy for smart glasses. It is indisputable. Meta recently announced a pair of glasses at its major conference (the Ray-Ban Meta Audio glasses) that have no camera, so they can be used for general ambient purposes but do not allow recording of other people.

Why focus on Meta? One fundamental reason: the company dominates the market. Estimates of its share differ by source, ranging from around 76% to even 84%, but either way the company holds the market with a topaz fist. I am aware of the other competitors; Snap recently unveiled its Specs glasses, which use a prominent LED in the centre of the frames, and other companies are exploring smart glasses as a new category as well. But even so, Meta is getting a lot of flak just because it is a little ahead in the game.

Further, attitudes are low across the board. In the UK, a YouGov poll in March found 49% of Britons supported banning camera glasses in public spaces, against 30% who opposed it. In Europe, a Bitkom survey found 76% of Germans do not want to be filmed by someone wearing them, while the French regulator CNIL found 67% of French adults see them as a privacy risk. Ironically, you do not need glasses to see the distaste.

It is also indisputable that regulation plays a role here. Various bodies are investigating whether smart glasses can be used or not, as mentioned previously. The European Data Protection Board is preparing its own report on their social acceptability, and I await its publication with the excitement of an upcoming Matt Dinniman novel.

Smart glasses don’t have interest; the product category has sharp disinterest across the board. So what next? Well, I think there are two key areas: meaningful notice; and personal liability.

Let’s touch on meaningful notice. The core problem here is that the LED light is not seen as giving people enough notice that they are being recorded. The light (or lack of it) is the problem, at least with smart glasses. And even then, it was easily covered before illicit recording (before Meta made a patch, anyway).

So I wonder if this is simply an inherent design flaw with smart glasses or a socialisation problem. As smart glasses grow in popularity and use, people will become generally aware that a light being on means the glasses are being used. Is time the factor here, letting its use and awareness seep into society like a cultural sponge? Perhaps not; the best designs are those that can have intuitive controls that can land with a good splash, such as the inherently low-friction design of the iPhone user interface.

The alternative is for the LED light to be so bright and so obvious that it is abundantly clear it is recording. Perhaps it needs flashes of light across the rim, a bit like the back of a Nothing phone, to show that it's in use. Clearer indicators could be a factor here (though using noise to indicate recording, or perhaps beeps, would just be annoying). It’s still a clash between groups. Hamburg's data protection regulator found it hard to spot outdoors, while Germany's Federal Network Agency considers it clearly recognisable, and other regulators across Europe are still exploring the question.

But let’s say you make the perfect “meaningful notice” system. The camera blares a horn saying WARNING, WARNING when someone presses record. Even then, smart glasses are a fundamentally different type of product category which may need different considerations. With a phone, you still have to hold it up to take photos or videos. Smart glasses are different because they fit within the norm. It's this sort of reasoning that helps me understand why cinemas have banned smart glasses in select places, with some UK cinemas restricting them over piracy and privacy concerns. With a mobile phone, it's more obvious when people hold it up in the cinema. Glasses are a little more ambiguous because they are just on people's faces, unless people recognise the brands themselves. It’s an obvious point, but an important one.

This goes back to the core point: maybe this is a case of a new product that is gaining traction. It's still young and is still seen in a particular light, and perhaps it's just a case of people getting used to it. But even then, there are key smart glasses design principles to follow:

The second thing is personal liability; how liable are you when you’re using tools made by other companies? How much of a responsibility do Snap, Meta and others have, or should have?

In the EU, the liability lies mainly with the wearer. If the wearer decides to record without people's consent and doesn't give proper notice, they are liable. As Hamburg's data protection commissioner has said, data protection law does not make manufacturers liable; responsibility lies with those who use the glasses. Hamburg does, however, argue that when footage feeds Meta's AI, the wearer and Meta can become joint controllers who share responsibility.

This is different in other countries. In the US, Pennsylvania has proposed a law that would require smart glasses to show a visible indicator whenever they record, and make it illegal to disable it.

In my view, it feels abundantly clear that the problem is the wearer using technology in a particular way. If you intentionally recorded footage, it’s on you. But at the same time, there is a responsibility on the hardware manufacturer to make sure there's clarity, even if there's potentially no direct liability for the way its products are used. This is why a clearer indication of recording is absolutely vital.

Also, the idea that phone manufacturers are responsible if these tools are used for nefarious reasons is obtuse. I don’t blame my hammer if I miss a nail and hit my thumb. Rather, the better standard is making it clear when an item is being used, such as the shutter sound in South Korea.

Privacy concerns have been around since the dawn of time, and there have always been people who want to protect themselves. I get it. In the UK, we have a powerful sense that we want to live our own lives and not be observed. The fight over identity cards has been a long one, as supporters argue that ID cards can be useful for tracking people with nefarious aims as well as protecting others. We value our privacy with the vibrant vitality of football supporters.

So the clash with smart glasses was almost inevitable. There is a cultural clash with that sense of wanting to disappear, or at least be able to slink into the shadows, even at a time when we are some of the most observed people in the world through surveillance and tracking.

But things change. In my view, I do think it comes down to the fact that new things often take time to be embedded, adopted and used. As smart glasses get cheaper (and hopefully more fashionable? A man can dream), I can see smart glasses getting more approval across society.

Then again, that’s contingent on one thing: whether people want them to begin with. Perhaps smart glasses may not have the same power or pull as mobile phones.

It's something I will look into in the future (and I plan to do so in the Immersive Wire over the next few weeks). And one hopes that the name “pervert glasses” is scrubbed off the societal wall with thick bleach

In the meantime, if you want to be updated, please subscribe to the Immersive Wire at www.immersivewire.com.

Note: The Immersive Wire is run by Tom Ffiske, who also works at Accenture. The contents of the website and newsletter should not be regarded as Accenture’s views.