The Privatization of Wearable Surveillance

Solos’ latest smart glasses offering is a case study in the commodification of privacy. The company’s AirGo V2 glasses come with camera capabilities and an optional Privacy Kit, which includes clip-on accessories that allow users to control what their cameras can access.

At $299, the AirGo V2 is not particularly innovative, offering features similar to Meta’s smart glasses, including photo and video capture, music playback, and interaction with an AI-powered assistant. However, when paired with the Privacy Kit – available for an additional $79 – users can control camera access.

The question remains: is this a genuine attempt at prioritizing user privacy or a clever marketing ploy? Solos may be acknowledging the growing unease among consumers about wearable surveillance technology by offering a “solution” to the problem. By allowing users to pay extra for clip-on privacy shields, Solos is creating a new revenue stream while sidestepping fundamental questions about the ethics of camera-enabled smart glasses.

As companies like Solos and Meta navigate the complex landscape of wearable tech, user trust will be a major determining factor in their success or failure. If consumers are willing to pay extra for clip-on privacy shields, it indicates either a genuine desire for control over their data or a way to assuage lingering unease about the potential consequences of wearing camera-enabled glasses.

The fact remains that Solos’ solution doesn’t address the root issue. By allowing users to toggle camera access on and off at will, we’re still left with the question: what are we really buying when we purchase a pair of smart glasses? Are they tools for augmenting our daily lives or stealthy surveillance devices that happen to also play music?

As other big players in the industry – Google, Samsung, Apple – enter the market, Solos is playing a high-stakes game. Emphasizing privacy and user control may be an attempt to differentiate itself from Meta and others, but ultimately, this approach feels like a Band-Aid solution for a far more profound problem.

In the end, it’s up to consumers to decide whether they’re willing to pay extra for a sense of security that might not even be foolproof. As we continue down the path of wearable surveillance technology, our expectations about what these devices can and should do will only become more refined – and more contentious.