All shows / The Latent Image

The Latent Image cover art

The Latent Image

The Kodak Fiends Are Back

In 1888 the camera hid in a waistcoat button; in 2026 it sits on a face with a small warning light, and that light decides for itself what counts as watching.

Wren and Theo · 22 min · 13 Oct 2026

FactUnion VerifiedEvery fact on the episode's fact sheet was checked against its sources. Wrong facts were corrected. What this meansFacts checked 13 Oct 2026

Chapters (10)

About this episode

In the late 1880s a new kind of pocket camera set off a panic: strangers photographed on beaches and promenades, sometimes with lenses disguised as buttons. That panic helped give us the legal idea of privacy. It never gave us a right not to be photographed. In autumn 2026, with hundreds of Dutch women and girls filmed in secret with Meta glasses, retailers pulling stock and Norway proposing a ban, the main protection for bystanders is a small LED. Hamburg's data regulator took it outside and tested it.

Wren and Theo follow the line from Abigail Roberson's face on twenty-five thousand flour posters to a light that dims, or stays dark, when the glasses' AI looks at the world. They also hear from the blind and low-vision people who call these glasses life-changing and fear being shut out by bans. Meta's explanation for the LED behaviour during AI queries was not in our research.

Hosted by Wren and Theo, performed by synthetic voices. Supported by ShotBreak.

Facts and sources

Every fact used in this episode, with the sources it was checked against. Download as data

208 of 208 recorded lines matched the checked script.

  1. In their 1890 Harvard Law Review essay ‘The Right to Privacy’, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis named “instantaneous photographs” and newspaper enterprise as inventions that had invaded “the sacred precincts of private and domestic life”.

  2. The Victorian Stirn waistcoat (vest) detective camera had its lens poking through a buttonhole, designed to look like a button, and its shutter was released by pulling a string, so it could be used concealed.

    Reworded to match its sources. Neither the page nor the check says the camera worked silently, so that detail is dropped; the button disguise and the string release are confirmed.

  3. In the late 1880s and 1890s hand-held cameras caused widespread anxiety about people being photographed without consent, including at beach resorts.

    Reworded to match its sources. Nothing in the evidence says the panic died down as photography became normal, so that part is dropped.

  4. Abigail Roberson, a Rochester teenager, sued Franklin Mills Flour and Rochester Folding Box Co. in 1900 after her portrait was printed without her consent on 25,000 advertising posters.

  5. In 1902 the New York Court of Appeals ruled against Roberson, holding that no legal right to privacy existed.

Show all 29 factsShow fewer facts

  1. After public outcry over the Roberson decision, New York passed a 1903 statute, now Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51, banning use of a person’s likeness for trade or advertising without consent.

  2. In 1905 the Supreme Court of Georgia, in Pavesich v. New England Life Insurance Co., became the first state high court to recognise a common-law right to privacy.

    Reworded to match its sources. Pavesich was not the first court of any kind to recognise privacy; the evidence calls Georgia's the first major court and first state high court to do so.

  3. New York’s Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51 are strictly limited to nonconsensual commercial appropriation of a living person’s name, portrait or picture and give no general right to be free from being photographed in public.

    Reworded to match its sources. The evidence confirms this only for the New York statute; nothing confirms that Pavesich is limited to commercial appropriation, so that part was dropped.

  4. Abigail Roberson later became a music teacher, played piano in silent-movie theatres and lectured on spiritualism, and she died in Oregon in 1977.

  5. On 1 October 2026 NL Times reported that hundreds, possibly thousands, of Dutch women and girls had been secretly filmed with Meta glasses, with the footage circulating on Telegram groups and websites.

  6. The Dutch newspaper AD first reported the secret filming of women with Meta glasses, and the eyewear chain Hans Anders then stopped selling Ray-Ban Meta glasses in the Netherlands and Belgium.

  7. The Dutch online retailer Wehkamp also stopped selling Meta’s camera glasses in early October 2026.

  8. The Dutch consumer group Consumentenbond and the organisation Offlimits threatened legal action against Meta unless the glasses are modified or withdrawn.

  9. On 5 October 2026 Norway’s Minister of Digitalisation and Public Governance, Torgeir Micaelsen, announced that the government will propose a temporary ban on AI glasses and submit a bill to the Storting as soon as possible.

  10. Norway’s proposed ban would apply in listed places including parks, beaches, museums, shopping centres, schools, kindergartens, playgrounds, youth clubs, healthcare facilities and gyms with changing rooms, while private use stays permitted.

  11. Norway’s proposal names the places first and leaves the definition of which devices are covered still to be worked out.

  12. The New York Unified Court System banned smart glasses in courthouses from 20 July 2026, and on 12 October 2026 Sutherland Shire Council in Australia voted unanimously to restrict smart glasses in its facilities, including libraries and leisure centres.

    Reworded to match its sources. The Australian council action was taken by Sutherland Shire Council on 12 October 2026, not by the City of Sydney in September, and the check found no City of Sydney ban.

  13. EssilorLuxottica sold seven million pairs of Meta’s smart glasses in 2025.

  14. The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (HmbBfDI) published its final report on Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses on 10 September 2026, finding the recording LED often invisible in sunlight, narrow in beam angle, and effective only for people close by and looking directly at the glasses.

  15. The HmbBfDI report found that when the wearer uses Meta AI to ask about their surroundings, the LED glows only dimly on first-generation glasses and not at all on second-generation glasses.

    Reworded to match its sources. Source corrected: the page first cited does not state this; the sources listed do.

  16. The HmbBfDI tested first-generation glasses and found that stickers could block the LED while letting enough ambient light reach the sensor to get past the camera shutdown.

    Reworded to match its sources. Nothing in the evidence says the HmbBfDI tested on firmware v127. The v127 test was the Consumentenbond's, so that detail is dropped.

  17. On 10 September 2026 the Consumentenbond reported that specially designed stickers let it cover the LED and keep filming, under a headline saying the camera glasses can film secretly despite updates.

  18. Meta’s firmware v128, available from early September 2026, checks continuously and stops recording within seconds if the LED is covered, yet the glasses still failed Hamburg’s testing.

  19. The HmbBfDI found empty database tables in Meta’s companion app suggesting potential for facial recognition, but concluded that no such feature is currently active.

  20. In October 2024 Harvard students AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio demonstrated I-XRAY, which linked the glasses’ Instagram livestream to facial recognition and public databases to identify strangers and retrieve their personal information in real time.

  21. Khadija Raza of the Royal National Institute of Blind People warned that bans on smart glasses leave blind and partially sighted people feeling excluded from society.

  22. Chris Edwards of Vision Australia and former disability discrimination commissioner Graeme Innes described the glasses as life-changing, with Edwards citing hands-free AI help for navigation, reading and tasks that previously needed human assistance.

    Reworded to match its sources. The evidence does not say the human support was costly; the lower cost it mentions is compared with traditional assistive devices.

  23. Damian Papps of the advocacy group See Differently argues that governments should regulate misuse of footage rather than ban the hardware.

  24. Optometrist Aled Brassington and Dr Alastair Forbes argue that banning the glasses is disproportionate, noting that smartphones and CCTV already capture public footage without similar stigma.

    Reworded to match its sources. Source corrected: the page first cited does not state this; the sources listed do.

More from The Latent Image

  1. One Gram of Silver

    Silver hit a record and film got more expensive, just like in 1980. But a roll holds about a gram of silver, and the bigger risk to film may be the old machines that coat it.

    13 Oct 2026 · 21 min Facts and sources

  2. Certified Real: What a Signed Photo Can't Prove

    Apple wants your iPhone to swear a photo is real, but a Nikon camera, a spirit photographer from 1869 and a Gaza freelancer show what a signature can and can't vouch for.

    13 Oct 2026 · 22 min Facts and sources

If you like The Latent Image, you might also like