Shubnam, who identifies as transfeminine, said they were in the middle of moving house in Delhi’s scorching 40 degrees Celsius-plus summer when they found out that a video of them telling a social media content creator to “f*** off” had gone viral.

The clip of their fleeting interaction at a trans rights protest was recorded without Shubnam’s knowledge or consent, using Meta’s AI (artificial intelligence) Ray-Ban smart glasses. It was filmed by a relatively unknown content creator on Instagram, who goes by the username Parley (@parley.96) and specialises in ragebait pranks.

The concerns the incident raised have only sharpened since. On July 20, Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police Sandeep Lamba – filmed slapping a woman protester during the march to Parliament, and since removed from the Jantar Mantar protest site – was seen wearing smart glasses at the protest site, this time with the camera in the hands of the state rather than a content creator. But Shubnam’s ordeal remains one of the most prominent examples yet of a user weaponising the glasses to capture imagery without consent, a practice journalists and tech policy experts have flagged as a major privacy risk, illustrating how wearable tech can facilitate the abuse of vulnerable groups.

With a shorn head and dressed in a turquoise green saree, Shubnam cut a striking figure at the protest on March 29, 2026, at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar grounds against the Transgender (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026. Trans activists slammed the bill as regressive, but Indian lawmakers passed it hastily anyway.

When Parley posted an edited version of the video in late May, Instagram’s algorithm propelled the post, triggering a wave of transphobic hate and memes, including AI-generated images likening Shubnam to a Hindi animated cartoon named ‘Ganji Chudail’ or bald witch. 

Several right-wing pro-Hindutva X accounts downloaded the clip and shared it on the Elon Musk-owned platform in what seemed like a call for mass bullying. The clip had over five million views on Instagram alone before the platform quietly deleted it three weeks later, in late June.

“I was in the middle of shifting homes when this entire sh*t show went down,” said Shubnam, who works as a graphic designer and artist. “I was packing a giant carton when I got a text about that video on May 26, and then it just kept growing,” they said. Although the protest took place on March 29, Parley did not upload the edited clip until nearly two months later, in May – which is when it first came to Shubnam’s attention.

“House-hunting for trans people is quite a challenging task,” Shubnam said. “I was already quite mentally drained from the whole hunting and shifting, and this whole episode of virality just overloaded my brain at a time when it really needed some rest.”

Meta denied, then deleted 

Meta, the Mark Zuckerberg-founded company that owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, has been leading the smart glasses space with its introduction as early as 2021. The glasses are made in partnership with EssilorLuxottica, the parent company of Ray-Ban and Oakley.

Meta roped in cricketer Virat Kohli to promote its latest wearable tech. The glasses allow users to take photos, capture video, respond to voice commands, and feature a built-in mic and speaker. The Gen 1 version starts at Rs 22,400, whereas the latest Gen 2 version is upward of nearly Rs 40,000. 

When several Instagram users in India reported the video, the platform initially said it did not violate its Community Standards, contradicting its own guidelines on bullying and harassment. 

With several LGBTQIA+ individuals and pages rallying to get it removed, Instagram ultimately took down the video. But not before it had already amassed millions of views across different platforms and painted a virtual target on Shubnam.

Algorithm suggests

Nipunika Sachdeva, who also attended the March 29 protest in Delhi in solidarity and who appears briefly in the same video surreptitiously shot by Parley, said she wasn’t surprised by the platform’s initial refusal to budge.

“It wasn't surprising, honestly – like, we knew it probably wouldn’t be taken down,” said Nipunika, who works as a community manager with Youth Ki Awaaz.

“...By now, [we] understand that Instagram just doesn’t take action. But we thought YouTube and Reddit might, but they also did not,” she added. Even though Nipunika reported the post, the algorithm still showed her more reels from Parley’s account.

Responsibility with users: Meta

A spokesperson for Meta said the glasses have an LED light to signal to others that a recording is underway and that users are responsible for using them safely. 

In an emailed statement, the spokesperson said: “Our glasses have an LED light that activates whenever someone captures content, so it’s clear the device is recording. Our terms of service clearly state that users are responsible for complying with all applicable laws and for using Ray-Ban Meta glasses in a safe, respectful manner. And as with any recording device, people shouldn’t use them for engaging in harmful activities like harassment, infringing on privacy rights, or capturing sensitive information.” 

Meta: Developer and distribution channel

Tech policy experts said Meta cannot absolve itself of any responsibility as it controls both ends of the harm pipeline  - the device that captures without consent and the distribution platform that decides whether the resulting content stays up or is taken down.

Apar Gupta, advocate and founder director of Internet Freedom Foundation, remarked that Meta bears full responsibility “because it built both the camera and the platform. It designed glasses whose only warning to bystanders is a small light.”

Despite Instagram’s takedown, the video was far from gone.

9.8 million views on YouTube before deletion

Months after the incident, the clip still appears on X. In an hour-long livestream on YouTube with his followers, Parley complained about other accounts getting more traction using ‘his’ video. The content creator did not respond to a request for an interview.

Questions sent to YouTube went unanswered till the time of publishing. The Alphabet-owned platform took down the original video in July after Shubnam made a copyright claim, though Parley’s livestream discussing the clip remains online. The clip had 9.8 million views on YouTube before it was removed.

‘Pervert glasses pervert mutual construct of privacy’

Two weeks after the incident, Shubnam posted a video of themself on Instagram explaining that Parley’s video was taken without consent and that their outburst was provoked when they spotted three of Parley’s friends recording with a phone.

Shubnam stressed that the protest at Jantar Mantar was against the Trans Bill and that the incident with the content creator proved why the trans community, which has historically borne the brunt of violence, humiliation and exclusion in India, needed provisions in the law to protect them.

They said they had lived a relatively quiet life for the past ten years, and this was the first time they had appeared as themselves. They spoke about the relentless online harassment against them, which included people editing their image with AI. 

Shubnam said they were wary of filing a cyber-bullying complaint with the police.

“Filing a cyber-bullying complaint would mean I would have to visit the police station to complete the complaint. Being transfeminine, I have not had great experience with some cops in the past, and I avoid meeting them as much as I can.”

In a separate Instagram post, they uploaded an illustration calling Meta’s wearable tech ‘pervert glasses’.

“The perversion of pervert glasses is not just that it perverts our mutual constructs of privacy,” Shubnam said. “No public space belongs to any one individual just because they have the freedom to be there. It belongs to everyone.”

They added, “One single person cannot own the right to randomly record images of people without their consent and use them or feed those unconsented images into any kind of database (AI in this case).”

‘Public place does not mean consenting to be filmed covertly’ 

Lawyer Apar Gupta at the Internet Freedom Foundation said this incident shows why the public-place argument fails. Gupta pointed to the 2017 Puttaswamy judgement, in which the Supreme Court held that privacy attaches to the person, not the place.

“Being visible in public means accepting a stranger’s glance. It does not mean consenting to be covertly filmed through someone's glasses, baited with hostile questions, and broadcast to millions on Instagram. Capture, storage and circulation change the act entirely,” he said.

He also said the organisers at the Jantar Mantar protest had posted volunteers to discourage filming, because many present were not publicly out. 

“For a trans woman, such a video means outing, harassment and AI-warped copies, and the NALSA (2014) judgement treats gender identity as part of the dignity Article 21 protects,” he said.

“They were also exercising their Article 19 rights to speak and assemble. If protesters can be secretly filmed and mocked online, fewer will show up,” he added.

Smart glasses as assistive tech

Not everyone’s experience with the technology has been harmful. A growing number of visually impaired content creators are finding utility in Meta’s AI smart glasses.

Twenty-year-old Ashka Goyal, who lost her vision later in life, is using the glasses to help her read labels and choose her outfits. She also uses the glasses to record videos for her budding Instagram page. 

Goyal, who hails from Raipur, is living independently in the UK while pursuing a degree in fashion at the London College of Fashion. 

A National Health Service-affiliated doctor recommended the smart glasses and got her to try them on during her visit to get a disability certificate, in March this year. 

Goyal said the Meta AI smart glasses work far better and cost a fraction of the Orcam MyEye Pro glasses for which she forked out a whopping Rs 4.5 lakh. 

However, despite its positive utility, the glasses pose a privacy risk not just to bystanders but also to the wearer, according to Swedish investigative journalist Julia Lindblom.

Asking a question can initiate a recording

Lindblom, who works for Swedish outlet Göteborgs Posten, has uncovered privacy risks smart glasses pose.

Different types of data belonging to the wearer are also constantly being logged to make the device more accurate, she explained. 

She said simply asking the AI system a question can trigger a recording that can capture all kinds of data without the wearer or bystanders' knowledge. 

Lindblom had previously reported how workers in Nairobi, Kenya at Sama – a contractor for Meta – encountered recordings from the glasses containing intimate visuals, including nudity, sex, toilet visits and other sensitive information. 

“The act of asking the AI a question can trigger the capture and transmission of audio, images or video, turning an apparently simple interaction into part of a much larger data-processing system,” said Julia.

Artificial Intelligence systems can extract faces, voices, locations, relationships, objects, routines, documents on a desk and potentially sensitive information about health, religion, sexuality or immigration status, she said.

“The central issue is not only storage. It is what can be inferred, combined and reused.”

“Most people focus on the visible camera: ‘Am I being filmed?’ But the more important question may be: ‘What happens after I am filmed?’”

Smart glasses: A tool for surveillance

Meanwhile, Apar Gupta said Meta’s smart glasses are built for surveillance.

“The marketing around the Ray-Ban Meta glasses does not make them a consumer assistive device when the core functionality ties to surveillance of human beings. It is downright profiteering without consent and Meta is failing to account for civil liberties,” he said.

‘I'm being clocked everywhere now’

Shubnam said they are being recognised in public because of the memes.

“Random strangers are saying ‘tum to wahi CJP waale ho na?’ (you’re the same CJP person, right?), although I never even went to any CJP (Cockroach Janta Party) protest,” they said.

“Just within my neighbourhood, a man passed a comment after I passed them, ‘Inko badi azaadi azaadi chahiye’ (they want all this freedom). And all this is happening while I’m wearing a t-shirt and a pair of shorts, which is what I wear when I step out to go to the nearby Mother Dairy. I haven’t even stepped out wearing a saree yet.”

Complaining about the media is easy. Why not do something to make it better? Support independent media and subscribe to Newslaundry today.