The Paper tests multiple AI glasses: a light-blocking sticker costing less than 10 yuan can bypass the recording indicator light

Download the app

English text is being prepared.

This sticker is called a "light-blocking sticker" and sells for less than 10 yuan.

Recently, The Paper reporters tested Huawei, Xiaomi, Rokid, Qwen, RayNeo, INMO, Meizu and other mainstream AI glasses on the market and found that most mainstream models can still shoot normally after the indicator light is completely covered by a light-blocking sticker, and do not trigger an obstruction alarm; only a few models cannot continue shooting.

It is worth noting that related topics attracted attention earlier this year. Previously, the Rokid glasses community was reported for a community user secretly filming a flight attendant, sparking heated public discussion. Rokid subsequently deleted the related video and upgraded the glasses' indicator light detection mechanism.

A Rokid glasses community user posted a secretly taken photo of a flight attendant

However, according to a merchant on the platform who spoke to reporters, although the first-generation light-blocking sticker became ineffective as a result, the product has been updated to a second generation that "can hold up to anything."

On multiple e-commerce platforms, such light-blocking stickers are sold openly, with sales on one platform exceeding 5,000 units; on Xianyu, a seller directly states on the product detail page that "secret filming will not lead to discovery"; on an e-commerce platform, a merchant told reporters that many buyers purchase light-blocking stickers so that "secret filming is not so conspicuous and awkward," and long-term wholesale customers can enjoy discounts.

Various light-blocking sticker products displayed on an e-commerce platform

The related risks are spreading: with the rise of emerging AI technologies, cheating and covert recording are occurring frequently. How should privacy recording be controlled? Where does personal information data go? According to a college entrance examination warning issued by the Ministry of Education on June 2, bringing smart glasses into an examination room, regardless of whether shooting is actually enabled, will be uniformly deemed cheating; South China Agricultural University reported in July this year multiple cases of smart glasses being illegally brought into examination rooms in attempted cheating.

On Xiaohongshu, some bloggers also posted about this hidden danger, and a commenter replied: "You're so ugly, you won't be secretly filmed, don't worry." The discussion about privacy then slid into evaluations of appearance.

"Suitable for taking photos and recording videos when you don't want to get beaten"

Similar smart glasses light-blocking stickers are openly sold on multiple e-commerce platforms. Taking the Xianyu platform as an example, a seller explicitly states they are "suitable for when you don't want to be seen by others while taking photos and recording videos, and don't want others to beat you up."

The Paper reporters' investigation found that on an e-commerce platform, both the product page screenshots and product copy for light-blocking stickers point to covert shooting needs

Specifically, AI glasses usually have a flashing indicator light when shooting, so it can be observed that the AI glasses are in shooting mode. The purchased black round sticker can be placed over the glasses' indicator light (usually on the left side). After covering it, when using the AI glasses to shoot, the originally flashing indicator light completely turns black, and the shooting state cannot be observed with the naked eye, but shooting can proceed normally.

The Paper reporters tested it on site: after applying the light-blocking sticker, the indicator light went out

"Currently AI glasses are all compatible. Basically, after they take mine back, I haven't seen any problems," the merchant told reporters. He said bluntly that many buyers purchase them for "secret filming that is not so conspicuous and awkward." He also said he has many long-term VIP customers, and as long as the purchase quantity is large enough, he can offer a certain discount.

Why does "one sticker defeat it all"?

On the platform, a buyer review of a smart glasses light-blocking sticker mentioned: at first it will alarm about obstruction, but after adjusting the light leakage hole to the right position, it will no longer alarm. In addition, according to the alarm characteristics of different brands, merchants also customize "exclusive versions."

In response, the merchant told reporters, "The platform will not introduce relevant regulation, because we haven't done anything illegal; some people are just more particular."

Why does the phenomenon of "one sticker defeats it all" occur? Zhong Junhao, secretary-general of the Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Industry Association, told The Paper reporters that the privacy notification mechanisms of most existing smart glasses are largely ceremonial notices, and indeed have the hard flaw of being defeated by a single sticker.

For example: the shooting prompts of many consumer models rely on independent indicator lights and software-layer obstruction detection, and the two are often not fully bound to the imaging chain in engineering terms; light-blocking stickers mainly change the visible light path or photosensitive readings, and the system sometimes finds it difficult to distinguish whether it is sticker obstruction, lens fogging, or normal environmental dimming such as entering a tunnel, so the shooting process may still continue.

"This privacy prompt is like a fuse that can be cut by human means; software-layer detection is easily bypassed by physical means. In industry research, we have noticed that on some models the prompt sound can only be heard by the wearer, the indicator light is hidden inside the temple, and the light flashes only for an instant when taking a photo, making the shooting behavior very difficult to detect from outside," Zhong Junhao mentioned.

According to foreign media reports, Meta's previously launched smart glasses were dubbed "pervert glasses" because they were used to secretly film others undressing. Some users filmed more than 350 videos of approaching women with Meta smart glasses, and some of those filmed were even doxxed.

More than 70 users who purchased, used, or were filmed by Meta smart glasses have sued Meta, claiming that their private and sensitive photos were leaked to workers hired overseas. In addition, according to foreign media reports, relevant governments have planned to temporarily ban the use of glasses with cameras in public places such as parks, schools, and beaches, and said they will set up an expert group to investigate the challenges brought by wearable technology and provide recommendations on permanent regulation.

Companies call on peers to respond collectively and actively

Zhong Junhao clearly stated to reporters that for AI glasses to move toward all-day perception, a core boundary must first be drawn: the glasses hardware can "see all day," but must not engage in uncontrolled "all-day recording and all-day uploading." Wearers can wear the glasses to perceive the environment around the clock, but if after wearing them for a day, sensitive data such as environmental images, faces, and voiceprints are continuously retained and controlled by the company's backend, that has already crossed the privacy red line.

A number of companies also responded to reporters regarding privacy-related controversies. AI glasses company RayNeo told The Paper that the development of smart glasses must be built on full respect for the privacy and security of users and the public. RayNeo has now integrated its privacy protection system throughout the entire lifecycle of product design, research and development, production, and use. In response to the filming privacy issues that smart glasses may involve, RayNeo has established multiple protective mechanisms at the product hardware design level.

"We do not support or encourage such behavior. In the future, we will continue to invest in privacy and security technology research and development, strengthen product safety design and user education, and promote the healthy and orderly development of the smart glasses industry," RayNeo said.

"Privacy protection is a relationship between spear and shield, and it is something that must always be done. Companies can only try their best to raise the cost of making mistakes." Zhu Mingming, CEO of another leading AI glasses company, Rokid, told reporters that in response to the vulnerability in the previous generation of products that could be bypassed through infrared to circumvent the recording indicator light protection, Rokid has completed the corresponding technical fix. However, he also admitted that relying solely on technical means cannot completely eliminate privacy and security risks.

Zhu Mingming introduced that the Japanese market was highly sensitive to glasses cameras in the early days, but has now accepted Rokid-related products; at the policy level in Europe, attitudes toward such devices are relatively cautious, but there is still considerable local user demand for purchasing them. In his view, privacy risks require multi-party collaborative governance. Beyond technical defenses, user self-discipline, social rules, punishment mechanisms for violations, and guidance at the regulatory level are equally crucial.

Zhu Mingming called on the industry, hoping that more practitioners will jointly confront this public issue. "We may not immediately find a perfect solution, but I hope more peers will actively speak out and work together to address privacy challenges."

Where is the legal boundary?

"Companies do not entirely lack the technical ability to strengthen protection, but everyone weighs the practical costs." Zhong Junhao told reporters bluntly that, for example, strict occlusion detection is prone to misjudgment, resulting in situations where "it cannot shoot when it should," interfering with ordinary users' normal recording.

In addition, in the absence of mandatory standards, if one company takes the lead in adding hardware protection, it may instead be interpreted by the market as having many product restrictions and a poor shooting experience, and companies lack the incentive to proactively add more.

"For users who buy the products, being secretly filmed is a low-probability event, but the increased costs and experience constraints brought by strengthened privacy protection are certain prices to bear," Zhong Junhao said. The ultimate goal of smart glasses privacy protection is to achieve: turning "I am always watching" into "you always know I am watching." All-day standby does not equal boundless collection; perception and recording must be strictly separated. Hardware prompts, local storage, legal regulation, and platform governance require multi-party coordination so that "trustworthy" can become the underlying tone of the AI glasses industry.

Regarding product design compliance, Yang Xun suggested that when photographing an individual's portrait, the person being photographed should be able to reasonably identify it. For example, if AI glasses capture relatively sensitive information, there should be more obvious prompts or warnings. If the most sensitive matters are involved, such as military restricted zones or other places where photography is prohibited, there should be an automatic blocking function.

Hu Yanping, a distinguished professor at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, said bluntly that video recording with AI glasses is itself a highly intrusive function. Even when the indicator light is on, other people in the user's surrounding environment often do not easily notice it and may be filmed without knowing. If the indicator light is covered, filming becomes even more concealed, and almost without exception, the vast majority of users who use opaque stickers to cover the indicator light do so to film privately without others' permission, or their direct purpose is secretly filming.

Hu Yanping believes that AI glasses have become a disaster area for online secret filming, privacy issues, and portrait infringement. In response, AI glasses manufacturers should not add fuel to the fire or tacitly acquiesce, but need to optimize product design, clarify usage rules, follow mandatory standards, make indicator lights and other filming prompts more obvious, and ensure that when the indicator light is covered, the photo and video recording functions cannot be activated. In addition, policies and legislation are needed to restrict the places where AI glasses can be used and the purposes of their functions. For example, secret filming in public places without others' permission should be prohibited, and ordinary people's privacy and dignity, like portrait rights, need to be protected.

"Artificial intelligence is not a place outside the law. Smart products such as AI glasses can become innovative applications that convenience hundreds of millions of users, but they must not become tools for some people to do whatever they want or even commit illegal crimes," Hu Yanping said. Next, it is necessary to clarify the data boundaries, privacy boundaries, and behavioral boundaries of AI glasses, as well as obligations regarding filming prompt notification, through industry standards (even mandatory standards), product specifications, usage rules, and policy legislation. Intelligence is boundless, but rights have boundaries. Responsible editor: Shi Dongdong Image editor: Jin Jie Proofreader: Zhang Liangliang The Paper tip-off: 021-962866 The Paper, unauthorized reproduction is prohibited +1 Favorite I want to report #AI glasses secret filming industry chain #opaque stickers #e-commerce platform sales View more

can be cut by human means; software-layer detection is easily bypassed by physical means. In industry research, we have noticed that on some models the prompt sound can only be heard by the wearer, the indicator light is hidden inside the temple, and the light flashes only for an instant when taking a photo, making the shooting behavior very difficult to detect from outside," Zhong Junhao mentioned.

According to foreign media reports, Meta's previously launched smart glasses were dubbed "pervert glasses" because they were used to secretly film others undressing. Some users filmed more than 350 videos of approaching women with Meta smart glasses, and some of those filmed were even doxxed.