Ars Technica is spotlighting Zuckoff, described in its feed summary as the latest free app built to detect Meta AI glasses, against a widening privacy backlash around camera-equipped smart eyewear. The issue is no longer theoretical: Ars reports that as smart glasses spread, people face a rising chance of being recorded without realizing it. According to Ars, Meta is not the only company selling smart glasses, but its AI glasses are the most popular in the category. Ars says millions of people buy smart glasses each year, making recognition and enforcement harder in ordinary public settings. That visibility problem is pushing some venues toward bans. Ars reports that schools, courts, restaurants, and entertainment venues have begun barring smart glasses in some cases. It also says DEF CON 2026 reportedly banned smart glasses entirely, including prescription versions, and told attendees who need prescription eyewear to bring compliant alternatives. The difficulty is enforcement. Ars notes that a ban depends on staff being able to identify the devices, on wearers disclosing them, or on bystanders noticing and objecting. Detection tools such as Zuckoff fit into that gap: they are a response to a world where the device may look like ordinary eyewear but can also function as a camera. Privacy advocates quoted by Ars argue that social pressure and venue rules are not enough. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has warned that Meta may keep making the devices more invasive as it tries to sell more glasses and keep pace with rivals. EFF staff technologist Cooper Quintin told Ars that possible future features such as facial recognition would expand the risks beyond undisclosed recording, including misuse for deepfakes or nonconsensual intimate imagery. Ars also reports that EFF wants lawmakers to step in with stronger consumer privacy protections, including a private right to sue companies whose products violate biometric privacy rights. In the meantime, the group has released guidance for smart-glasses users on resisting facial recognition, recording responsibly, understanding continuous-recording risks, and blurring strangers’ faces before posting video online. Meta’s built-in recording notice is a central point of criticism in the Ars piece. The device has a small recording light, but Ars reports that Quintin views that safeguard as nearly useless for people being secretly recorded because it can be covered. Ars also cites previous reporting and social-media examples involving immigration raids, harassment of sex workers and retail workers, pranks, bullying, and other unwanted recordings. The narrow takeaway is that smart-glasses privacy is moving from product concern to operational problem. Venues can ban the devices, users can be asked to behave responsibly, and detection apps can help people notice them. But based on Ars’ reporting, those measures remain partial workarounds unless stronger rules define what smart-glasses makers and wearers are allowed to do. Who benefits: Detection-app makers and privacy advocates benefit from rising concern about covert recording. Venues that already ban smart glasses may also gain from tools and norms that make enforcement easier. Who's exposed: People in public or semi-private settings are exposed to being recorded without clear notice, according to Ars’ framing. Meta is also exposed to scrutiny if privacy advocates convince lawmakers that device-level safeguards are insufficient.