Since the mass adoption of CCTV, we have accepted — for the most part — giving up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for public safety. But are we prepared to hand that same power to everyday citizens, all in the name of fashion?In 2025 alone, over 7 million people bought Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses. This rapid adoption has coincided with an alarming rise in covert harassment, prompting public venue bans and calls to ban sales entirely.Yet these glasses are just the most well-known product in a broader cultural shift experts are calling the "chicification of surveillance." From smart doorbells to camera-equipped smart cars — as well as rumors of camera-fitted AirPods — the latest tech is quietly turning citizens into passive, continuous monitors of each other. As the distinction between fashion and surveillance blurs, is this another acceptable trade-off for innovation and convenience, or is it time to rethink our entire approach to public privacy?Fashion accessory or surveillance tool?For many tech companies, combining AI with audio and video sensors represents a huge opportunity to make seamless products. The major benefits? Better accessibility, usability, and, sometimes, even security.Take smart glasses, for example. These intelligent wearables offer clear benefits for users, such as live translations, on-the-go content creation, and hands-free commands. These advantages are particularly important for people with disabilities, offering tools that boost everyday independence.Yet mainstream adoption relies on more than just usefulness. And to position smart hardware as everyday lifestyle items, tech firms are increasingly turning to the fashion world. Meta, for example, launched a major campaign featuring Kylie Jenner to promote its Ray-Ban smart glasses. Speaking to Glossy, Meta’s Vice President of Fashion, Eva Chen, explained that the new frames are built "to blend into and be a part of your personal style." This strategy illustrates what digital rights advocates say is a deliberate reframing of surveillance tools.Lauren Hendry Parsons, Director of Communications at the Mozilla Foundation, notes that tech companies and influencers are shifting how the public views constant recording. How? "Turning what would previously have been private moments or a level of recording that would be quite distasteful or shocking into something cool, fashionable or, in some way, desirable," she told TechRadar.While acknowledging the genuine value these devices offer for accessibility, Hendry Parsons argues that behind there is a hidden motivation: "This is all about collecting more data, encouraging more people to collect more data."A post shared by Catharina Doria (@cahdoria)A photo posted by Parsons is not alone in warning against the "chicification of surveillance." AI ethicist and digital rights educator Catharina Doria also believes that what she calls the "coolification of surveillance" serves tech companies' growing need for personal data in the age of artificial intelligence. "We stop thinking about the data that we're giving away because it's cool," Doria told TechRadar. "The data is being created, collected, and I would assume it will be used by them to improve their products," she added.But how exactly do smart gadgets collect our data? And what’s the real impact on our privacy?The hidden cost of passive recordingWhile smart glasses have been criticized for their potential to covertly record people, many emerging wearables — from AI pendants to sensor-equipped earbuds — do not record visual footage at all. Take Nothing’s recently released earbuds, which allow users to take an instant "Audio Snapshot" of their environment. While audio-only, the feature still raises eavesdropping concerns, even with alerts intended to notify others when recording is active. And even without cameras or microphones, many smart devices still pose a threat to public privacy as they continuously harvest environmental data to train AI models. For Hendry Parsons, this continuous logging raises some important questions:"What I worry about with this sort of thing is: are the sensors continuously on or user-triggered? What outputs are being retained, linked to an account, or a location? What metadata is being collected and put together with this data? Is it being used to train models?"Products like Alexa have previously blurred the boundaries between privacy and convenience behind closed doors. Now, as surveillance chic moves into public spaces, those risks multiply. While buying a wearable may be your right and choice, that choice is increasingly impacting others around you — processing the voices, movements, and behaviors of bystanders without their knowledge or consent.As Doria puts it, "When you're walking on the streets, and someone passes you with smart earbuds, smart glasses, and smart whatever, it is still your face, still your voice, still you. Suddenly, you don't have that control anymore because a third party is deciding that for you."This raises the question: can we still exercise our data protection rights in the age of surveillance chic?(Image credit: Future)NEW: Leave No Trace — A weekly newsletter on digital privacy and online surveillance.Leave No Trace investigates the companies and governments putting our digital freedom at risk — and the people fighting back.📩 Subscribe now to get every edition delivered to your inbox every Friday, launching this September.Why current privacy laws fail in public spacesWhile recording in public is not inherently illegal, data protection frameworks like Europe's GDPR grant citizens specific agency over their personal data through the main principles of transparency, consent, and data minimization.The expansion of always-on, wearable sensors creates a clear regulatory gap. Existing privacy laws were designed primarily for centralized, internet-based data processing — not for thousands of individuals continuously capturing ambient public data as they walk down the street.The risks aren't always visible, either. While smart glasses are relatively easy to spot, sensor-equipped earbuds and smart vehicles operate far more discreetly. How can a bystander realistically exercise their legal rights when they have no way of knowing the device next to them is actively monitoring their voice, image, or location?(Image credit: Everyone Hates Elon)While lawmakers struggle to keep pace, digital rights advocates argue that manufacturers must take responsibility before products hit store shelves. Reactive fixes — such as Meta disabling camera functions on modified devices — are a start, but experts argue guardrails belong in the design phase.For Parsons, that requires building hardware around a private-by-design ethos: "This means very thoughtful ephemeral data processing, strict purpose limits, no secondary use, and really independently verifiable protections," she told TechRadar.AI ethicist Doria believes that tech companies should undergo rigorous audits before launching a new product in the market. A similar, strict framework to what currently regulates pharmaceutical and food manufacturers."We shouldn't be allowing tech companies to create technology for the sake of 'innovation,' push it into the market, and harm people. If they want to create something that is amazing, awesome, and great for everyone, they should make the appeal, we check the appeal, and only then are they able to push it," Doria told TechRadar.The price of progress? The debate around "surveillance chic" ultimately hinges on how we define innovation — and whether we are willing to trade our privacy for the latest style.According to Doria, if 'moving fast and breaking things' compromises human safety, dignity, and life, then societal well-being must be prioritized over profit. "We have to start asking, what actually is this 'innovation,' who is it benefiting, and who is it leaving behind?”Yet while lawmakers debate regulation and manufacturers introduce haphazard guardrails, the power remains with us.Big Tech may control production and influencers may drive trends, but consumers hold the ultimate leverage: voting with our wallets to declare that our right to privacy is not for sale.