CBP Agent Wears Meta AI Smart Glasses During LA Immigration Raid
In a striking development that underscores the escalating intersection of advanced consumer technology and highly sensitive law enforcement operations, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent was observed wearing Meta’s AI-powered smart glasses during a recent immigration raid in Los Angeles. Video footage, obtained and verified by 404 Media, captured the official utilizing the glasses, which are equipped with recording capabilities and AI integration, during a June 30 operation in Cypress Park, Los Angeles. The incident has immediately ignited a fierce debate among civil liberties advocates, who view it as a troubling sign of increasing surveillance and intimidation tactics employed by immigration enforcement agencies.
The raid, reportedly part of “Operation Trojan Horse,” saw Border Patrol agents emerge from a rented Penske moving truck to detain individuals, primarily vendors and day laborers, outside a Home Depot. This operation unfolded amidst weeks of intense protests across Los Angeles against intensified immigration enforcement. An expert, Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst at the ACLU, sharply criticized the use of such technology, stating, “I think it should be seen in the context of an agency that is really encouraging its agents to actively intimidate and terrorize people.” Stanley added that the use of cameras aligns with behaviors like agents wearing masks, which are intended to “terrorize people.”
Meta’s smart glasses, while marketed for everyday use, possess the capacity for discreet video and audio recording. Despite a small LED indicator designed to signal when recording is active, privacy advocates argue that their subtle design allows for covert surveillance, raising significant concerns about informed consent. The potential for misuse is further highlighted by reports of Harvard students “hacking” the glasses to integrate facial recognition software, demonstrating how easily such devices could be repurposed to identify individuals and pull up personal information from online databases, though Meta states this breaches their terms of service. The legal and ethical implications of these devices are already under scrutiny, with regulatory bodies in the European Union and national authorities in countries like Germany and Canada initiating inquiries into Meta’s data handling practices and the broader privacy risks posed by smart glasses. Some law enforcement agencies have reportedly banned the use of Meta glasses by their personnel due to these concerns.
This individual incident also fits within a broader pattern of U.S. immigration enforcement agencies aggressively adopting and expanding surveillance technologies. Both CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have been increasingly leveraging advanced tools, including facial recognition technology for screening at borders and ports of entry, and mining millions of driver’s license photos without public awareness or approval. ICE has also established data-sharing agreements with private firms to access vast databases of license plate information for long-term surveillance.
More recently, the Border Patrol has sought sophisticated AI technologies, including systems capable of “seeing through walls” to detect individuals within structures and using small AI-powered drones for “detection, tracking, and classification” in urban environments. These technological ambitions, often framed by agencies as essential for enhancing situational awareness and acting as a “force multiplier” for agents, are met with strong opposition from civil liberties advocates. Critics warn that such technologies blur the lines between immigration enforcement and domestic policing, increasing the risk of privacy violations, overreach, and discriminatory targeting.
The deployment of Meta smart glasses by a CBP agent in a Los Angeles raid brings these long-standing concerns into sharp focus. While CBP has invested over $120 million in 73 cutting-edge technology pilot projects and views innovation as critical to its mission, the lack of transparent policies regarding the use of personal smart devices in official operations, coupled with the inherent privacy risks of such technology, raises critical questions about accountability and civil liberties in an increasingly digitized enforcement landscape.