Google Glass was a bust. It didn’t help that people wearing them were being beat up by people who didn’t want to be recorded by people wearing those butt-ugly things, even if they were going to Reinvent Law. How, exactly, they were going to be transformative was never clear, but the legal tech fans were sure they would because reasons. And then they unceremoniously disappeared because nobody wanted them.

A new miracle has found its way onto the scene with one distinct difference from the dreaded Google Glass.

Last summer, Tom Wong was working at the Chubby Crab, his family’s seafood boil restaurant in Manhattan’s Chinatown, when a regular approached the counter. She ordered a combo — steamed clams instead of sausage, please — and ate it at a table near the door, muttering to herself in between bites.

Mr. Wong, 32, didn’t think anything of it. But a few days later, another customer came in and asked for a selfie. Then the asks kept coming.

He had been recorded without his knowledge using a lentil-size camera embedded in a pair of Meta Ray-Ban glasses. The resulting video had been viewed more than two million times on TikTok, turning Mr. Wong and the restaurant into unwitting stars.

There is nothing unlawful about recording things that occur in public. There is nothing unlawful about putting recorded videos on Tik Tok, or any other social media platform. That’s life under the First Amendment. Then again, there’s nothing unlawful about not wanting to be turned into an unwitting Tik Tok star, or more likely, Tik Tok villain should videos be posted of people doing things that wouldn’t make their mother proud.

But for lawyers and courts, the creation of Ray Ban glasses, seemingly no different than the ordinary glasses a person would wear because he or she chooses to wear glasses, raises implications that present unanticipated legal challenges. What about lawyers wearing Meta Ray Bans in court, recording proceedings where recording devices are otherwise prohibited? What about a meeting between lawyer and client where the client records the discussion without the lawyer’s knowledge.

Are these good things or bad? Do they create discoverable evidence where none should exist? Private communications are intended to be private. Are they? Should they be? What about lawyers recording clients without the client’s knowledge? Ethics violation?

Taking it in the other direction, what about cops (or ICE agents) wearing Meta Ray Bans, where they can pop up recordings should they work in their favor but plausibly deny their existence if they show impropriety or illegality? Who maintains possession and control over the recordings such that there can be any assurance of authenticity, lest someone doctor the recordings to show whatever they want it to show?

It’s one thing to know that your interactions are being recorded, whether or not you have a say in the matter. You may expect police to be wearing body cams. You may realize that the person holding their iPhone in the peculiar manner of one taking video is recording you. You have the opportunity to adjust your conduct to reflect what might some day appear in a viral Tik Tok of your good or bad behavior. But if you have no reason to suspect that you’re being recorded, you may end up a star like Tom Wong.

Tom Wong, however, works at a restaurant. Lawyers have very different obligations, both to courts and clients. Now that video can be recorded with glasses that conceal their secret, what are the implications for legal tech, for ethics, for the creation of evidence, for the manipulation and abuse of evidence?

The legal tech crowd once applauded “wearables” as the future of law. Is that future here now and does it matter. Maybe their love of tech that didn’t matter to lawyers still doesn’t, and this is a big nothingburger. Or maybe this will change everything. Who knows?

*Tuesday Talk rules apply.