Oh I agree with your points LB. I didn't say anyone could stop them from being bought or used - just whether it's possible to affect the rate of uptake.
Let's look at books. They've been around for some time. Is it acceptable to have a conversation with someone while you read a book and devote some attention to it? Maybe if both people are just casually reading together and occasionally saying something - but that's not what we're talking about. If you walk into a job interview is it ok to bring a book just in case the interviewer isn't really able to hold your attention? Maybe a magazine?
Cameras have been around for a long time. You could buy little spy cameras and carry them around. Today, after decades of portable cameras, is it ok to sit down to dinner with a camera on your shoulder and record everyone? Won't that make your dining companions a little uncomfortable?
It's hard to predict how technology will change society. But we can look at the past two decades as an example of how people are no more comfortable being aware they're being recorded. Yes we intellectually know that recording is going on all around us. But when an individual is doing it, right there, it's still a different feeling.
We have two decades of cell phones in society to inform us of how people expect others to behave. And institutions now try to teach a code of behavior: when you enter the movie theater it says to silence your cell phones - or it used to: now it says to turn them off, because when you sit there texting it creates a blue light everyone sees and gets distracted by. When you go to a teen movie the admonition is repeated 3-4 times instead of the 1 time for a regular movie. That's because, as parents know, you need to tell some children three times before they start listening.
The adapt or die phrase is apt, but overused. What if I used the same example related to natural park space, pollution, or vehicle safety? No, we regulate those things, and that's as it should be. Cars are safer in the US than they've ever been, the various pollution control acts have had a positive impact on pollution levels and health outcomes, and our state and national park system ensures that beautiful wilderness spaces are protected from ruination. When you see urban sprawl, children with black lung, and horrific car crashes do you say "get with the times, pal, the future is death and dismemberment!" or do you say "the future could be better than this, let's do some work to try to make the future a nice place!"
Someone will inevitably jump in with "hey man Google Glass isn't the same thing as leaded gasoline, Leo is dumb a probably a pervert" so I'll head that off - again. I'm not saying Glass is a threat to public health and safety, but it's a threat to personal privacy - in the same way ubiquitous surveillance is a threat. If you don't care about the NSA watching your Yahoo video chats, then you probably also wouldn't care about smart glasses.
EDIT: At some point we just need to walk around wearing masks. Sure a lot of businesses will turn you away, especially convenience stores and banks. But eventually if everyone cares about privacy some business in a field will gobble up those customers by allowing the masked ones in. Then the rest will follow suit or be outperformed and crumble.