Introduction
In this article Taylor Hampton Solicitors review yet another privacy challenge of the modern world. Focusing on smart glasses, we examine concerns relating to the filming of individuals in public places, data protection and GDPR.
Smart glasses once looked unlikely to be a bestseller: Google Glass, pulled from the consumer market in 2015, proved to be one of the company’s rare failures. But with the rise of AI, smart glasses have returned, most popularly as the result of a collaboration between Meta and Ray-Ban, who reportedly sold over 7 million pairs in 2025 alone.
What Are Smart Glasses?
The glasses feature a tiny camera, microphone and speakers. The in-built AI offers “real-time” answers to questions posed to it, according to Meta’s website. That includes live translation of conversations between more than 20 languages.
Without doubt, these glasses have their advantages: one can listen to music, text, take photos and make phone calls hands-free. Tech companies hope that one day they will replace smartphones. More significantly, the technology could be useful to disabled people: it may be able to subtitle conversations for the hard of hearing, while the combination of the camera and AI features could allow people to ask for warnings of obstacles ahead.
Why the Apprehension?
However, the glasses have also raised significant fears around privacy; similar concerns stopped Google Glass from taking off a decade ago. Because it is so easy for wearers to film or audio-record everything around them, more discreetly than with a phone, concerns abound that wearers of smart glasses might record people or conversations without the subject’s knowledge or permission. Given that Meta apparently wants to add facial recognition technology to the glasses too – allowing people not just to be filmed but to be identified – those worries seem unlikely to be dispelled soon.
Nor are the concerns unfounded. There have been reports of women finding videos of themselves online. Often these videos are of a man asking the woman out or trying to chat to her; the women had no idea they were being filmed throughout. Social media companies generally try to take these down but, naturally, they are always a step behind.
Meta Ray-Ban glasses do have an LED that comes on when recording is underway, but it has been said that it “appears dim in daylight and is easily overlooked.” Meta’s Responsible Use Guidance asks people not to cover up the light while recording, and to stop recording if someone asks them not to, but mere guidance is not legally enforceable.
Alarming reports also emerged earlier this year from workers at Kenyan-based Sama, a firm to which Meta outsourced the creation of AI training data. Employees said that they were having to watch videos of people in intimate moments, including using the toilet, which had been taken using smart glasses. Following the publication of these stories, a privacy claim has been brought against Meta in the US.
The Current Law Around Filming in Public
There is no right to control one’s image in England and, generally, filming someone in public is legal unless they are doing something which could reasonably be considered private.
Likewise, the “one-party consent rule” makes recording a conversation (even covertly) legal, as long as the recording is made by a party to the conversation (Mustard v Flower and others [2019] All ER (D) 109 (Oct)).
Nevertheless, filming or recording may cross the line into harassment, which can be both a crime and a civil wrong if the actions are persistent or are meant to intimidate.
Additionally, the recording or video could in some circumstances constitute a breach of privacy or of data protection, particularly if published.
Privacy
To be a breach of privacy, the person being filmed must have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Also, their Article 8 (privacy) rights must outweigh any Article 10 (freedom of expression) rights. This may not be the case if they are carrying out everyday activities in public, and it can make a claim more nuanced to argue.
However, claims are assessed on a case-by-case basis and are fact-sensitive: children, for instance, have greater rights to privacy than adults. There is also more likely to be a claim for misuse of private information if publication is threatened or occurs, or if the filming or recording takes place inside more private public spaces. A doctor’s waiting room is a good example of this.
Data Protection and GDPR
A breach of data protection occurs when someone’s personal data is processed unlawfully. “Personal data” is defined as “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person”, while “processing” includes, but is not limited to, “collection”, “recording” and “dissemination” (Art. 4, GDPR).
Lawful bases for processing personal data include consent, a contract, legal obligation, vital interests (to protect someone’s life), the performance of a public function or the protection of legitimate interests (Art. 6, GDPR). None of these would seem to apply to distributing the kinds of recording mentioned above.
While GDPR does not apply within purely personal or household spaces, Case C-212/13 Ryneš v Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů confirmed that surveillance of public spaces is subject to GDPR. That implies that a wearer of smart glasses who records identifiable information in public might conceivably move any recordings beyond personal or household use, although we do not yet have a case confirming this.
Most social media platforms have a way for people to ask for photos or videos to be taken down if they break the law or violate community guidelines.
It is generally advised to ask people’s permission before filming them and/or posting any content.
Conclusion
The law is usually playing catch-up to technology: while AI has dominated news coverage in recent years, no new specific regulations have been brought into play.
Several public spaces and businesses, as well as some courts, cinemas, pubs and shops, have introduced policies restricting customers’ use of AI glasses, but no national guidance has been released.
Nevertheless, advocacy and activist groups have been vocal in calling for greater restrictions on the sale and use of smart glasses, and there is a current petition to ban their sale and promotion. That may go too far and would set aside some of the benefits outlined above, but it does suggest an appetite for a greater steer from central government.
The smart glasses themselves, like most technology, are merely a neutral tool, but in the hands of a malicious actor they can be used unethically and unlawfully. The existing law provides some framework for victims to seek redress in these cases, but how easy it is in practice to obtain court-ordered remedies remains to be seen.
How can we help?
If you have had videos of yourself posted online without your consent, Taylor Hampton may be able to help. Please complete our enquiry form, or review our privacy law services page. You can also call us on 0207 427 5970 or email enquiries@taylorhampton.co.uk.
Disclaimer: This article provides general guidance only and does not constitute legal advice. Legislation, civil procedure rules, and case law can change. Always seek professional legal advice tailored to your specific situation before acting. Taylor Hampton Solicitors accepts no responsibility for reliance on the information contained in this article without obtaining individual legal advice.