Norway targets facial recognition in smart glasses as privacy concerns grow

Norway is moving to regulate smart glasses, including a possible ban on facial recognition, as the controversial technology seeks a foothold  in the commercial market.

A BGNES report citing AFP quotes Digitalisation Minister Karianne Tung, who says “we are seeing privacy and people’s personal integrity come under pressure from new technologies. That is why I want us to regulate smart glasses and similar devices more strictly than before.”

“There is a clear trend toward combining artificial intelligence with cameras and microphones built into glasses, headphones, hats and other objects we use in everyday life. We must prevent this equipment from being used to monitor other people in public places.”

Tung plans to put together an expert advisory group to counsel the government on privacy concerns around the technology.

Meta’s smart glasses shift surveillance into everyday life

Meta has sold roughly 7 million smart glasses and continues to expand the platform with AI capabilities. They have major brand partnerships, celebrity endorsements and the marketing heft of Silicon Valley behind them. Recent patents describe facial recognition, gaze tracking and expression analysis, while previous reporting has shown the company has experimented with “NameTag,” a system capable of identifying people through onboard cameras. Technically launched in 2021, they have since been refashioned and equipped with Meta’s AI model. Smart glasses now lurk at the edges of everyday life; they are not ostentatious, nor easy to differentiate from normal sunglasses. These days, anyone sporting black Ray-Bans or Oakley wraparounds might be recording you without your knowing.

There has already been significant pushback to Meta’s wearables plans. The potential for misuse by law enforcement has been noted, as has the probability that the tech will be used to film people without their knowledge or consent. BGNES quotes Finn Myrstad, head of digital policy at the Norwegian Consumer Council, who says, flatly, “the potential for abuse is enormous.” Reverse image lookup firm PimEyes has warned of “irreversible consequences” for privacy should facial recognition end up in smart glasses.

As Myrstad notes, “Meta already has this technology, and it is only a matter of time before it is incorporated into the glasses.”  For a time, the latent code for facial recognition capability was included in Meta smart glasses; the company only removed the code when the media noticed.

Meta has also explored hardware-based privacy controls. The Independent reports that Meta has been working on a so-called kill switch for the glasses that would limit filming capability. A patent describes a “hardware privacy mute circuit,” which would “provide tamper-resistant privacy controls that cannot be compromised through software exploits.” In other words, recording capabilities would be physically disabled in applicable situations – a clear upgrade from the current system: a light that flashes when the glasses are recording, and can be easily turned off.

Employers become the next battleground

Analysis in Startland News looks at the inevitable arrival of smart glasses into the workplace. The tech “creates legal and operational considerations” that may get lost in the larger privacy debate. These include employees who request smart glasses as a disability accommodation – which, the piece notes, can lead to litigation, as in the case of a Disney employee who was prescribed smart glasses for light sensitivity caused by postpartum conditions and astigmatism, told she could not wear them at work, and has sued Disney as a result.

Moreover, there is the issue of patchwork regulation. Federal, state and local laws may impose various privacy requirements, and workplace privacy rights vary from case to case. For instance, “California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), among other things, generally prohibits intentionally recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the communication.” And a pending law, SB 1130, would prohibit the operation of “a wearable recording device to capture sound or video of any other person in any area within a place of business where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, unless the person operating the device has the explicit consent of that person.”

Likewise in Illinois, where the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) requires private entities to provide written notice and obtain a written release before collecting, capturing and storing biometric data.

As such, employers should consider reviewing the applicable laws and policies in their jurisdiction, and “should not assume that a general workplace monitoring policy addresses all privacy concerns associated with smart glasses.”

The policy challenge extends beyond Meta

Norway’s proposal reflects a broader shift. Smart glasses appear to be  moving from experimental gadgets to mainstream consumer devices, raising new questions about biometric surveillance, workplace privacy and whether existing laws are equipped to regulate always-on AI cameras.

Norway’s proposed restrictions illustrate how the debate has evolved beyond facial recognition accuracy to the architecture of everyday surveillance. Smart glasses are part of a broader shift in which cameras, AI and biometric identification are moving from controlled environments into ordinary consumer devices. As wearable AI becomes more common, governments and employers will increasingly face the question of whether existing privacy laws are equipped for a world in which anyone can carry an ambient biometric sensor on their face.

Article Topics

consumer electronics  |  data privacy  |  facial recognition  |  Meta glasses  |  Norway  |  smart glasses  |  wearables