Summary

• Norway plans legislation temporarily restricting AI glasses in selected public places rather than imposing a general ban.
• Possible locations include schools, parks, shopping centres, healthcare facilities, gyms and public events.
• An expert group will develop proposals for permanent regulation covering AI glasses and other wearable recording technology.

Norway is preparing temporary restrictions on AI glasses in selected public places as cameras, microphones and artificial intelligence become harder to separate from ordinary wearable technology.

The Norwegian government intends to bring legislation before parliament as quickly as possible while an expert group considers a permanent national framework. The proposed measure would restrict use in particular locations rather than prohibit AI glasses outright, drawing a regulatory boundary around situations where people have a stronger expectation that they are not being routinely recorded.

Possible locations include parks, beaches, museums, shopping centres, public events, schools, nurseries and playgrounds. Healthcare facilities, swimming pools, gyms and other premises containing changing rooms or showers could also fall within the restrictions, while universities and other educational institutions remain under consideration.

The government has not yet fixed the technical definition of the devices covered, and officials will examine whether restrictions should apply specifically to glasses combining cameras with AI, to camera and audio glasses more broadly, or to other body worn technology capable of recording or processing information about people nearby.

That definition will determine how durable the legislation proves because smart glasses are becoming less visually distinctive while their capabilities expand. Rules tied too closely to one product category could become obsolete as the same sensors and processing move into other devices.

The camera matters as much as the AI

Norwegian ministers have been raising concerns about smart glasses for several months, particularly where cameras and microphones allow recording to take place without people nearby clearly recognising that a device is active.

The privacy problem differs from conventional smartphone photography because wearing a pair of glasses is ordinary behaviour. Someone holding a phone towards another person provides a relatively obvious signal that a photograph or video may be taken, while a camera embedded inside spectacles can remain pointed towards everyone in the wearer’s field of view during normal conversation and movement.

Artificial intelligence can increase the consequences of that collection by adding transcription, interpretation, recognition or retrieval to the captured information. The government has previously singled out biometric remote identification as especially sensitive, including the possibility that facial recognition could connect an observed person with other information about their identity.

The planned temporary regime therefore tackles the problem partly through location rather than attempting to decide whether every individual use of a wearable camera is acceptable. Schools, medical settings and changing facilities present relatively clear cases because privacy expectations and the potential exposure of vulnerable people are higher.

Public parks, shopping centres and cultural events are more complicated because photography already occurs routinely in those spaces. Legislators will have to distinguish familiar recording practices from devices capable of making persistent or inconspicuous capture commonplace.

Employers face the same decision before legislation

The Norwegian government has already encouraged public and private organisations to consider their own rules for smart glasses on their premises rather than wait for national legislation.

A wearable device used for navigation, accessibility, field maintenance or remote assistance may have a legitimate workplace purpose, while the same hardware could record colleagues, customers, confidential displays or conversations. Employers therefore need policies that reflect what the device can do rather than whether it looks like an ordinary pair of glasses.

Simple prohibition may be unsuitable for organisations that can demonstrate a useful application, particularly in engineering, healthcare or accessibility. Permission without technical controls carries the opposite risk because employees and visitors cannot necessarily establish what a device is collecting, when recording starts or where information is processed afterwards.

Practical policies may need to address approved devices, recording indicators, restricted areas, data retention and whether information is processed locally or transferred to an external platform. Organisations will also have to distinguish between company managed equipment and consumer wearables brought into the workplace by staff or visitors.

The government says exemptions should be possible for vulnerable groups and socially beneficial uses because wearable cameras and AI can provide assistance to people with disabilities, including help interpreting surroundings or accessing information without holding another device.

A location based restriction will consequently have to preserve useful applications without making the exemptions so broad that ordinary use provides an easy route around the rule.

Wearable computing strains conventional consent

People captured by wearable devices are rarely the customers who bought them. Conventional privacy controls can give a user settings governing their own information, but a passer-by cannot adjust another person’s glasses or review the terms accepted when those glasses were configured.

Meaningful consent therefore becomes difficult when recording happens incidentally across crowded public environments. Visible recording indicators can improve transparency but still require people to notice and understand them, while refusing consent may be unrealistic in places they need to use.

Norway’s proposal treats that imbalance as a matter for public rules rather than leaving it entirely to device manufacturers. Private use or use in places where other people are unlikely to be captured would remain possible, so the policy is aimed at context rather than the technology in every setting.

The expert group will have to decide how permanent legislation can remain useful when cameras, microphones and AI functions are also moving into earbuds, clothing and other objects. Rules written narrowly around glasses could age almost immediately, while technology neutral rules risk catching ordinary devices and legitimate recording practices far beyond the original concern.

Norway is consequently testing whether certain physical spaces can remain relatively free from persistent wearable recording while policymakers decide how to govern sensors that are becoming harder to see.