Summary

• The EDPB has issued preliminary guidance on smart glasses, particularly their use in workplaces, hospitals and schools.
• Recording for professional purposes or publishing footage publicly can create GDPR responsibilities, while genuinely private use may fall outside its scope.
• Regulators want reliable recording indicators and clearer transparency, alongside further industry standards and public awareness measures.

European privacy regulators have warned that smart glasses capable of recording video and audio without attracting attention create significant risks in workplaces, hospitals and schools, where people may be unaware that their conversations or activities are being captured.

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) adopted an initial statement on 13 October examining the responsibilities of users, manufacturers and connected service providers. The Board wants recording functions to be more apparent to people nearby, while clarifying how existing data protection requirements apply when wearable devices are used outside purely personal settings.

Modern smart glasses can combine cameras, microphones and internet connectivity within frames resembling ordinary eyewear. Their design makes recording less visible than when someone holds up a conventional camera or smartphone, creating uncertainty about when information is being collected and who will subsequently have access to it.

Although the devices can support communication and hands-free work, professional applications may capture information about employees, customers or other people who have not chosen to participate. The Board identifies particular risks in sensitive environments, where even brief recordings can contain personal information that would normally be handled under more restrictive arrangements.

Professional recording changes legal responsibilities

The EDPB distinguishes between activities carried out for personal or household purposes and situations in which the General Data Protection Regulation applies. Recording family members or friends for genuinely private use, for example, may fall within the household exemption, while publishing material on an unrestricted social media account or using smart glasses professionally can make the user responsible for processing personal data.

That responsibility depends on the circumstances rather than the device alone. A technician using wearable cameras during an equipment inspection may record colleagues, visitors or commercially sensitive areas, while a healthcare worker using the same equipment could capture patient information or conversations about treatment.

Organisations deploying smart glasses for work therefore need to consider which information is collected, why the recording is necessary and who determines how it will be used. Depending on those arrangements, the organisation may act as a data controller, with obligations covering lawful processing, transparency, security and the rights of individuals whose information is captured.

Even where a particular recording is outside the GDPR, other legal obligations may remain. The EDPB notes that criminal, civil and employment law, together with rules applying to specific sectors, can restrict how devices are used and how recorded material is handled.

Manufacturers and providers of connected applications have separate responsibilities when they determine the purposes and means of processing personal information. The Board states that a provider acting as a controller cannot transfer its own obligations to the person wearing the glasses simply through a product agreement or instructions supplied with the device.

Those relationships can become complicated when recorded material passes through several services. Footage might initially support a remote assistance session, for example, before being retained by a cloud provider or processed by software that produces a summary. Each subsequent use requires consideration of its purpose and legal basis, particularly where it differs from the reason the information was collected.

Recording indicators need to be dependable

The Board’s principal recommendation concerns transparency, with the appearance of smart glasses making it difficult for bystanders to recognise when recording is taking place. It suggests visible lights, audio indications, voice cues, smartphone notifications or distinctive product designs as possible ways to make recording more obvious.

Any warning mechanism needs to work consistently in the circumstances for which it is intended. A small indicator that can be covered or disabled may offer limited protection, while a notification that is only visible to the person wearing the glasses would not necessarily inform people whose images or conversations are being collected.

The EDPB has not prescribed a mandatory technical specification for recording indicators or required all devices to use the same design. Its October statement is preliminary guidance, intended to raise awareness and encourage manufacturers and service providers to consider stronger transparency measures.

Clear warnings would also leave organisations with obligations extending beyond the moment of recording. Someone who recognises that a camera is operating may still need information about who controls the footage, where it will be stored, whether automated analysis will be used and how long the recording will remain available.

Where smart glasses are introduced into a workplace, those questions become part of the broader arrangements governing employee monitoring and information management. Businesses may need to restrict recording in particular areas, establish who can activate the equipment and determine whether material collected for one activity can be used for another.

The appropriate controls will depend on the work being performed. An engineer receiving remote assistance while inspecting industrial machinery has different operational requirements from a clinician documenting an interaction with a patient, even though both may benefit from hands-free access to information.

Remote assistance can allow an expert to see equipment without travelling to the site, potentially reducing delays when a specialist is unavailable locally. However, an unrestricted video feed may reveal other employees, confidential documents or security arrangements that are incidental to the technical task, creating a need to limit what is captured and shared.

Evidence of changing behaviour

Alongside its statement, the EDPB highlighted an externally commissioned research report examining how people use and perceive smart glasses. The report, published on 1 October through the Board’s Support Pool of Experts programme, draws on qualitative interviews and examples of recording in social settings.

Its findings describe circumstances in which smart glasses can be used for interpersonal surveillance or to create evidence of interactions, sometimes changing the balance of control between the person wearing the device and those nearby. Differences in familiarity with the technology may make it harder for some people to recognise what is happening or respond effectively.

The EDPB expressly distinguishes the study from its own official position. The report was prepared by an external contractor, and its qualitative findings should not be interpreted as a representative European survey or evidence of the frequency of particular behaviours across the population.

Nevertheless, the examples illustrate why the Board is concerned with recording practices as well as equipment design. A device can be used in circumstances that were not central to its original commercial purpose, while connected applications may introduce additional forms of processing after an image or conversation has been captured.

National authorities are also considering restrictions in specific environments. Norway has proposed limits on smart glasses in selected public settings, reflecting similar concerns about recording in places where individuals may have limited practical control over being observed.

The EDPB’s statement does not impose an equivalent EU-wide prohibition. Instead, it identifies existing responsibilities and encourages work on standards and awareness measures that could make recording practices more understandable.

As smart glasses enter professional environments, the technical ability to capture a live view will need to be considered alongside the responsibilities attached to the information collected. The Board’s guidance places those obligations on the relevant users and service providers, regardless of whether the camera is conspicuous or built into equipment resembling ordinary eyewear.