The Norwegian government is launching an expert review to determine if current privacy laws are sufficient to govern the rise of wearable camera technology.

The Norwegian government is initiating a formal review of the regulatory landscape surrounding smart glasses, specifically targeting the potential for unauthorized facial recognition in public spaces. Digitalisation and Public Governance Minister Karianne Tung announced on August 25 that an expert group will be established to evaluate the necessity of specific legal constraints for these wearable devices.

This policy shift follows a formal request from Datatilsynet, Norway’s Data Protection Authority, which urged the government on August 12 to determine if current legislation provides adequate safeguards. The regulator has proposed a range of potential interventions, including the restriction of sales and the implementation of bans within sensitive environments such as schools and kindergartens. Datatilsynet director Line Coll previously suggested that authorities should consider a temporary halt on sales while the legal implications of the technology are fully assessed.

The Norwegian government maintains that its existing technology-neutral privacy framework, alongside upcoming implementations of the European Union AI Act and Digital Services Act, already covers the risks associated with smart glasses. Government officials argue that defining a general ban is problematic because the devices serve legitimate purposes and do not differ fundamentally from other recording equipment like drones or dashcams. The Justice Ministry is currently conducting an internal assessment to confirm whether existing laws provide sufficient protection for citizens.

Technical capabilities under review include the integration of high-resolution sensors and real-time biometric identification software that can cross-reference faces against public databases. These features allow for the continuous, passive collection of data on unsuspecting bystanders, which the government fears could lead to widespread erosion of anonymity in urban environments. The expert group will specifically analyze how these advanced processing capabilities differ from traditional handheld cameras in terms of data persistence and potential for mass surveillance.

These regulatory tensions highlight the broader challenge of bystander privacy in an era of pervasive wearable computing. Jules Polonetsky, CEO of the Future of Privacy Forum, noted that the primary issue involves individuals being recorded without their consent or knowledge. He questioned the efficacy of current notification methods, such as small indicator lights, which may fail to provide meaningful notice to those in the vicinity of a wearer.

The debate extends beyond Scandinavia, as similar disputes have surfaced in international markets regarding the integration of biometric identification into consumer hardware. In India, for instance, legal notices were issued to Meta following reports of unauthorized recordings in public cafes, while law enforcement agencies have faced scrutiny for deploying AI-powered glasses for surveillance purposes. These incidents underscore the difficulty of balancing consumer product adoption with the fundamental rights of bystanders who have no mechanism to opt out of data collection.

Technical solutions, such as on-device processing or automatic blurring of non-consenting individuals, remain at the center of the discourse between industry stakeholders and privacy advocates. Polonetsky suggests that shifting data processing away from the cloud and directly onto the device could mitigate some risks, yet the fundamental question of user control remains unresolved. The lack of clear consent protocols in current wearable interfaces creates a significant friction point for both manufacturers and regulators.

The significance of this regulatory struggle lies in the tension between technological convenience and individual autonomy. As smart glasses become more sophisticated, the inability of bystanders to exercise control over their own likeness becomes an acute policy challenge. Policymakers are now forced to decide whether to rely on existing, broad-based privacy laws or to craft specialized, restrictive mandates for wearable camera hardware.

The outcome of the Norwegian expert group’s findings will likely influence how other European nations approach the intersection of wearable AI and public privacy. If Norway proceeds with specific restrictions on facial recognition or usage zones, it could set a precedent for a more fragmented regulatory environment for global tech companies. The primary watchpoint remains whether the government will find the current legal framework sufficient or if it will be compelled to enact new, targeted legislation to address the unique capabilities of smart glasses.

At Global Business & Economics Journal, we contribute to the  future of business and technology with news,  innovative research, expert insights, and thought-provoking analysis.