Cassandra
Mudgway, University
of Canterbury
At a glance, they look
much like ordinary eyewear.
But the latest
generation of “smart
glasses”, including Meta’s
Ray-Ban and Oakley ranges, can capture photos and video
without people nearby necessarily knowing they’re being
recorded.
And they’re becoming increasingly
accessible. Anko’s
Camera Glasses, recently launched at Kmart, cost just
$99 – making them among the cheapest on the New Zealand
market.
For some people, this technology offers
significant benefits. AI-enabled glasses can
assist blind and low-vision people by reading signs,
identifying objects and communicating visual information
through audio.
But the same technology also makes
covert filming remarkably easy. Cases overseas have already
involved women being secretly recorded and turned into
social media content.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
And if that happens in New
Zealand, existing law may offer surprisingly limited
protection – particularly if someone is filmed in
public.
Why smart glasses are causing
worry
Smart glasses enter a world in which covert
filming, online harassment and image-based sexual abuse are
established
forms of gendered harm, disproportionately affecting
women and girls.
Men have already used smart
glasses to covertly
record encounters with women and upload
the footage to social media. Women working in
massage parlours and the
sex industry have also reportedly been recorded without
their knowledge or consent.
Such footage can
then be sexualised through captions and comments,
generating entertainment and engagement for an audience the
person recorded never chose. In the US, boys have
reportedly begun using smart glasses to secretly film
and harass female classmates before uploading the footage to
TikTok.
Concerns about covert recording have
existed since
Google launched its first camera-equipped smart glasses
more than a decade ago, while the latest generation has
prompted criticism from figures including
Kiwi musician Lorde.
Meta itself has
acknowledged the potential for misuse through safeguards
such as a recording light and disabling cameras when that
light is tampered with.
Where NZ’s laws fall
short
So, what laws are there to stop someone in
New Zealand using these glasses to make covert
recordings?
Sexualised abuse does not necessarily
involve nudity. A man might secretly film a clothed woman at
the gym or record an ordinary conversation, with the footage
later sexualised through captions, editing, distribution or
comments.
Yet New Zealand law does not necessarily
treat such conduct as criminal or a breach of
privacy.
The intimate
visual recording offences in the Crimes Act 1961 cover
nudity, exposed intimate areas, sexual activity or personal
bodily activity where privacy could reasonably be expected,
along with certain recordings beneath or through
clothing.
They may apply when smart glasses are
used in bathrooms or changing rooms, or during sexual
activity. But covertly filming a clothed woman in public may
fall outside the definition, even for voyeuristic or sexual
purposes.
This reflects a basic limitation in the
law: it largely focuses on what an image shows and where it
was captured, rather than how otherwise ordinary footage may
later be sexualised through captions, targeting or online
distribution.
The Harmful
Digital Communications Act 2015 criminalises posting an
intimate visual recording without consent – but again, the
footage must meet that definition.
Its general
offence may cover other recordings, but requires proof the
perpetrator intended to cause harm and serious emotional
distress resulted. This may be difficult to establish when
footage is presented as entertainment or social media
content.
New Zealand’s new
stalking offence may help when someone repeatedly
records another person, but may not cover a single incident.
Because the recording is covert, the person targeted may
remain unaware unless it is discovered or
shared.
The Privacy
Act 2020 provides another possible avenue, but
individuals collecting information for personal purposes
receive broad exemptions.
What needs to
change?
New Zealand doesn’t need to create a new
offence every time technology exposes another
gap.
Rather, it could review whether existing laws
adequately cover covert recording for sexual or exploitative
purposes – including when someone is clothed or in
public.
Developers, importers and retailers could
also be required to assess foreseeable risks such as covert
filming, stalking and image-based sexual abuse before
wearable technology enters the market.
Eleanor
Parkes, national director of child rights organisation ECPAT NZ, says the
potential for smart glasses to be used for abuse and
exploitation “was obvious from the outset”, and
technology companies should be responsible for building
safeguards into their products.
These could include
restricting continuous recording and live-streaming and
deleting images by default. Companies could also disclose
where footage is stored, who can access it and whether it
could be used to train AI.
Regulation could also
distinguish between uses. Glasses that process visual
information to assist a blind or low-vision wearer, for
example, need not necessarily store those images or make
them available for sharing.
This is not a choice
between accessibility and the safety of women and girls.
Regulation should treat accessibility, privacy and safety as
design requirements from the outset.
Kmart says
customers are expected to use its glasses responsibly. But
“responsible use” is not a substitute for
safeguards.
Cassandra
Mudgway, Senior Lecturer in Law, University
of Canterbury
This article is
republished from The
Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the
original
article.
