Wearable technology tests boundaries of privacy law

"There is no general requirement to obtain consent before photographing someone in a public place, but it does not follow that everything done or recorded in public is free from protection. The legal question is fact-sensitive: for example, whether the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and, if so, how that interest should be balanced against freedom of expression and any genuine public interest.

"Wearable technology makes that assessment more pressing because continuous, targeted and covert recording is different in character from being incidentally captured in an ordinary street photograph. Good public guidance should distinguish legality, professional ethics and ordinary courtesy. The answer is not likely a blanket prohibition on public photography, which would be unworkable and also inhibit legitimate activities including some journalism. Clearer rules directed at privacy, persistence, harassment, intrusion, deception and harmful dissemination are the way to go."

An extract of Gideon’s comments was published in The Times, 14 October 2026.