Do we need a consent law for AI glasses?

The debate surrounding Meta's AI glasses intensifies, with calls for a ban due to perceived threats to privacy and democracy. However, Professor Inger Marie Sunde from the Police University College argues that a blanket prohibition might overlook the potential benefits of such technology. Instead, she proposes that a clearer legal framework, specifically a consent law for personal photography, could offer a more nuanced approach.

“

The word 'glasses' is misleading in this context.

Sunde points out that the term 'glasses' is somewhat misleading, as these devices function more as sensors and components within larger AI systems. Equipped with small camera lenses, they can capture visual information, which can then be processed by AI. The author highlights Mark Zuckerberg's demonstration, where the AI glasses assisted a blind veteran in reading and identifying clothing. This illustrates the potential utility of the technology for accessibility and daily tasks.

“

The device in the face is a sensor and a component in an AI system.

Despite these potential benefits, the surveillance capabilities remain a significant concern. The AI glasses can record conversations and, with facial recognition, identify individuals in real-time. The subtlety of their use means that people in public spaces may not always be aware they are being recorded or monitored. Sunde suggests that while the AI Regulation includes prohibitions on certain AI applications, it does not directly address these AI glasses, leaving a gap in current legal protections.

“

The AI 'glasses' are visible, but the surroundings must themselves assess whether it is a normal pair of glasses or an AI sensor, and whether they risk being photographed or eavesdropped on.