Smart glasses make secret filming easier. What does NZ law actually protect you from?
- Written by: Weekend Times
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.
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 does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
