The Dutch government will not currently press the EU for binding design requirements on camera glasses or start a national study of a public ban. MIXED reports that the government set out both positions in answers to parliament on September 24. For wearers, venue restrictions still matter. For bystanders, the government acknowledges that a recording light can be easy to miss.
Waiting for a European study
The answers respond to 18 questions that CDA members Zwinkels and Straatman submitted on August 6 about privacy and public safety. One asked for binding design rules, including a visual and audible recording signal that users cannot bypass.
The government declined to push for those rules for now. It wants to wait for a European Data Protection Board study into smart glasses, which it expects later this year. It also considers a partial or full public ban a far-reaching measure that would require the absence of less onerous alternatives. Its position is that existing law offers ways to address unwanted use.
That position comes with an admission about recording indicators. The government says many people do not recognize a light on glasses as a sign of filming. Busy surroundings, bright light and viewing angle can make it harder to notice. Visual impairments and differences in colour perception also matter.
Venues can still restrict the glasses
According to MIXED's account of the answers, organisers and venue managers generally have room to exclude camera glasses or limit their use through house rules, contract terms and access policies. Those rules must be knowable, non-discriminatory and proportionate. The government says schools and care institutions can justify extensive bans through their duty of care.
The answers also say that private users cannot identify random bystanders in public through facial recognition without a specific legal basis and compliance with the GDPR and AI Act.
The Dutch data protection authority had received six signals and one complaint about camera glasses. The Public Prosecution Service held no figures on criminal reports involving them.
