Germany · de.indymedia · · 1h
Surveillance glasses: Why German courts don't ban smart glasses
Deutsch (original) · Auto-translated to English
Symbolbild · Moggosaurier / Public domain · Wikimedia Commons
Film secretly, listen in, have someone whisper to you: with AI glasses it remains inconspicuous. Other countries react with bans in court buildings and visitors have to hand in their glasses at the entrance. The German justice ministries, on the other hand, consider the existing rules to be sufficient.
Regardless of whether you are a lawyer or defendant, witness or prosecutor: anyone entering a courthouse in New York State has had to do so since July 1sthttps://nysba.org/new-york-state-court-system-bans-wearing-smart-glasses...Hand in AI glasses at the entrance. A few months earlier, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's security guards were wearing Ray Ban Meta AI glasses on his facehttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/meta-trial-mark-zuckerberg-ai-glasses/">toa landmark trial against Meta in Los Angelesappeared. The presiding judge threatened coercive measures if the glasses did not disappear immediately.
The glasses have been in court buildings in England and Wales since Augusthttps://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/aug/11/meta-glasses-banned-f...officially prohibited.The relevant Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has issued an order to this effect.
However, no such ban is currently planned in German courts. The ministries of justice and state authorities confirmed this at the request of netzpolitik.org.
The ban on recording also applies to AI glasses
Sound and film recordings in hearing rooms arehttps://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gvg/__169.html">inGermany is fundamentally forbiddenwith the exception of a few cases. This ban applies regardless of the recording device and also extends to smart glasses. The authorities from almost all of the federal states requested point this out.
In addition, presiding judges can impose further restrictions, such as prohibiting entry into the hearing room wearing AI glasses. Courts could also impose clear requirements within the framework of house law. In Berlin, for example, the house rules stipulate that filming and photography may only be carried out in court buildings with the permission of the court management.
We sound the alarm.
For your basic rights.
Join now
According to the Thuringian Ministry of Justice, these legal measures were sufficient to counter the development of smart glasses. For these reasons, there are currently no plans to explicitly ban AI glasses in other federal states.
First smart glasses appeared in courts
In Hamburg, for example, all electronic devices are already banned in the criminal justice building, including smart glasses, writes a spokesman for the justice authority. “The entrance control employees are aware of smart glasses.”
In the past, visitors have occasionally discovered smart glasses there, which were voluntarily handed over for the duration of the visit after being informed of the house rules.
Cases such as those in Great Britain or the USA in which witnesses or others involved in the trial wore smart glasses in the courtroom are not yet known there.
Countries do not yet see a need for action
From Baden-Württemberg, the Ministry of Justice says it is closely monitoring developments. So far, however, no cases have been reported in which someone wore smart glasses in the courthouse or recorded with them. That's why we don't see any need for further regulations. However, we will continue to keep an eye on the problem.
The Bavarian Ministry refers to another legal regulation: the unauthorized recording of a non-public conversation, for example as part of a non-public court hearing, could also be punishable as a violation of the confidentiality of the word. This carries a fine or a prison sentence of up to three years.
Everything that is relevant to network policy
Three times a week as a newsletter in your inbox.
Subscribe now
Others rely on clear bans
A ban on recordings in court proceedings? These requirements also apply in England. However, there was no reason for the responsible authority to conclude that a ban on smart glasses was unnecessary. On the contrary. “There are clear restrictions on taking photos or videos in courts and court hearings, which is why the use of meta-glasses is prohibited,” a spokesperson told the Guardian.
In the US state of New York, too, the ban is intended to enforce the applicable regulations.https://webfiles.nycourts.gov/public/2026-07/amendedprohibitionagainstsm...a note from the beginning of JulyThe court administration there explained that the ban ensures that no one can secretly record court proceedings because this is prohibited.
Smartglasses as telephone jokers on the witness stand
Smart glasses like the Ray Ban Meta Wayfarer are different from traditional glasseshttps://netzpolitik.org/2026/heimliches-filmen-kann-man-ueberwachungsbri...hardly distinguishable. A small white light is intended to alert bystanders that the glasses are currently taking photos or filming. However, this is easy to manipulate and cannot be seen from greater distances or in poor lighting conditions. The glasses would be much more suitable for secret film and sound recordings from a courtroom than, for example, a smartphone.
In England there was also concernhttps://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj6d4k65ky5o">a man's case for a sensation, who wore smart glasses during his questioning on the witness stand. The judge became suspicious because he took noticeably long pauses before answering. She found that he had been secretly “coached” by someone on the phone using the microphone built into the glasses and ordered him to take off the glasses.
The work of netzpolitik.org is financed almost 100% from donations from our readers.
Become part of this unique community and support our public interest-oriented, advertising- and tracking-free journalismhttps://netzpolitik.org/spenden/?via=rss">nowwith a donation.
Read the full story at the source →
Source: de.indymedia