Germany · de.indymedia · · 8h
Meta surveillance glasses: Data protection authority warns of significant risks
Deutsch (original) · Auto-translated to English
The Hamburg data protection authority examined Meta's surveillance glasses and came to a clear verdict. Their recording light is only “perceptible to a limited extent” and the glasses are therefore only permitted in exceptional cases.
The Hamburg data protection authority examined and dismantled the “Ray-Ban Meta Wayfarer (Gen 1)” model of Meta’s surveillance glasses in more detail. An interdisciplinary team from the areas of social networks, technical data protection and legal questions regarding AI applicationshttps://datenschutz-hamburg.de/news/ray-ban-meta-ai-glasses-hmbbfdi-legen...the authorityThe model was tested both technically and from a data protection perspective.
The review comes to the conclusion that “except for rare constellations of legitimate interest, the inclusion of people who do not belong to the close circle of friends and family will not be permitted under data protection law, since in reality informed consent cannot be obtained due to a lack of transparency.”
Once again, the visibility of the glasses' "recording light" is the issue. With the investigation, the Hamburg data protection authority is clearly opposing the assessment of the Federal Network Agency (BNetzA), which does not want to ban the glasses because the light is supposedly clearly visible.
The BNetzA can use devices on the basis of the Telecommunications Digital Services Data Protection Act (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ttdsg/__8.html">TDDDG) withdraw from circulation. It bans “telecommunications systems” that disguise themselves as everyday objects and are suitable for secret recordings. The authority had this in 2017https://netzpolitik.org/2017/schnueffelpuppe-my-friend-cayla-in-deutschl...Case of the smart doll Cayla doneand classified it as a surveillance system.
https://netzpolitik.org/2026/heimliches-filmen-kann-man-ueberwachungsbri...should surveillance glasses be banned?
The Hamburg data protection officers are on this pointhttps://datenschutz-hamburg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/HmbBfDI/Datenschutz...(PDF)clearly:
The use of glasses brings with it significant challenges in terms of transparency requirements. The design of the glasses makes it difficult for third parties to recognize that it is a recording device. Although an outward-facing LED light is installed to indicate photo or video recordings, this can only be perceived to a limited extent depending on the distance, viewing angle and lighting conditions. Simply lighting up the LED alone is not enough to adequately inform those affected about data processing. Rather, additional measures – such as information in the form of pictograms or verbal communication – would have to be taken by the users.
The investigation has other criticisms of Meta's surveillance glasses. There is usually a lack of a legal basis for AI training through Meta. In addition, the data protection officers discovered several empty database folders in the technology, the names of which indicated that they could be used for facial recognition. However, this could not be confirmed by tests.
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