Smart glasses capable of making phone calls and capturing images discreetly have raised significant questions about privacy and the legal boundaries of photography in public spaces. While these devices appeal to technology enthusiasts, concerns have mounted over potential misuse, prompting some schools, pubs, and workplaces to ban their use.
The issue gained heightened attention after the Home Office distributed a poster aimed at asylum seekers, warning that individuals "could be arrested by the police" for taking photographs or videos of others without consent, even in public settings such as streets or parks. The poster was subsequently withdrawn following criticism from the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), which argued that the guidance oversimplified and misrepresented existing laws, potentially misleading the public and fostering hostility towards journalists and photographers engaged in legitimate reporting.
Séamus Dooley, assistant general secretary of the NUJ, expressed concern that the spread of inaccurate information regarding the right to photograph and film in public could expose members to unwarranted harassment and false allegations of criminal behavior. In response, the Home Office issued a revised booklet with amended advice, although officials maintain that the original poster intended to deliver two separate messages: discouraging photography without consent and highlighting that sharing sexual images without permission constitutes a serious criminal offence.
Legal experts emphasize the complexity of balancing privacy rights with freedom of expression in the context of public photography. Gordon Clough, a partner at Simons Muirhead Burton, noted that recent technological advances and the ubiquity of social media have intensified debates over what the law permits. He highlighted a common misconception that permission is always required to photograph individuals in public, explaining that English law does not impose such a blanket rule. Instead, Clough stressed the need for clear communication of the law to both the public and law enforcement.
Matthew Dando, a partner at Wiggin, underscored that people generally have the freedom to photograph or film others in public spaces unless specific laws restrict this right. He cautioned that implying otherwise is both misleading and incorrect. However, he added that legal limits do exist—especially where privacy, harassment, or data protection laws apply, or in cases involving voyeurism and upskirting.
A key legal consideration remains whether the subject of a photograph has a reasonable expectation of privacy, which often depends on the context. For instance, photographs taken in crowded public areas differ markedly from those capturing individuals in private or sensitive situations. Supporting this distinction, the press regulator Ipso recently dismissed a complaint by Housing Secretary Angela Rayner over a photograph of her walking in public, concluding there was no reasonable expectation of privacy due to the public setting and her political prominence.
Rupert Cowper-Coles, a partner at RPC, described the current legal framework governing public photography as a "patchwork" that can have a chilling impact on journalism and complicate the provision of definitive legal advice. While acknowledging the unwelcome uncertainty, he suggested that a narrower, more consistent approach—particularly for journalists—could help focus legal assessments on privacy interests relative to freedom of expression.
The use of smart glasses for covert recording presents additional challenges. Cowper-Coles warned that disabling indicator lights and filming individuals without their knowledge—especially when footage is widely shared online—may expose users to privacy claims unless justified by significant public interest. Gideon Benaim, a partner at Simkins, emphasized that wearable technology's ability to capture continuous, targeted, and covert recordings raises urgent questions distinct from incidental street photography. He advocated for clearer guidelines distinguishing legality, professional ethics, and social norms, recommending rules that address privacy, persistence, harassment, deception, and harmful dissemination.
Despite these complexities, Dando reaffirmed that the foundational legal principle should protect freedom of expression, cautioning against an expansion of privacy protections that could undermine public interest journalism. He noted that current legal mechanisms sufficiently safeguard genuinely private moments, particularly those involving non-public figures and children, while maintaining space for responsible reporting in public settings.