Story
October 8, 2026
Norway Moves to Curb AI Glasses Before Surveillance Becomes Routine
Norway’s government sees a limited, temporary restriction as a safeguard against covert surveillance, rather than a rejection of wearable AI altogether. The proposal pits the promise of hands-free technology against the public’s expectation of being unrecorded in ordinary life.
Norway is moving to draw an early line around AI glasses, proposing a temporary ban in selected public places as concerns grow over devices that can photograph, film, record audio and stream video without bystanders’ knowledge.1
On Monday, the center-left government said it would soon take draft legislation to parliament covering locations including parks, beaches, schools and kindergartens. It also plans to appoint an expert group to develop permanent national rules.1
Digitalization Minister Torgeir Micaelsen framed the proposal as a response to the technology’s hidden reach. “I am concerned about the introduction of powerful new technology where people risk being photographed, filmed, or recorded without their knowledge,” he said.1 The temporary measure, he argued, would create space for “a thorough assessment and … an informed debate” before lasting regulation is set.1
The government is not seeking a blanket prohibition. Its position is that AI glasses may be used appropriately where there is no danger of recording people without consent. But it warns against normalising a public culture in which people worry about secret filming or audio capture in settings where they expect not to be monitored. “Such a society can be experienced as unsafe and cause us to withdraw,” Micaelsen said.1
Norway is not starting from scratch. Schools in Oslo and energy giant Equinor have already imposed their own restrictions, while Australia is considering limits in some public spaces and courts in several countries have barred the devices.1 The pressure comes as companies including Meta, Google and OpenAI promote wearables as a possible successor to the smartphone — and as critics ask whether convenience is racing ahead of consent.1