Private video recordings made using wearables in public spaces

Camera technology has now become an integral part of our everyday lives, whether embedded in smartphones, connected vehicles or wearables such as smart glasses. The current data privacy debate regarding a possible ban on the private use of wearables with built-in cameras provides an opportunity to examine the legal framework and limits of private data collection in public spaces in depth.

Germany once again risks becoming a European outlier in its approach to new technologies. While other EU Member States support the use of smart glasses through regulatory guidance, the debate in Germany is again dominated by calls for bans. The parallels with comparable technological developments and debates, beginning with Google Street View, are evident. At the same time, the current legal framework, through what is referred to as the “household exemption” in Article 2(2)(c) GDPR, permits the purely private use of modern, socially accepted camera technologies, at least from a data-protection perspective.

I. Current debate

At the end of July, the Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (Hamburgische Beauftragte für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit) announced that he intended to ban the use of Meta Smart Glasses in public spaces. He argued that the device’s camera, which users can activate at any time, enables them to film others indiscriminately, thereby infringing their right to informational self-determination. The announcement triggered a public debate whose intensity and tone recall earlier German disputes over photography and video recording, including those surrounding the introduction of Google Street View.

Public outrage over Street View led Google to offer extensive opt-out options in Germany, unique among EU Member States – and to blur entire streets. Street View faced hardly any objections in France, Sweden or the Netherlands. A similar pattern is now emerging with smart glasses. While Germany considers bans, other European supervisory authorities are focusing on guidance and public information:

 

 

A review of the current state of the Google Street View debate also shows that the most prominent example of Germany’s exceptional approach has since been reversed. The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (Google Street View: Verpixeln von Gebäuden nur noch mit Nachweis | HmbBfDI) (only in German) has now ended the automatic blurring of buildings on Google Street View, a practice once hailed as a victory for German data protection over US technology companies. What German data-protection authorities regarded as legally necessary 15 years ago appears overly restrictive in 2026.

II. The GDPR household exemption: what constitutes private data processing in public spaces in a digital world?

Article 2(2)(c) GDPR lies at the heart of the legal assessment of private smart glasses use in public. It excludes from the scope of the Regulation the processing of personal data “by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity”. This household exemption seeks to balance the protection of private and family life under Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union with the fundamental right to protection of personal data under Article 8. Where the exemption applies, the specific private processing at issue is not subject to GDPR obligations. The second sentence of recital 18 of the GDPR identifies correspondence, address books, the use of social networks and online activities as examples of exclusively private use.

1. Can the ECJ’s case law on fixed CCTV be applied to wearables, connected cars and other camera-equipped smart devices?

The restrictive interpretation of the household exemption that currently prevails draws heavily on the ECJ’s judgment in Ryneš (C-212/13). A Czech homeowner had installed a fixed camera on the façade of his house that continuously captured the public pavement in front of the property. The ECJ held that this processing did not fall within the household exemption because it extended into public space and therefore covered an area outside the private sphere of the person processing the data.

Academic commentary and supervisory practice have frequently generalised this principle. Under that interpretation, any recording in public falls outside the scope of the household exemption. Ryneš, however, concerned fixed, continuous and indiscriminate surveillance of a defined area, rather than the mobile, occasional and social use for which modern devices are typically used in everyday life.

Against that background, the restrictive interpretation of the ECJ’s case law on fixed private CCTV that currently prevails in Germany, and its extension to mobile, network-connected cameras in everyday use, no longer appears to be fit for purpose.

2. Wording focuses on private purpose of data processing

The wording of Article 2(2)(c) GDPR focuses on the private purpose of the processing, namely activities that are “purely personal or household”, rather than on the place where the recording is made. Someone who uses a smart-glasses camera to capture a holiday memory pursues the same purpose as someone taking a photograph with a smartphone.

The limits of a private purpose should depend on the extent to which the processing interferes with the rights of others, its scale and its context. They cannot be inferred mechanically from where the recording takes place. Article 4(7) GDPR is also relevant when determining who the controller is. Whether the recording takes place in public is one factor in the overall objective assessment, but it is not decisive on its own.

Although the GDPR does not treat social acceptance as a separate legal term, the extent to which a technology has become an ordinary and accepted part of daily life should inform the overall assessment of whether processing remains within the personal or household sphere. Article 2(2)(c) GDPR is technology-neutral. It should therefore not be interpreted solely by reference to the risks associated with fixed CCTV cameras in 2014.

Applying these criteria, it should be apparent even to non-lawyers that private photographs and videos of graduation ceremonies, school performances or sporting events in public are socially accepted. The GDPR does not impose obligations in such cases, provided that the recordings are not published. By contrast, targeted recordings of individuals, voyeuristic recordings and indiscriminate filming outside comparable social settings are not socially acceptable, regardless of the device used. The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information’s argument that smart glasses enable covert recording is therefore persuasive only at first glance. When someone uses a smartphone, an observer cannot always tell whether that person is simply reading something or taking a photograph or video. Ultimately, what matters is whether the person deliberately conceals what they are doing. Whether a particular use should be regarded as covert, and therefore unlawful, must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

III. Conclusion: technological progress requires guidance and personal responsibility

Germany’s debate on smart glasses has reached a turning point. General bans or substantial restrictions on their use would, as in the Google Street View debate, create a German exception. Neighbouring European countries are instead focusing on raising awareness and encouraging users to act responsibly. A modern interpretation of the GDPR’s household exemption that adheres more closely to its wording would provide a legal basis for responsible private data collection in public spaces. What qualifies as exclusively private use for the purposes of the household exemption should be assessed by reference to what society in 2026 regards as a private context. This would avoid a rigid and outdated understanding of how people use technology in their private lives. It is therefore worth asking whether the ECJ’s pre-GDPR case law on fixed private CCTV should continue to serve as the benchmark for the use of new everyday technologies in public spaces.