Letter of the Day | Beware of the invisible camera!

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Wearable cameras or smart glasses are rapidly moving from novelty to normality. Smart glasses can take photographs, record conversations, and interpret what the wearer sees.

Restrictions are already emerging. England and Wales have prohibited Meta smart glasses in courts, Oslo has banned them in schools, and New York has barred camera-equipped eyewear from its court system. Several Australian councils have restricted the devices in public facilities, while the Australian Government is considering prohibiting them in federal workplaces. These are targeted restrictions, not blanket national bans.

Traditional CCTV systems are generally installed for a defined purpose. Cameras are positioned in known locations, warning signs can be displayed, and organisations can establish rules governing access, storage and retention. Wearable cameras move with the user, cross between public and restricted environments and may upload information to external platforms. Bloomberg has also reported that Apple is developing AirPods fitted with infrared cameras to support visual-intelligence functions, although Apple has not officially announced the product. Such technology can provide hands-free assistance and greater independence for people with visual impairments, but it also makes recording more difficult to detect.

This is both a privacy and security concern.

Jamaica’s Data Protection Act establishes standards for handling personal information, but organisations also need clear operational rules. The Office of the Information Commissioner should consider issuing guidance on wearable recording devices. Government agencies and private organisations should include them in security risk assessments, visitor-management procedures, and workplace policies. Employees and security personnel must know how to recognise the devices and where their use is restricted.

Controls should provide reasonable accommodation for people who rely on the technology for accessibility. Manufacturers should also ensure that recording indicators are unmistakable and privacy safeguards are difficult to disable.

Jamaica does not need an indiscriminate ban. It needs a measured response that protects privacy and security while preserving legitimate uses.

We once looked above doors and along walls to find the cameras watching us. Increasingly, the camera may be standing beside us. The technology may be difficult to see, but its risks cannot remain invisible.

RENEE WATKIS