Orwell’s 1984 imagines a dystopia in which nothing is left unseen and captures the psychological consequences of life under constant observation.
In the novel, the omnipresent telescreen ensure that privacy was never entirely secure and consequently the possibility of being watched was sufficient to shape behavior.
The advent of smart glasses inverts Orwell’s nightmare; the observed become the observers.
Big Brother is no longer confined to large telescreens but is instead able to move among us in the form of everyday portable objects.
As cameras, microphones and AI tools migrate into devices that are virtually indistinguishable from ordinary spectacles, the boundaries between observation and participation, watcher and watched, become progressively harder to discern.
The implications extend far beyond questions of technological innovation; they reach into the heart of contemporary debates about privacy, autonomy and the adequacy of UK data protection law in an age where surveillance hides in plain sight.
When transparency becomes opaque
Orwell’s tools of surveillance are generally obvious. Big Brother appears on telescreens, hidden microphones are everywhere and even colleagues are constant arms of the state’s surveillance.
Just as Oceania’s population consented to constant surveillance in exchange for a false sense of security and protection, we have also consented to being watched for our own good. Until now, outside the world of intelligence, the surveillance instruments (CCTV, bodyworn cameras and smartphone cameras) have been readily visible to their targets.
However, this transparency is rapidly becoming opaque. Modern devices can contain cameras, microphones, location-tracking capabilities and AI-powered assistants within frames that are almost indistinguishable from ordinary glasses. Future iterations of these devices are likely to become even smaller and less conspicuous. This is important because transparency has long been one of the cornerstones of UK data protection law.
Under the UK GDPR, organizations processing personal data must be open about what information they collect and why. Individuals should, in principle, understand when their data is being processed and what rights they have in relation to that processing.
The nature of wearable technology is to be undetectable; how can an individual consent to their data being processed? If a device is continuously collecting information from its surroundings, who exactly is responsible for informing everyone affected?
These questions become increasingly complicated as smart glasses move beyond consumer gadgets and into professional environments.
Privacy versus productivity: the workplace dilemma
Employers are understandably attracted to wearable technology. Smart glasses can provide immediate instructions to warehouse workers, enable engineers to access technical manuals while working on their projects, and allow remote experts to see exactly what a field technician is seeing. The productivity benefits are potentially significant.
However, the same technology can also generate unprecedented volumes of employee data. A device may record conversations, track locations, monitor task completion times, or even capture information about where a worker is directing their attention. AI analytical tools can interpret and analyze this data to create profiles of employee behavior. In other words, data collected for one purpose may prove tempting for another.
This raises difficult questions under UK employment and data protection law. Employers must ensure that employee monitoring is necessary, proportionate and justified. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has repeatedly emphasized that workplace monitoring should not be excessive or unnecessarily intrusive, and yet the line between operational support and employee surveillance is becoming increasingly blurred.
Employers will need to grapple with the legal ramifications of how the technology is developed, rather than simply focusing on what the technology can do.
Privacy in the public sector
The same tensions are emerging across the public sector. Healthcare providers are exploring wearable technologies to support clinical decision-making, improve training and facilitate remote consultations. Emergency responders may benefit from immediate access to information while remaining focused on the situation in front of them. These are compelling arguments in favor of equipping healthcare professionals with wearing technology.
However, public services frequently handle some of the most sensitive categories of personal information. Patients, service users and members of the public may have little awareness that wearable devices are being used around them, let alone understand how resulting data is stored, processed or shared.
For public authorities, privacy concerns are not simply reputational risks. They engage legal obligations under data protection legislation and, potentially, European Convention on Human Rights protections, including the right to respect for private life.
Educational institutions are under growing pressure to protect academic integrity as affordable smart glasses and other AI-enabled wearable software make real-time cheating harder to detect. Some institutions are investing in systems designed to combat cheating, such as Bluetooth signal jammers, devices that can scan for active radio frequencies emitted by smart glasses, and advanced proctoring software for online exams that uses AI to flag suspicious eye movements.
While these measures may help deter misconduct, they also raise questions around privacy, data protection and procedural fairness. Whether schools and universities can address threats to the integrity of their assessment protocols in a way that is lawful, necessary and proportionate remains to be seen, but it is certain that as wearable technology becomes more sophisticated, organizations will be required to demonstrate that appropriate safeguards are in place.
Will privacy become a thing of the past?
Cameras, sensors and AI systems are increasingly being embedded into ordinary objects that people carry, wear and interact with every day. The challenge facing UK lawmakers is therefore much broader than regulating a single category of product.
It is about determining how existing principles of transparency, fairness and accountability apply in a world where data collection is becoming constant, ambient and increasingly difficult to detect. Smart glasses may be today’s headline technology but they may generate a glut of “smart wearables”, from jewelry to items of clothing.
What remains constant is the underlying question: can privacy law keep pace with technologies designed to make observation effortless and, increasingly, invisible?
The answer will shape not only how these devices are used in schools, workplaces and public services, but also how much control individuals retain over their personal information in the years ahead.
We’ve reviewed, rated, and ranked the best identity theft protection services.
This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit
