Location-based restrictions on technology use are a more proportionate tool than product bans. Critically analyse this with reference to recent regulation of smart glasses in Europe.

A measure is proportionate when it achieves a legitimate aim with the least restriction on rights. Norway's proposed temporary curb on smart glasses tests this idea. It restricts their use in privacy-sensitive places but leaves sales and private use untouched [1]. It is a strong first step, but not a complete answer.

Why location-based restrictions are more proportionate

• They target the harm, not the device: smart glasses with HD cameras, ambient audio and AI enable covert recording and facial recognition. Norway curbs use only where people expect privacy [1].
• They are the least restrictive option: because sales and private use continue, innovation and consumer choice are kept [1].
• They protect vulnerable spaces: children's places (schools, playgrounds, youth clubs) and bodily-privacy places (locker rooms, fitness centres, healthcare facilities) are covered [1].
• They are time-bound and evidence-based: the curb is a temporary pause, and an expert committee will evaluate the technology [1].
• They create a market signal: the curbs push manufacturers to build in privacy safeguards instead of leaving the market [1].

Limitations

• Enforcement is hard: the devices look like ordinary eyewear, so covert recording is difficult to detect at the door.
• The harm is not tied to a place: footage recorded in a park can be uploaded and used to identify people anywhere. Restricting where a device is used does not regulate what happens to the data.
• Rules are fragmenting: a patchwork of national and venue-specific rules across Europe and North America creates uncertainty [1].
• Bystanders still cannot consent: people being recorded never receive a notice. India's DPDP model relies on standalone consent notices from Data Fiduciaries [2], which fits poorly with individual wearers recording strangers.
• There is an economic cost: the restrictions could hurt device sales [1].

Lessons for India

• The DPDP Act, 2023 [3] and its Rules, notified in November 2025 with 18-month phased compliance [2], regulate how data is processed. They do not cover where wearables may be used.
• The Puttaswamy (2017) judgment recognised privacy under Article 21 and adopted a proportionality test, which supports a calibrated, location-based approach.

Overall, location-based curbs are more proportionate than outright bans, but they work only as a first layer. They should be combined with privacy-by-design device standards, limits on real-time facial recognition, and coordinated international norms. This layered model would protect dignity under Article 21 while keeping innovation alive, in line with SDG 16's commitment to fundamental freedoms.