29th August 2026
The next argument about technology in the workplace may not be about computers, mobile phones or artificial intelligence.
It could be about spectacles.
Smart glasses are becoming increasingly sophisticated. What once looked like something from a science-fiction film is turning into a practical piece of technology that can put cameras, microphones, speakers, displays and artificial intelligence directly in front of our eyes.
That creates enormous opportunities.
It also creates a privacy problem that we may not yet be ready for.
The question is not whether smart glasses are good or bad. It is where they should be allowed and where they should be prohibited.
There is a strong argument for using them at work.
A maintenance engineer could look at a piece of machinery and receive instructions without having to stop and consult a manual. A warehouse worker could receive information about stock while keeping both hands free. A technician could potentially show a remote expert exactly what they are seeing and receive advice while carrying out a repair.
For people with disabilities, the possibilities could be even more important. Smart glasses could potentially read information aloud, recognise objects, magnify what the wearer sees or provide other forms of assistance.
In those circumstances, banning smart glasses could actually deprive people of useful technology that improves their ability to work.
But there is a very important difference between glasses that help the wearer and glasses that can watch everybody around the wearer.
Imagine sitting in an office talking to a colleague. You see that they are wearing what appear to be ordinary spectacles.
What you may not know is that the glasses contain a camera and microphone. They might be capable of recording what you say, capturing what you are doing or passing what the wearer sees to an artificial-intelligence system.
Would you be comfortable with that?
Most people would probably want to know before the conversation began.
And that is where smart glasses are different from the smartphone that everybody already knows can take photographs and record video.
A smartphone is visible. Somebody holding one up and pointing its camera at you is usually obvious.
A tiny camera built into a pair of spectacles is much harder to notice.
That raises the possibility of something that privacy laws have traditionally struggled with: surveillance that the person being observed doesn't even realise is taking place.
The UK's Information Commissioner's Office has already warned about the privacy implications of wearable cameras and other emerging technologies. Its guidance on workplace monitoring says that employers need to consider whether monitoring is necessary and proportionate and must be transparent about what they are doing and why.
Those principles become much more important when technology becomes almost invisible.
There is another issue which could prove even more controversial.
What happens when an employer supplies the smart glasses?
An employer might initially introduce them for perfectly legitimate reasons. Perhaps engineers can access technical information more quickly. Perhaps warehouse workers can locate stock more efficiently. Perhaps remote assistance can reduce travel and improve safety.
All of those could be genuine benefits.
But once the employer possesses a device capable of seeing and hearing what the employee sees and hears, the temptation to use it for other purposes could become enormous.
It might be possible to monitor how long a worker spends on particular tasks. It might be possible to analyse conversations. It might be possible to record interactions with customers.
The technology could gradually change from being a tool that helps the employee into a tool that monitors the employee.
That is a line that should not be crossed casually.
There is an established lesson from technology: once information can be collected, somebody will eventually find a reason to use it.
A system introduced for safety can become a productivity-monitoring system.
A system introduced to help customers can become a customer-tracking system.
A system introduced to help workers can become a way of assessing workers.
This is sometimes called "function creep" — information collected for one legitimate purpose gradually being used for another.
Smart glasses make that particularly worrying because the information could be collected continuously and without the same obvious signals associated with traditional surveillance cameras.
There are also workplaces where the argument should be much stronger.
A hospital is an obvious example. Patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy. There will be situations where recording somebody without their knowledge would be completely unacceptable.
The same applies to changing rooms, toilets and other private areas.
There are also workplaces handling commercially sensitive information. A solicitor's office, bank, research laboratory or government department could contain information that should not be casually captured by a camera attached to somebody's face.
It is therefore difficult to imagine a sensible policy that simply says "smart glasses are allowed" or "smart glasses are banned".
The technology itself is not the problem.
What the technology can do is the problem.
There is a big difference between a pair of glasses that displays instructions and a pair that continuously records video, captures conversations and uses artificial intelligence to identify or analyse what is happening.
Perhaps workplaces need to start thinking about smart glasses in categories rather than treating them all as the same thing.
Glasses that simply provide a display or audio assistance should generally be treated much like other workplace equipment.
Glasses containing cameras should require clearer rules.
Glasses capable of recording, transcribing conversations, identifying people or sending information to an AI system should face much stronger restrictions.
And there should be areas where recording is simply prohibited unless there is an exceptional and clearly justified reason.
There is also an issue of consent.
Suppose an employee is perfectly happy to wear AI glasses.
Does that mean their colleagues have automatically consented to being recorded?
I don't think it does.
Consent should not become something that is assumed simply because somebody walks into a room with another person's technology.
If an employer introduces camera-enabled smart glasses, workers should know what the glasses can do, when they are recording, what information is being collected, where it is stored, how long it is retained and who can access it.
That might sound bureaucratic.
But it is considerably better than discovering six months later that conversations and images have been stored somewhere nobody knew existed.
There is also a wider social question.
We are becoming accustomed to cameras everywhere. CCTV is normal. Smartphones are normal. Doorbells can record people approaching our homes. Shops use cameras for security.
Smart glasses could take surveillance to another level because the camera is attached to a person rather than a building.
The wearer can walk around with it.
They can look directly at you.
They can have a conversation with you.
And unless the technology provides a highly visible indication that recording is taking place, you may have no idea whether you are being recorded.
That could eventually affect how people behave.
People may become reluctant to have private conversations. Employees may feel uncomfortable speaking freely to colleagues. Customers may avoid businesses where they believe they could be recorded.
Technology that was supposed to make workplaces more efficient could therefore damage one of the most important things a workplace has: trust.
That does not mean we should reject the technology.
Quite the opposite.
Smart glasses could turn out to be one of the most useful developments in workplace technology for many years.
They could reduce paperwork, improve training, assist disabled workers, make remote support easier and put information exactly where it is needed.
But technological progress does not mean that everything which can be done should automatically be allowed.
We learned that lesson with computers, the internet, smartphones and social media.
The challenge is to establish sensible rules before the technology becomes so widespread that changing the rules becomes almost impossible.
Perhaps the simplest principle is this:
If your glasses can see or hear other people, those people deserve to know what is being captured and why.
That should apply whether the wearer is an employee, a manager, a customer or a visitor.
I would not ban smart glasses from workplaces.
I would ban certain uses of them.
That distinction could become increasingly important as artificial intelligence moves from the computer screen into the things we wear.
The real danger isn't that smart glasses will make workers more productive.
It is that we could gradually accept a workplace where everybody is potentially being watched, listened to and analysed without knowing it.
The technology may be new.
The principle isn't.
People should have the right to know when they are being watched.