Our Website Uses Cookies 

We and the third parties that provide content, functionality, or business services on our website may use cookies to collect information about your browsing activities in order to provide you with more relevant content and promotional materials, on and off the website, and help us understand your interests and improve the website.

For more information, please contact us or consult our Privacy Notice.

Your binder contains too many pages, the maximum is 40.

We are unable to add this page to your binder, please try again later.

This page has been added to your binder.

Defining privacy in the age of wearable cameras

September 14, 2014, The Kernel

Covington partner Kurt Wimmer is quoted in this article regarding the legal implications of wearable cameras:

"The current laws on privacy take hidden cameras and other Glass-type devices into account,” says Wimmer, whose clients include Facebook, Microsoft, Samsung, CBS, Viacom, and the National Football League. “There have been tiny cameras for a long time, and there has been litigation about them—typically involving their use in photojournalism. The cases generally draw a distinction based on the areas in which the cameras are used. Would a reasonable person have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area in which the camera is used? If so, the photographer might be held liable for invasion of privacy. If not, the photographer should be able to take photographs, because there is no real privacy expectation for the courts to guard. 

“For example, a hidden camera in a dressing room of a retail store would be a problem because others have a legitimate expectation of privacy there, but the same camera in the retail space of the store probably wouldn’t create any issue. I think that legal structure works for wearable cameras, too.

“The new element, of course, is that thousands of people will have wearable cameras instead of just a few photojournalists and reporters.”

Share this article: