CNA Explains: Smart glasses and the law in Singapore – when does filming a stranger cross the line? - CNA

Filming in public is not automatically illegal, since a person generally has no expectation of privacy in that setting, a lawyer says.

A person holds a pair of smart glasses equipped with a built-in camera on the frame. (File photo: iStock)

This audio is generated by an AI tool.

Erin Liam 25 Sep 2026 06:00AM Bookmark Bookmark Share WhatsApp Telegram Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Set CNA as your preferred source on Google Add CNA as a trusted source to help Google better understand and surface our content in search results. Read a summary of this article on FAST. Get bite-sized news via a newcards interface. Give it a try. Click here to return to FAST Tap here to return to FAST FAST SINGAPORE: A video showing a man purportedly wearing smart glasses while trailing female students circulated on social media this week, prompting a police report and raising questions about the legality of filming strangers in public.

In the video, the man held his mobile phone close to his chest and, at one point, pressed the frame of his black-rimmed glasses.

He appeared to be wearing smart glasses, a type of wearable technology that lets users take photos, film videos and make calls, among other functions.

Such devices have fuelled growing concerns about privacy and filming without consent. On Wednesday, technology giant Meta released a camera-free version of its smart glasses amid the pushback.

As smart glasses continue to hit the shelves, CNA speaks to lawyers about when filming in public crosses the line.

Filming in public is not automatically illegal, since a person generally has no expectation of privacy in that setting, said Ms Joyce Khoo, a senior associate lawyer at Quahe Woo and Palmer.

But filming may cross into illegality if it is done in a voyeuristic manner or intrudes on a person's privacy.

This could include filming a person's private areas, whether bare or clothed, or filming them during a private act such as showering or using the toilet, she said.

Filming in public may also become illegal if it is part of harassment or stalking, or accompanied by other unlawful conduct, such as entering the toilet of the opposite gender, she added.

Invictus Law director Cory Wong said the intent can be inferred from the filmer's actions.

If the filming occurs on two or more occasions, or is a single but protracted act, it could constitute stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA).

“It is hard to argue that a voyeuristic, persistent or protracted act of filming was done without any ill intent. There is also the aggravating factor of vulnerable victims if minors are the ones being filmed,” he said.

Even if the filming itself was lawful, posting footage online can cross the line into illegality if it causes harassment, defamation or misuse of personal data, Ms Khoo said.

Under POHA, a person may be liable if they post identifiable footage that causes someone “harassment, alarm or distress”, she said.

Under the Films Act, a person may also be liable for distributing obscene materials.

Ms Noelle Teoh, an associate lawyer at Gloria James-Civetta and Co, said no general rule requires a person's face to be blurred simply because they did not consent to being filmed in public.

But where identification serves no purpose, particularly in sensitive situations or where children are involved, blurring may be a "sensible precaution". 

Publishing footage that identifies or allows others to identify the individual concerned may amount to doxxing in some cases, including where it is done with the intention of causing harassment, alarm, distress or humiliation, she said.

But not every post containing identifying details amounts to doxxing.

For example, someone who records a car being driven badly and posts the footage online showing the vehicle and its registration number would not necessarily be doxxing the driver, especially if the driver is not identified, she said.

“The position may be different if additional information is published which identifies the driver and the circumstances indicate an intention to subject that person to harassment or humiliation,” she said.