watchdog

Advisory comes amid growing concern about the devices being used to secretly record girls and women.

The European Union’s data watchdog has called for smart glasses to clearly show when they are recording, saying bystanders have the right to know when they are being photographed or filmed.

The European Data Protection Board (EDPB) issued the non-binding recommendation on Tuesday, amid mounting concern about the devices being used to secretly record girls and women.

It said the use of smart glasses – which can resemble ordinary glasses but also take photos and videos, make phone calls and translate text when connected to the internet – raises “serious privacy concerns”.

EDPB chair Anu Talus said the glasses should have clear signals when they are recording, such as “bright LED lights, audio signals or voice activation cues, privacy-friendly smartphone notifications, or unique designs”.

“These warnings need to be reliable, hard to ignore, and always up to date,” said Talus. “Even in public spaces, bystanders should clearly understand that someone is filming or photographing them.”

The devices carry greater risks in “sensitive” spaces like schools and hospitals, as well as public spots like beaches, and raised concerns about children who are “more vulnerable to covert or intrusive processing of their personal data”, the EDPB warned.

The advisory comes amid campaigns in several European countries to ban or restrict smart glasses over privacy concerns.

Norway’s government said last week it was also worried about privacy invasions and wants a temporary ban on the use of smart glasses in certain public places. The capital Oslo already opted to ban glasses equipped with cameras in schools.

France’s e-Enfance association, which operates the national hotline for victims of online abuse, has also sounded the alarm about videos recorded with camera-equipped glasses and shared online.

Last month, French prosecutors said they had opened a criminal probe ⁠following sexual harassment complaints related to a social media trend of using smart glasses to film women on the street, without their consent, and posting the videos online.

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, a “Stop Smart Glasses” campaign has launched a petition and call for supporters to contact stores to stop their sale. It reached more than 10,000 signatures, which means the UK government must respond.

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from freedom of information requirements.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a watchdog’s lawsuit seeking public records about trillionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The high court is intervening on Tuesday for a second time in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington’s case, which seeks access to DOGE records from its operations in the early days of US President Donald Trump’s second term. The Trump administration asked the court to hear the case.

Last year, the high court reined in a district court’s order for the government to produce DOGE-related records to CREW. The high court’s conservative majority concluded in June 2025 that US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents to be turned over to the group.

CREW claims DOGE is a federal agency and therefore is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from FOIA’s requirements as a presidential advisory body.

Cooper ruled in CREW’s favour and ordered expedited processing of the group’s records request. An appeals court panel also sided with CREW.

The Trump administration claims the panel ignored the Supreme Court’s direction to consider separation-of-powers concerns and intruded on the “autonomy and confidentiality” of presidential advisers.

“Subjecting advisory bodies to intrusive discovery triggers the very concerns that Congress sought to avoid by excluding presidential advisory bodies from FOIA’s reach,” US Department of Justice lawyers wrote.

The administration also says the appeals court impermissibly authorised the plaintiffs to take a sworn deposition of DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason.

CREW says the appeals court fully complied with the Supreme Court’s previous order. The group also asserts that the public has a right to know how DOGE helped the administration carry out a sweeping overhaul of government operations in 2025.

“Undisputed facts in the public record — including the President’s statements — confirmed that (DOGE) was wielding enormous independent authority across the federal government,” CREW lawyers wrote.

In a statement Tuesday, CREW lawyer Nikhel Sus said the lower courts have uniformly ruled that it is entitled to records that could help the court determine whether DOGE wields the type of authority that would make it subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

“We will continue to pursue transparency for the American people, who deserve to know the details of the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally remake the federal government,” Sus said in the statement.

DOGE said it had slashed tens of billions of dollars in expenditures, but its claims were difficult for outside financial experts to verify.

Federal auditors found that some of DOGE’s reported savings across contract, grant and ⁠lease terminations were incorrect, lacked supporting evidence or included terminations that were already under way when DOGE was established, according to ⁠a report by the Government Accountability Office.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear arguments in a watchdog’s lawsuit seeking public records about trillionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

The high court is intervening for a second time in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s case, which seeks access to DOGE records from its operations in the early days of President Trump’s second term. The Trump administration asked the court to hear the case.

Last year, the high court reined in a district court’s order for the government to produce DOGE-related records to CREW. The high court’s conservative majority concluded in June 2025 that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents to be turned over to the group.

CREW claims DOGE is a federal agency and therefore is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from FOIA’s requirements as a presidential advisory body.

Cooper ruled in CREW’s favor and ordered expedited processing of the group’s records request. An appeals court panel also sided with CREW.

The Trump administration claims the panel ignored the Supreme Court’s direction to consider separation-of-powers concerns and intruded on the “autonomy and confidentiality” of presidential advisers.

“Subjecting advisory bodies to intrusive discovery triggers the very concerns that Congress sought to avoid by excluding presidential advisory bodies from FOIA’s reach,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.

The administration also says the appeals court impermissibly authorized the plaintiffs to take a sworn deposition of DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason.

CREW says the appeals court fully complied with the Supreme Court’s previous order. The group also asserts that the public has a right to know how DOGE helped the administration carry out a sweeping overhaul of government operations in 2025.

“Undisputed facts in the public record — including the President’s statements — confirmed that (DOGE) was wielding enormous independent authority across the federal government,” its attorneys wrote.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.