Dear Editor,

For years, organisations have controlled cameras by controlling the devices that carry them — visitors may be told not to take photographs, mobile phones may be prohibited in restricted areas, and closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems are fixed and governed by policy.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is starting to challenge this model. Apple is developing camera-equipped AirPods designed to work with visual intelligence. Recent software findings point to cameras capable of capturing synchronised images from both earbuds, allowing AI to interpret parts of the wearer’s surroundings. The system appears intended mainly for environmental awareness rather than ordinary photography or video recording.

That changes the security question. It is no longer only about whether someone is secretly recording. Wearable technology can now gather information from its surroundings, process what it sees, and use AI to assist the wearer.

Smart glasses are already showing how difficult this could become. Meta’s AI-enabled glasses can take photographs and videos and provide AI assistance based partly on what the wearer sees. Concern about covert recording has grown enough for Meta to strengthen its safeguards. Its latest update is designed to stop the camera if the recording indicator light is covered, even after recording has started.

Manufacturers are not the only ones reacting. Courts in England and Wales have prohibited Meta smart glasses, while New York’s Unified Court System has restricted recording-capable smart eyewear. In Australia, lawmakers are proposing tighter controls, including a temporary import ban on wearable recording devices while privacy protections are reviewed.

Security managers should pay attention. What happens when someone enters a restricted workplace wearing a device that looks ordinary but can capture or interpret what is around them? A traditional search may identify a phone or camera, but smart glasses are less obvious, and camera-equipped earbuds could be harder still.

The risk is not limited to deliberate spying. A wearable device could capture or interpret information from computer screens, documents, identification cards, security equipment, and access-control arrangements.

There is also a wider privacy question. AI-enabled wearables may not need to save a conventional video to create risk. A device may be able to interpret what it sees in real time. That raises questions about consent, personal data, and whether people should know when technology is analysing them or their surroundings.

For Jamaica, this deserves attention before these devices become common.

Airports and seaports, government facilities, financial institutions, and critical infrastructure should review whether existing visitor and prohibited-device policies are broad enough to cover AI-enabled wearables. Jamaica’s Data Protection Act may also need to be considered as these devices collect and interpret new types of visual information.

The question should no longer be only: Is this person carrying a camera? Organisations may also need to ask: What can this device see, capture, send, or interpret?

Wearable AI is not automatically a threat. It can support accessibility, navigation, communication, and everyday productivity. The challenge is deciding where such devices are acceptable and where they create too much risk. Policies should set clear boundaries, allow reasonable exceptions where necessary, and ensure security personnel understand the technology they may encounter. Typically, new technology reaches workplaces and public spaces before the rules around it are fully settled.

For decades, security professionals knew what a camera looked like. Soon, that may no longer be enough.

Renee Watkis

renedicken@hotmail.com