Zurich lawmakers seek ban on camera-equipped smart glasses in pools

Zurich’s cantonal government will examine whether camera-equipped smart glasses should be barred from swimming pools and other public facilities. The review follows a cross-party motion from members of the cantonal parliament, who say wearable cameras create a new risk for people using places where privacy is expected.

The lawmakers pointed to reports of women being filmed at outdoor swimming pools without their knowledge or consent. In some cases, they said, recordings have been shared online. The motion places smart glasses within a wider debate over how public authorities should respond when cameras become small, mobile and difficult to detect.

The devices resemble ordinary eyewear and can contain cameras and microphones. That makes enforcement harder for pool staff and for other visitors who may have no clear way to recognise when someone is recording. Zurich’s government must now set out which measures could apply and whether existing house rules provide adequate protection.

The issue arrives as Swiss municipalities and cantons begin testing how far restrictions should extend. Bern, Lucerne, Wil and Basel have also seen political initiatives calling for clearer rules.

Existing photography and filming bans at some Zurich swimming pools may not address wearable cameras, lawmakers say. Pool rules can prohibit visitors from taking pictures, yet staff may struggle to identify a device that looks like conventional eyewear and records from the wearer’s point of view.

The motion asks the cantonal government to consider two possible approaches: prohibiting smart glasses outright or preventing visitors from bringing them onto the premises. Such measures could apply to indoor and outdoor swimming pools, as well as saunas and gyms where changing areas and limited clothing raise particular privacy concerns.

A ban on use would focus on recording. A ban on possession or entry would be easier to communicate and enforce, though it could also affect people who use smart glasses for purposes unrelated to filming. The source material does not specify how Zurich would define a smart glass, identify compliant models or handle exemptions.

Those details will matter if the government recommends legislation or a coordinated policy for publicly accessible facilities. The debate is moving from general camera etiquette toward rules tailored to devices that combine ordinary eyewear with discreet recording technology.

Zurich’s proposed review could reach beyond municipal pools into privately run facilities open to the public. Cantonal lawmakers specifically asked whether restrictions should cover fitness centres, nurseries and similar establishments, alongside saunas and gyms.

That wider scope reflects the practical setting in which privacy disputes arise. A rule limited to public swimming pools would leave different policies in place across facilities that serve similar groups of people. Visitors could encounter one standard at a city-run pool and another at a private fitness centre or childcare facility.

The motion also asks the government to assess whether smart glasses should be banned from sale. If Zurich considers that step appropriate, lawmakers want officials to explain how the canton could advocate for corresponding regulation at federal level. A cantonal sales ban would raise questions about jurisdiction, enforcement and how authorities distinguish between products with recording functions and ordinary connected eyewear.

The government’s response will therefore shape more than pool etiquette. It could clarify whether Zurich sees the problem as a facility-management issue, a cantonal regulatory matter or part of a national technology and privacy framework.