Nepali lawmaker faces privacy backlash over videos of children filmed with smart glasses

Ashika Tamang posted videos of children on her official Facebook account, filmed with camera-equipped smart glasses. One showed a boy beside a stream holding a frog. Tamang took the frog, released it, gave him a lollipop and walked away. Another showed a girl carrying what was described as an alcoholic beverage.

The videos raised concerns about privacy, consent and the use of children’s lives as online content. The girl’s face was initially visible. After criticism from users, activist Majid Ansari and artist Badri Pangeini, Tamang edited the video and blurred her face at 9:37 pm.

The response also raised wider questions about recording people without their knowledge. Children’s rights advocates said permission should come from children or guardians before recording and publishing. Nepal’s Children’s Act 2018 protects children’s privacy and sets limits on publishing material that could cause shame, humiliation or disgrace.

Smart glasses are ordinary-looking eyewear fitted with a small camera and recording system. They can capture video from the wearer’s viewpoint while the wearer moves through public or private spaces. The technology can make recording less obvious than holding a phone or camera.

The key mechanism is placement. A camera mounted in the glasses points where the wearer looks, while the person being filmed may see only the glasses. Depending on the device, recording may involve a small indicator light, sound or no obvious signal. The article specifically says Tamang used camera-equipped smart glasses and that people may not realise recording technology is being used.

That lack of awareness creates a consent problem. In Tamang’s case, the videos involved children whose identities and actions were published online. Digital Rights Nepal’s Santosh Sigdel said parental consent is needed for children’s photographs or videos, making hidden or unnoticed recording especially sensitive.

Tamang’s videos spread widely on social media. The frog video featuring a boy had 413,000 views, more than 20,000 reactions and over 800 comments. The video showing a girl reached 648,000 views before the report was prepared. Another video featuring adults reached 3.9 million views.

This scale matters because publication is no longer limited to the people present at the recording. Large audiences can watch, comment on and share a child’s image. Even after Tamang blurred the girl’s face, the earlier version had already been publicly available and widely viewed. The article also notes that online material can resurface later.

Children may face consequences they cannot predict when recorded. Tilottam Poudel warned that such material could affect them later in life, including when applying for something. The figures show why consent and careful editing matter before publication, not only after criticism begins.

Nepal’s Children’s Act 2018 explicitly protects children’s privacy. Section 11(2) prohibits the creation, collection, publication, printing, display, sale, distribution or transmission through any medium of personal information, details, photographs or videos that could harm a child’s character.

The provision also covers material that could cause shame, humiliation or disgrace. This matters because privacy protection is not limited to traditional newspapers or television. The article describes videos posted on official social media accounts, which can distribute children’s identities and actions to very large audiences.

Rights advocates connected the law to Tamang’s videos. Tilottam Poudel said photographs and videos should not be taken without permission from children or guardians. He said suspected violations can be reported to the chief district officer or a municipal monitoring committee, which can investigate and take legal action where necessary.

Informed consent requires understanding what will happen and being able to judge possible consequences. Children may not fully understand that a short recording can reach hundreds of thousands of viewers, be copied or remain available online. They may also struggle to object when an adult controls the camera and the publishing account.

The article gives a practical reason for caution. Santosh Sigdel said children are not always capable of giving consent themselves and that parental consent is needed for their photographs or videos. Pabitra Raut said children may not be able to speak up for themselves, while Tilottam Poudel urged consent and an explanation of the recording’s purpose.

This means posting a child’s image is not treated as a simple casual decision. Advocates say permission should come before recording or publication. They also warn that material shared during childhood can affect a person later, including when applying for something.

Once a video spreads online, it can remain available and resurface later. The article says material recorded during childhood may affect a person when it reappears on social media or when they apply for something. That risk matters because children cannot easily control future audiences or predict how viewers will interpret an old recording.

The article’s clearest example is the girl whose face appeared in a video about carrying what was described as an alcoholic beverage. The video reached 648,000 views before her face was blurred. The frog video also attracted 413,000 views, more than 20,000 reactions and over 800 comments, creating a large public record of a child’s moment.

The report also raises privacy questions about adults in Tamang’s videos, including one viewed 3.9 million times. However, it does not state a specific consequence for those adults. Its broader warning is that wide publication makes consent and careful handling important for everyone recorded.

Elected representatives have special responsibilities because they exercise public authority and communicate through official accounts. Their posts can receive exceptional attention, as shown by Tamang’s videos reaching hundreds of thousands or millions of views. People may also reasonably expect lawmakers to respect laws that protect citizens.

The article shows the tension clearly. Tamang posted a girl’s visible face on an official account while warning against sending young children to buy alcohol or tobacco products. Activist Majid Ansari pointed out that Parliament’s own laws protect children’s privacy. Artist Badri Pangeini said the issue being raised was important but that the girl also had a right to privacy.

The expected responsibility is practical. Representatives should obtain consent, explain the purpose and avoid exposing identities unnecessarily before posting. Poudel, Raut and Sigdel all stressed permission or parental consent. Tamang blurred the girl’s face after criticism, but the debate concerns decisions made before publication.