Videos of children recorded and shared on social media by Nepali lawmaker Ashika Tamang have triggered criticism over privacy, consent and the responsibilities of public officials using camera-equipped smart glasses.

The controversy has renewed attention to Nepal’s existing legal protections for children and individuals whose images are recorded and published without appropriate consent.

According to The Kathmandu Post, Tamang posted videos on her official Facebook account showing interactions with children. One clip showed a boy holding a frog near a stream. Another, published on October 23, showed a girl carrying what was described as an alcoholic beverage. The girl’s face was initially visible, prompting criticism from social media users and child-rights advocates.

Tamang later edited the second video to blur the child’s face.

Public criticism prompts response

The videos attracted substantial online engagement, with commenters questioning whether the children’s privacy had been adequately protected.

Some critics argued that public figures should not turn interactions with children into social media content without considering the potential consequences for those being filmed. Others raised concerns about the use of recording devices that can resemble ordinary eyewear.

Following the criticism, Tamang acknowledged that failing to blur the child’s face was a mistake and said she would not repeat it, according to the newspaper’s report.

The dispute has highlighted a broader issue: even when a video is intended to draw attention to a social concern, publishing identifiable footage of a child can create a separate privacy problem.

Child-rights advocates stress informed consent

Child-rights advocates say permission should be obtained before recording and publishing identifiable images of children, with parents or guardians involved where appropriate.

Tilottam Poudel, president of the National Campaign for Children as Zones of Peace, told The Kathmandu Post that the purpose of recording should be explained and permission obtained before a child’s photograph or video is taken.

Digital-rights lawyer Santosh Sigdel also highlighted the difficulty of obtaining meaningful consent from children, particularly when they may not realise that a device is recording them.

The concerns extend beyond the moment a video is posted. Content can be copied, reshared and viewed years later, potentially exposing children to embarrassment, unwanted attention or other consequences.

What Nepal’s privacy laws say

Nepal already has legal provisions protecting children’s privacy.

Section 11(2) of the Children’s Act, 2018 prohibits the creation, collection, publication, display, distribution or transmission of personal information, photographs and videos that could harm a child’s character or subject the child to shame, humiliation or disgrace.

The Individual Privacy Act, 2018 also contains protections concerning the taking and publication of photographs in circumstances that harm a person’s character or reputation.

However, the application of these provisions depends on the circumstances and the nature of the alleged harm. The use of smart glasses alone does not automatically establish a legal violation.

Advocate Pabitra Raut and other rights advocates have emphasised the importance of protecting children who may be unable to understand the long-term implications of having their images circulated online.

Smart glasses complicate everyday privacy

Camera-equipped smart glasses can capture photos and videos while looking similar to conventional eyewear. This can make it difficult for people nearby to recognise when recording is taking place.

Tamang has previously faced questions about using the technology to record interactions with adults and local officials. A separate controversy in August involved allegations that she recorded a dispute concerning disaster management and relief distribution using smart glasses.

Nepal does not have a blanket prohibition on camera-equipped smart glasses, according to the legal analysis cited by The Kathmandu Post. Existing privacy protections may nevertheless apply to the way these devices are used and how recorded footage is shared.

The central issue is therefore not simply the device itself, but whether recording and publication respect the rights of the people shown.

Public figures face heightened scrutiny

Videos shared by elected representatives can reach large audiences quickly. That visibility can help draw attention to public concerns, but it also increases the potential impact on people whose images appear in the content.

Children may have limited ability to object, understand the reach of a social media post or request that footage be removed. Once circulated, images may remain accessible even after an original post is edited.

The controversy has renewed calls for public officials and social media users to consider consent, privacy and potential harm before sharing identifiable footage of children.

As recording technology becomes less conspicuous, the incident also raises a wider question for Nepal: how can existing privacy protections be applied effectively when people may not even realise they are being filmed?