On whose terms? Consent when a family wants to watch over a parent
Sensor-based supervision is now sold directly to relatives in Norway. Being camera-free does not settle the consent question. Here is what agreement from the person being sensed should look like.
In February 2026, Altinget reported that a Norwegian company had begun selling sensor-based supervision directly to relatives of older people living at home. It uses no camera and no microphone, and the company said it had sold 150 packages since December. Read Altinget's report.
The political reaction came within days. Venstre's Grunde Almeland said it appeared to be "ganske omfattende overvåking av enkeltpersoner" (quite extensive surveillance of individuals). State secretary Ellen Rønning-Arnesen said the older person has to be "innforstått med dette, slik at det blir på deres premisser": aware of it, so that it happens on their terms. Altinget's follow-up has the full exchange.
We build camera-free sensing, and we think this criticism deserves a direct answer.
Camera-free does not mean consent-free
Leaving out the camera removes the most intrusive form of supervision. It does not remove the fact that someone else learns when a person gets up, how long they are in the bathroom and whether they came home.
That knowledge can make a person safer. It can also change how they live, if they feel observed. Almeland's point was that technology meant to help someone stay at home could end up limiting their freedom there. Which of those happens depends less on the sensor than on who decided to install it.
What agreement should include
When the person can decide for themselves, the decision is theirs. A daughter's worry is a reason to start the conversation, and nothing more than that.
Agreement worth the name covers more than a yes:
- What is sensed, in plain words. Movement and presence, with no image and no sound.
- Who gets told, and about what. An alert that the bed has been empty for an hour at night is different from a running feed of every movement.
- Which rooms and which hours. Night-time only is a legitimate choice.
- How to pause it or end it. Without needing anyone's permission.
Write it down and revisit it. Needs change, and so does what a person is comfortable with.
When the person cannot decide
Dementia is where this gets hard. Norwegian law has a specific provision for it: section 4-6 a of the Patient and User Rights Act (pasient- og brukerrettighetsloven) lets the health and care service decide to use alerting and location technology for an adult who lacks the capacity to decide.
Helsedirektoratet's commentary sets the conditions. The measure has to be necessary to prevent or limit harm, in the person's interest, proportionate to the risk and the least intrusive alternative, and it should be likely that the person would have agreed. Relatives are asked what the person would have wanted. If the person resists, the technology cannot be used under this provision. Continuous audio or video observation falls outside it altogether. Read Helsedirektoratet's commentary.
The provision is written for the health and care service, which has to make a formal decision. It was not written for a family buying a product on its own. When capacity is in doubt, the safest route is to involve the municipality's care service or the GP before anything is installed.
Design choices that make consent real
A product can make an honest agreement easier or harder to keep. Three things matter most:
- Events, not a feed. Relatives should receive the few events the person agreed to share, and no live view of the home.
- Nothing hidden. Equipment the person does not know about has no place in a home.
- A history that stays small. The less that is stored, the less there is to misuse.
Stillsense senses presence, movement and bed-exit from the home's Wi-Fi, with no camera and no microphone. The signal is interpreted on a device in the home, and only interpreted events leave it. That limits what can be shared. Deciding what should be shared, and with whom, is still up to the person who lives there.
In a municipal service, the data-protection basis is usually the municipality's public task and not individual consent. The person's own say remains: health and care services are, as the main rule, given with the person's agreement.
Our evidence and trust page sets out what Stillsense senses and what it does not. If you are weighing this for a parent or for a service, get in touch and we will go through it with you.
This article describes Norwegian rules in general terms and is not legal advice. The statements quoted are from Altinget's reporting on 9 and 11 February 2026.