Discreet, camera-enabled smart glasses like Meta’s Ray-Bans and Kmart’s Anko models may require new laws due to fears they could be used to exploit or surveil vulnerable groups, according to Australian Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind. The proliferation of these wearables threatens to fundamentally alter interpersonal interactions in public and private spaces.
Privacy Tsar Warns Smart Glasses Undermine Consent
The rise of camera-equipped eyewear undermines the ability of Australians to make privacy choices because individuals often cannot know if they are being filmed, recorded, or photographed at any time, according to Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind. Similar products are also likely to be released by Google and Apple by 2027.
“It would also require consideration of whether we need new laws,” Ms Kind said in a blog post. She noted that Australia’s Privacy Act only applies to businesses and government agencies, rather than individuals, and only triggers when those entities collect personal information. When tech companies receive and store personal information from surveillance wearables, they must comply with privacy laws, though real questions remain about whether they can actually do so. “How will they notify individuals that their images or voice has been recorded? If they’re making facial recognition features available, how will they ensure that they have the consent of the people whose faces the tech is analysing?” she asked.
Attorney-General Calls for Priority Review
Michelle Rowland stated she has written to Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind regarding the potential privacy implications of smart glasses, asking that the matter be given priority. “Privacy is an essential part of all our lives; it allows us to be who we are with dignity and without fear,” Ms Rowland said in a statement.
Unlike other technologies, smart glasses operate more discreetly, making it difficult for people to know when they are being recorded, according to Ms Rowland. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) regularly monitors new technologies, and the government has faith that the agency will identify risks and mitigation measures. Meanwhile, the federal government continues working on the next phase of privacy reforms to ensure laws fit the digital age.
Fears of Exploitation and Untoward Surveillance
While Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind noted that most privacy implications from emerging tech would be few and mild—with images simply taking up space in a data center without material effect—she warned of harmful exceptions. Users could leverage the technology to exploit or surveil vulnerable groups like children and domestic violence victims, or engage in corporate espionage, data theft, extortion, and bribery.
“Beyond safety concerns, there is also the impact on community values and the public interest in privacy,” Ms Kind said. The federal government is currently probing the second tranche of privacy reforms, which may expand the scope of the law to create hurdles for surveillance wearable developers. Under these proposals, entities must demonstrate that collecting personal information to train AI models is fair and reasonable. Higher standards around consent, protections on geolocation data, and an expanded definition of personal information are also expected to strengthen the regulator’s hand.
Pro Tip: Meta advises users of its $400 Ray-Ban smart glasses to respect people’s preferences, stop recording if individuals opt out, keep the recording LED light uncovered, and avoid using the glasses for harassment or capturing sensitive information like pin codes.
Regulatory Gaps and Industry Response
Australia’s Privacy Act stops short of covering personal information collected by individuals, meaning locally-stored data may fall outside the legislation. Recent tort law and the forthcoming Digital Duty of Care might address this gap, though the regulator is actively examining whether further intervention is necessary. “We have engaged with one entity on at least two occasions this year to further understand the technical specifications of surveillance wearables on offer,” Ms Kind said, adding that as long as public trust in tech companies remains low, the bar for establishing social license will stay high.
Meta instructs users of its Ray-Ban smart glasses to obey the law and refrain from using the devices to infringe on privacy rights or capture sensitive data. “Obey the law. Don’t use your glasses to engage in harmful activities such as harassment, infringing on privacy rights or capturing sensitive information such as pin codes,” Meta states on its website.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do current Australian laws cover smart glasses?
Australia’s Privacy Act applies only to businesses and government agencies when they collect personal information, meaning data collected and stored locally by individuals using smart glasses may fall outside the current legislation, according to Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind.
What are the main privacy concerns regarding smart glasses?
Privacy regulators are concerned that smart glasses can record people discreetly without consent, undermining public privacy choices and potentially enabling the surveillance of vulnerable groups, corporate espionage, and data theft.
What is the government doing about surveillance wearables?
Michelle Rowland has asked the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to prioritize privacy implications, while the federal government works on privacy reforms that may impose stricter consent standards and fair-use rules for AI training.
What are your thoughts on privacy regulations for smart glasses? Share your perspective in the comments below, or subscribe to our newsletter for more updates on digital policy.