Australia urged to ban Kmart smart glasses over privacy

Electronic Frontiers Australia has called for an immediate ban on Kmart's Anko smart glasses and Meta smart glasses in Australia, after reports that Kmart's AUD $89 glasses sold out nationwide.

The digital rights group urged federal and state regulators to halt the sale and distribution of mass-market smart glasses, arguing the devices could enable covert filming in public and private settings. It said wearable cameras disguised as ordinary eyewear remove the visible cues that usually signal when someone is taking a photo or recording video.

Kmart's low-priced entry into the category has intensified scrutiny of the broader market for wearable consumer cameras. Electronic Frontiers Australia said the combination of discreet design, audio capture and smartphone connectivity created risks including voyeurism, stalking and doxxing.

John Pane, Chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia, rejected comparisons between smart glasses and smartphones.

"Comparing a wearable camera disguised as everyday eyewear to a smartphone is completely false and manipulative," Pane said.

He said the issue was not simply the presence of a camera, but the lack of an obvious physical action to alert people nearby.

"To take a photo or record video on a smartphone, a person must perform an overt physical gesture-holding up a screen in front of their face. This physical action provides clear, unambiguous notice to everyone around them, allowing bystanders to grant or withhold consent, object, or walk away," Pane said.

He argued that smart glasses remove that social signal.

"Smart glasses intentionally strip away that social notice and behavioural marker," Pane said. "They are covert, passive, hands-free, and specifically engineered to blend seamlessly into standard fashion frames. They are inherently unethical, highly intrusive, and in many practical applications, potentially unlawful under existing surveillance and related legislation."

Privacy concerns

The group said such devices could be worn in places where cameras are generally prohibited or heavily restricted, including fitting rooms, communal change rooms, public bathrooms, saunas and gym locker rooms. It also pointed to beaches, pools and other public recreation areas as places where people could be recorded without their knowledge.

Another concern is the link between wearable recording and newer image-recognition tools. Electronic Frontiers Australia said smart glasses connected to companion apps and artificial intelligence software could be used to identify strangers in real time by matching facial images with online databases, exposing names, social media accounts, workplaces and home addresses.

The group also warned about cloud storage and processing, saying material captured through companion software may be uploaded to external servers, creating risks around data handling, third-party access, breaches and law enforcement requests.

Pressure on Wesfarmers

The intervention also targets Wesfarmers, Kmart's parent company. Electronic Frontiers Australia linked its criticism to earlier privacy scrutiny involving Kmart and Bunnings, saying the sale of wearable cameras raised fresh questions about how the group approaches consumer privacy and surveillance-related products.

Pane called on both companies to withdraw the products.

"EFA calls on Meta and Wesfarmers to recall these products from all of their Australian retail stores and physical or online distributors immediately. It is the only ethical and moral course of action when considering the real harms these devices can bring to society, especially to those most vulnerable to this type of harm," Pane said.

The organisation's policy demands go beyond product withdrawals. It wants consumer protection regulators to stop the sale and importation of eyewear with integrated covert cameras. It is also seeking changes to surveillance devices laws so non-consensual wearable optical recording in publicly accessible spaces and private facilities is explicitly prohibited.

It also wants statutory restrictions on pairing wearable hardware with real-time facial recognition or automated demographic profiling software. The group argues current state and federal laws are too outdated to deal clearly with discreet, networked consumer devices that can record, upload and analyse footage with little visible notice.

The dispute adds to a wider debate over how regulators should treat new forms of consumer electronics that blur the line between personal gadgets and surveillance tools. Wearable devices have become cheaper and less conspicuous, while image analysis software has improved and spread across consumer applications, raising questions about consent, anonymity and enforcement.

For retailers, the row shows how products positioned as mainstream electronics can quickly become the focus of political and regulatory pressure when they intersect with privacy concerns. For policymakers, it highlights the difficulty of applying older surveillance frameworks to devices that look like ordinary glasses but can capture audio and video continuously in daily life.

Pane said lawmakers should move quickly.

"We must draw a hard line in the sand and we need to do it now," Pane said. "Australians have a right to walk down the street, go for a swim, or use a change room without being secretly filmed for someone else's titillation, algorithms, or profit. These devices must be banned pending a suitably strong regulatory solution."