Australia urged to ban smart glasses over covert filming

Electronic Frontiers Australia has called for an immediate ban on Meta Ray-Ban and Kmart smart glasses in Australia, arguing the products create risks of covert recording and stalking.

The intervention follows reports that Kmart's AUD $89 Anko smart glasses sold out across Australia, adding momentum to a broader debate over whether wearable cameras should be treated differently from smartphone photography.

EFA wants the glasses banned at both state and federal level and has urged regulators to stop the sale and importation of consumer eyewear with integrated covert cameras. It also wants surveillance laws updated to deal explicitly with non-consensual wearable recording in public and private settings.

At the centre of its case is the claim that smart glasses remove the visible social signal that comes with using a phone camera. EFA argued that eyewear fitted with cameras is designed to resemble ordinary glasses and can therefore be used without giving bystanders a clear indication that recording is taking place.

That distinction underpins its criticism of products sold by Kmart and Meta. According to EFA, the spread of low-cost wearable devices could make non-consensual filming easier in places such as fitting rooms, communal change rooms, public bathrooms, saunas, gym locker rooms, beaches and swimming pools.

The group also argued that discreet recording could be used to harass or monitor victims of domestic violence, people subject to stalking and others who rely on anonymity in public. It linked those concerns to the potential use of image recognition tools to identify people captured on video and connect them with online profiles or other personal information.

John Pane, Chair, Electronic Frontiers Australia, rejected comparisons between smart glasses and phones. "Comparing a wearable camera disguised as everyday eyewear to a smartphone is completely false and manipulative," Pane said.

He expanded on that point in a second statement. "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 then set out the organisation's view of the devices themselves. "Smart glasses intentionally strip away that social notice and behavioural marker," he 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 other related legislation."

Privacy record

The group also drew Wesfarmers into the debate because Kmart is part of the retail conglomerate. EFA argued this sits uneasily with claims about consumer trust, given the sale of products that, in its view, could be widely misused to infringe personal privacy.

It sharpened that criticism by pointing to earlier privacy findings involving major retailers. EFA cited Office of the Australian Information Commissioner determinations involving Kmart and Bunnings over facial recognition practices, arguing that the sale of camera-equipped eyewear raises broader questions about corporate judgment on surveillance-related products.

The organisation's demands go beyond a product ban. It wants stronger statutory restrictions on pairing wearable devices with real-time facial recognition or automated demographic profiling software, reflecting concern that advances in AI could turn wearable cameras from simple recording tools into instruments for identification and tracking.

EFA also challenged the value of built-in recording indicators such as small lights on the frame. It argued these warning mechanisms are too limited to provide meaningful notice, particularly if they can be obscured or are hard to see outdoors.

Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses have already become a focal point in international debates over privacy, consent and public recording. Kmart's lower-priced Anko product has now brought that argument into Australian retail, with EFA contending that a cheaper device lowers the barrier to widespread use.

Pane called on both companies to remove the products from sale. "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 to follow when considering the real harms these devices can bring to society, especially those individuals most vulnerable to harms of this type," he said.

Law reform

The legal position remains less clear-cut than EFA's proposal suggests because Australian surveillance laws differ between jurisdictions and have often struggled to keep pace with consumer technology. That patchwork has prompted repeated calls from privacy advocates and legal experts for more modern rules on recording, biometric data and consent.

For EFA, the central issue is whether existing law and social norms are sufficient for devices that can capture audio and video while appearing indistinguishable from everyday eyewear. The organisation argues they are not and says regulators should act before such devices become normalised in daily life.

Its final message was framed as a warning about public spaces as much as private ones. "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, social media base building, algorithms, or profit. These devices must be banned pending a suitably strong regulatory solution."