DistantNews
Support us
🇦🇺 Australia /Technology

Council moves to regulate smart glasses, but experts say local rules do not go far enough

From ABC Australia · () English

Translated from English and summarized by DistantNews. Read the original for the full story.

At a glance

News Named sources Approved/passed
  • Brisbane City Council became the first Australian local council to ban the non-consensual use of smart glasses and other camera-enabled devices at public swimming pools.
  • Lifeguards can remove people who use the devices without consent, but experts say local rules cannot reliably identify covert recording.
  • The eSafety Commissioner urged manufacturers to add face blurring and clearer recording indicators as smart glasses converge with facial recognition and generative AI.

How would you feel about being filmed without consent while teaching your toddler to swim, or while lying on a Gold Coast beach in swimwear? That concern has helped drive a backlash against smart glasses in Australia.

kind of a clever idea

· Elizabeth EnglezosThe Griffith University law lecturer described Brisbane's use of pool entry conditions to restrict smart glasses.

The wearable devices can film, record and share footage, often discreetly. Some members of the public have labelled them “pervert glasses”, arguing that they intrude unreasonably on personal privacy. Brisbane City Council responded last week by becoming the first local council in Australia to ban their use at public swimming pools.

Queensland's Criminal Code already prohibits recording people without consent in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect privacy. The law covers private places and private acts, including pool change rooms. Brisbane's new condition of entry goes further by banning the non-consensual use of all camera-enabled devices at public pools. Lifeguards can remove people from the premises.

The problem is that we don't necessarily know when someone's wearing the glasses and therefore when you're being recorded.

· Elizabeth EnglezosShe explained why local bans may not prevent covert recording.

Elizabeth Englezos, a lecturer at Griffith University's school of law, called the council's approach “kind of a clever idea”, but questioned whether local regulation could control the wider risks. People may not know when someone is wearing smart glasses or even be able to identify them. A pool ban also does not solve the problem of detecting uses that manufacturers never intended.

Looking ahead, we can expect more sophisticated forms of harm as smart glasses are combined with other technologies such as facial recognition, image recognition and generative AI.

· Office of the eSafety CommissionerThe regulator warned about future risks from combining smart glasses with other technologies.

In advice published last Monday, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner warned that smart glasses could create more sophisticated harms when combined with facial recognition, image recognition and generative AI. It recommended automatic face blurring and clearer visual indicators when recording is active. The office said companies cannot simply place responsibility on users. “The harms linked to covert recording are not hypothetical. They are real and already occurring,” it said.

The harms linked to covert recording are not hypothetical. They are real and already occurring.

· Office of the eSafety CommissionerThe regulator said existing harms justify stronger safety measures.
About this summary

Originally published by ABC Australia in English. Translated, summarized, and contextualized automatically by DistantNews, with a note on how the source frames the story. Not individually reviewed before publishing. How this works.

More Stories

From Our Blog