Crossbenchers push for an import ban on 'pervert' smart glasses

There is growing support for a ban on the import of so-called "smart glasses" amid an influx of low-cost devices that are being used to film people without their consent.

In recent weeks the devices, dubbed "pervert glasses" by some critics for their capacity to film in secret, have inspired two Australian petitions calling for restrictions on their sale and import which attracted tens of thousands of signatures.

Now the Greens, with support of independents, plan to launch a bill when parliament next sits to halt the import of such glasses as well as other wearable recording devices for at least 12 months, until tougher privacy protections are passed into law.

"If we end up having millions of these devices in the country, there'll be no place that's free for your privacy," Greens senator David Shoebridge said.

"And at the scale that you see these sorts of imports ramping up already, that is what we face".

While first generation smart glasses cost upwards of $500, newer entrants to the market are available for well under $100 from a number of online and shopfront retailers in Australia.

At both ends of the price range, they look like ordinary glasses and yet allow the wearer to record images, video and audio, mostly surreptitiously, with the press of a button.

It is not clear how many pairs of smart glasses are already in circulation domestically, but Senator Shoebridge warned the current crop was just the beginning for wearable cameras.

"Right now it's glasses, but in a month's time it's almost certainly going to be earbuds, maybe it'll be a lapel pin, maybe it'll just be your T-shirt, I don't know".

He said parliament had a narrow window of time to block their large scale importation before such devices "wash through society".

"Maybe we should think ahead for once," Senator Shoebridge said.

"The genie's not yet out of the bottle … let's put a little plug in it until we work out what we want it to do."

Alongside the proposed import ban, which would include carve-outs for legitimate uses, such as aiding people with a vision impairment, the Greens are pushing for new privacy protections.

The bill would amend the Privacy Act to prohibit filming, storing or sharing footage from a "wearable recording device" without a person's express consent.

The change would for the first time extend the Privacy Act from large organisations to individuals.

It also proposes extra powers and funding for the Privacy Commissioner, to enforce those rules.

Ban attracts crossbench support

Independents David Pocock and Kate Chaney are among the crossbenchers in favour of a temporary import ban.

"I do think it's sensible to be pausing the imports … while the parliament actually puts some laws in place," Senator Pocock said.

"I think it would reduce the number of these devices that are on the street."

Ms Chaney described the proposed import ban as an imperfect fix for a lag in Australia's privacy protections.

"An import pause is a temporary solution. We really need to make sure that we can regulate these devices in the long term," she said.

While bills from the crossbench such as this one have a low rate of success historically, the proposal reflects significant public and political pressure on the government to respond to the smart glasses' privacy risk.

Earlier this month Attorney-General Michelle Rowland aired her own concerns about the technology, asking the privacy commissioner to prioritise the issue.

When asked by the ABC, a spokesman for Ms Rowland did not say whether the government was considering an import ban of its own, but acknowledged that smart glasses do "raise privacy concerns".

"These concerns deserve to be met with balanced and holistic policies that protect Australians while preserving legitimate uses of technology," the spokesman said.

"The government is actively considering these issues as part of our second tranche of privacy reforms."

The government committed to a suite of changes to the Privacy Act in September of 2023 and passed an initial wave of amendments it called "tranche one" in December 2024, including anti-doxxing laws and Children's Online Privacy Code, but is yet to act on the majority of the recommendations it agreed to two years ago.

A spokesman for Shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash also declined to comment on the specific proposal for an import ban.

Australia already importing 'creepy' social media trends

In countries such as the US and the UK, where the technology is more widespread, it has facilitated doxxing, online shaming and harassment at gyms, beaches and a range of public and semi-public spaces.

One of the biggest concerns is that the incoming tide of cheaper alternatives will bring with it the social media trends which exploit tech like this.

One of the best known examples is "rizzing", where self-described pick-up artists and dating coaches hit on women in public, secretly film the encounter and post the footage online, without the subject's consent or knowledge.

That trend is still in its infancy in Australia, but the ABC was able to easily find local examples of the same practice.

Privacy advocates are worried about the trajectory, and say women and minorities tend to be more heavily targeted by surreptitious recording.

"We see women shamed for being dressed in a certain way, or maybe they're being drunk in public … [recordings are] very rarely used to shame men for the same sorts of behaviour," Tom Sulston from Digital Rights Watch said.

Initially sceptical about the prospect of an import ban, Mr Sulston was ultimately swayed by the growing expectation that Apple will release camera-enabled wireless headphones as soon as September.

"That would be a huge scale point for the amount of covert cameras being used in public in Australia,"

he said.

Electronic Frontiers Australia has been calling for a moratorium on the sale of the technology for several weeks, and said privacy violations were already appearing locally.

"I've seen a couple of real-life examples of devices being misused in a gym-type context and also on the beach," EFA chair John Pane said.

He said regardless of what laws were in place, the nature of this technology meant many victims would never find out they had been filmed, let alone have a chance to seek redress.

"It's all the more difficult with smart devices like these because you don't know when they're being used or not."

Mr Sulston said it was a moment for Australians and their government to decide how much surveillance they were willing to accept.

"That sense of being in the panopticon is really bad for us psychologically, and we cannot afford to end up there."