The federal government is not currently considering an import ban on smart glasses but has signalled the devices could be restricted by local councils, as it unveils a draft of sweeping new privacy laws including the "right to erasure".
Attorney-General Michelle Rowland on Monday released draft legislation designed to bolster privacy protections, as well as address risks related to artificial intelligence and wearable tech such as smart glasses.
She also announced a new initiative, IDLock, to allow individuals to have more control over how their personal documents were being used for verification online.
Ms Rowland acknowledged community concerns about potential harmful use of smart glasses but said the government was not currently planning an import ban, despite calls from the Greens and independents to halt imports for 12 months until privacy laws are strengthened.
"We are not specifically, in this consultation, consulting on an import ban," she told reporters on Monday.
"The Privacy Act consultation does not go to issues of import restrictions, however, we are not ruling anything out in terms of other measures we can take."
The government's consultation paper, released alongside the draft legislation, highlights the laws are designed to be technology-neutral to apply to potential privacy breaches from emerging technologies, including smart glasses.
Last week, Brisbane City Council banned people from secretly filming with AI smart glasses and other wearable recording devices at public pools.
"I would like other councils to consider what kind of public areas they have in their sphere of influence where this could apply," Ms Rowland said, citing council-run childcare centres as an example.
Education Minister Jason Clare's office told the ABC smart glasses were already covered by the ban put in place, saying any personal device capable of taking, storing or transmitting an image is not allowed in childcare centres.
The devices, worn as eyewear with a small computer embedded in them, have been labelled "pervert glasses" by critics because they can covertly record and live stream interactions.
But the eSafety commissioner has pointed out they can also be used to improve accessibility for people with disabilities, such as live speech-to-text for deaf users or providing descriptions for those with low vision.
In an industry report circulated on Monday, the eSafety commissioner urged companies to automatically blur people's faces, delay live streaming and ensure there were clear visual indicators when recording audio or video.
While earlier versions of the product cost around $500, newer versions are available for under $100.
The attorney-general wrote to the privacy commissioner earlier this month, asking them to look into the growing uptake of smart glasses as a matter of urgency.
Ms Rowland said councils and businesses, such as retail shops with change rooms, could restrict the use of smart glasses as they saw fit.
"This is not the final piece of wearable information processing technology that will be developed," she said.
"Right now we need to look at the harms that are being caused … and be proportionate in that response."
Greens senator David Shoebridge said the draft laws were a modest step forward but they needed to be extended to cover the use of smart glasses and reiterated calls for an import ban.
"There is still no requirement for a prominent light, a recognisable sound, or any outward sign that a pair of glasses is recording or searching online about people the wearer is seeing," he said.
"A right to erasure that is limited only to platforms with $500 million or more in revenue, or 2.5 million monthly users, leaves out every small app and every emerging glasses startup building exactly this kind of surveillance product."
Right to erasure
The attorney-general said the draft legislation outlined a "right to erasure" which would allow people to request their personal information be removed and destroyed from social media platforms and search engines.
She said large digital platforms were already required to do this in the European Union and signalled there could be harsh penalties for those that failed to comply.
"Breaches of privacy can be tens of millions of dollars, and they can also be calculated as a percentage of revenues or turnovers as well," she said.
"We are not shy in terms of having high penalties, because what we are talking about here is damage to people."
Milica Stilinovic, an expert on digital cultures and technological harms at the University of Sydney, told ABC News the proposal was a good step forward but challenges remained.
The draft legislation, part of a second tranche of privacy reforms from the Albanese government, also outlines a "fair and reasonable" test.
That is "so companies can no longer justify collecting more information than they need, or using it for purposes that Australians would never expect", Ms Rowland said.
The draft legislation also addresses meaningful consent from users about the information they share, and measures to prevent businesses from trading in personal information without permission, "so shopping habits, online interests or location data cannot be bought and sold behind Australians' backs".
"We know that Australians are increasingly concerned about how their data is being collected, used and shared, particularly as AI and other emerging technologies such as smart glasses become more accessible," she said.
"People should not have to choose between protecting their privacy and participating in the digital economy."
IDLock
The government also announced a new service allowing individuals to block and monitor how their identification documents are being used online.
The service, called IDLock, will be available through myGov from next year and will be released to a small number of users for testing later this year.
It will allow people "to block, unblock and monitor" how their identity documents, such as their passport or driver's licence, are being used through the government's document verification service.
For example, a person could block their documents to prevent scams or fraud, but if they were applying for a credit card, they could temporarily unblock them for a short period of time to allow the bank to verify their identity.
"As we know, we often have to share our personal identification, our personal data, whether that is to set up electricity, or open an account, or check into our tax file number," Dr Stilinovic said.
"What this does is essentially take the power back to individuals to provide certain agency to remove that very sensitive data from third parties."
