Sydney council bans AI smart glasses at pools over privacy and safety concerns

Consensus Summary

Canterbury-Bankstown Council in Sydney has become the first in New South Wales to ban AI smart glasses from its five council-operated leisure and aquatic centres, following similar moves by Brisbane and Yarra councils. The ban, passed on Tuesday, aims to address growing concerns about covert filming by individuals described as 'perverts and paedophiles,' particularly in change rooms, swimming pools, and near schools. The council’s decision aligns with broader public anxiety over privacy and safety, as reported by both ABC and Guardian Australia, which highlight cases of women being secretly filmed and their footage shared online without consent.

The push for these bans stems from the rapid adoption of affordable smart glasses, which now include high-resolution cameras, real-time translation, and facial recognition capabilities. These features have raised alarms among councils and privacy advocates, who argue that existing laws—particularly the Surveillance Devices Act in New South Wales—are outdated and fail to adequately protect individuals from covert recording. The Guardian notes that the federal attorney general, Michelle Rowland, acknowledged these concerns in August, writing to the privacy commissioner to prioritize reforms, while the ABC emphasizes that the technology’s discreet nature makes it harder to detect misuse.

Key figures in the debate include Canterbury-Bankstown’s Lord Mayor Bilal El-Hayek, who framed the ban as a response to community demands for clearer guidelines to protect children from predators. The ABC reports that El-Hayek assured the public that exceptions would be made for individuals with vision impairments, provided they seek permission, while also committing to staff training to enforce the new rules. The Guardian quotes El-Hayek describing the glasses as 'pervert glasses' and citing online platforms like Facebook and TikTok, where women have shared their fears about being recorded without consent. Legal experts, such as Sydney-based lawyer Tony Taouk, have clarified that the Privacy Act does not protect individuals from being secretly filmed, further underscoring the need for updated legislation.

While the ABC and Guardian agree on the core details of the ban, they differ in emphasis. The ABC focuses on the procedural challenges, such as how staff will distinguish between standard and smart glasses, and highlights the council’s role as a pioneer in New South Wales. The Guardian, however, places greater weight on the federal government’s inaction, quoting Attorney General Rowland’s August correspondence and the eSafety commissioner’s advice to smart glasses companies to implement privacy safeguards, such as face-blurring features. Both outlets mention Yarra Council’s ban last week but diverge on additional councils considering similar measures, with the ABC referencing Adelaide City Council and the Guardian omitting this detail.

The immediate impact of the ban includes the addition of smart glasses to prohibition signage at Canterbury-Bankstown’s facilities, with enforcement expected to begin within days. However, unresolved questions remain about the broader regulatory landscape. The ABC notes that the Greens have called for a one-year ban on camera-enabled wearables while privacy laws are updated, while the Guardian reports that the federal government has yet to introduce legislation, leaving councils to address the issue locally. As public concern grows, the debate over whether councils or the federal government should take the lead in regulating smart glasses continues, with some, like Yarra Mayor Stephen Jolly, criticizing the lack of national oversight as 'ridiculous' and comparing it to the absence of a seatbelt law.