Kmart’s $89 Camera Glasses Are a Privacy Nightmare | Dirt Report

Why Kmart’s glasses have changed the discussion

Smart glasses are not new. Meta has sold camera-equipped Ray-Ban smart glasses for years, with newer models adding microphones, speakers and Meta AI. The difference with Kmart’s Anko glasses is accessibility. Listed at $89, they are considerably cheaper than premium alternatives and have reportedly sold out across Australia.

The glasses can take photographs, record 1080p video and connect to software with AI features. As camera technology becomes cheaper and more wearable, it is more likely to be encountered in ordinary places such as shops and other public areas.

Recording is less obvious when the camera is worn

A person holding a smartphone towards someone usually provides a visible social signal that recording may be taking place. Camera glasses are different because the camera sits near the wearer’s eyes, where other people may not notice it.

Meta’s current AR glasses use a capture LED when photographs or videos are being recorded. Meta says newer models can disable the camera if someone attempts to cover that LED. However, Meta’s Australian documentation also says the LED does not illuminate during some AI functions that use the camera, such as identifying a landmark or plant, because that information is not classified as content being captured to the wearer’s gallery.

Meta says identifiable information, including licence plates and phone numbers, is removed during that processing. This highlights the shift from glasses that simply record video to glasses that can help software interpret what the wearer is seeing.

What Australian privacy law says

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner says the Federal Privacy Act generally does not apply when a photograph or video is taken by someone acting in a personal capacity, because the Act generally does not cover individuals. State and territory laws can still apply in particular circumstances.

The transcript also highlights an apparent difference between businesses and individuals. If Kmart captures a person’s face using facial recognition technology, privacy obligations can apply. The privacy commissioner previously found Kmart in breach of the Privacy Act over its historical use of facial recognition in stores.

Since 10 June 2025, Australians have also had access to a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. It can apply to individuals and organisations and may allow a person to seek damages, an injunction or an apology through the courts. The invasion must be serious, and the person generally needs to have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Those requirements may be difficult to apply to every recording made in an ordinary public space.

Potential benefits and possible safeguards

Camera and AI glasses also have legitimate uses. The transcript refers to Australians with vision impairment using augmented reality glasses and services such as Be My Eyes to understand their surroundings and travel more independently. Possible uses include reading signs, recognising objects, navigation and describing surroundings.

The privacy challenge is therefore not limited to whether the technology exists. It also concerns how people use it, whether recording indicators can be disabled, how footage is uploaded or shared, and whether platforms respond to harassment or humiliation.

Possible safeguards include clear recording indicators that are difficult to disable, quicker platform action against abusive footage and meaningful consequences for voyeurism, intimidation or serious invasions of privacy. The transcript argues that these measures could address harmful behaviour without removing legitimate accessibility benefits.