Australia weighs smart glasses ban in government buildings over spying fears

Australia is examining a ban on camera equipped smart glasses inside federal government buildings, a step officials say would rank among the first of its kind anywhere in the world.

Public Service Minister Katy Gallagher said she had asked the Australian Public Service Commission to advise on whether a uniform policy should bar the devices from government workplaces nationwide. “Smart glasses can raise legitimate privacy and security concerns, particularly because of their ability to record and capture information, and we need clear and consistent guidance for public servants,” she said in a statement on Thursday.

The devices in question resemble ordinary eyewear but carry built in cameras, microphones and artificial intelligence features, made by companies including Meta. Unlike a phone held up to record, the glasses let a wearer capture audio, video or photographs of documents and conversations without anyone nearby noticing. Officials say that creates a particular risk in government settings, where public servants handle sensitive material and where visiting diplomats and members of the public regularly interact with staff.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese linked the proposal to Australia’s earlier move to restrict social media use among teenagers, calling it part of a broader effort to keep pace with fast moving technology. “I am proud that Australia is setting the world standard for digital safety,” he said in a statement, adding that the country needs the right protections in place as the technology evolves. Australia became the first country to bar under 16s from social media platforms last year.

No final decision has been made, and the proposal now under review applies specifically to Commonwealth government buildings and workplaces rather than the country at large. The government plans to hold a separate roundtable with some of Australia’s largest employers, including Microsoft, Commonwealth Bank, telecommunications company Telstra and energy firm AGL, as part of a wider consultation on guidelines for artificial intelligence use in workplaces generally.

Australia would not be alone in restricting the devices. Oslo banned smart glasses in schools last month, and Norway’s federal government is now considering wider rules on their use. Courts in England and Wales have already prohibited the use of Meta’s smart glasses inside courtrooms. Advocates for people with visual impairments have pushed back against blanket restrictions, noting that some smart glasses models provide navigation assistance and text to speech features that make daily tasks easier for users with disabilities, a use case regulators will need to weigh against the security concerns driving the proposal.

The devices have also drawn scrutiny beyond government circles, with companies that sell smart glasses facing legal challenges from private businesses concerned about covert recording on commercial premises. The wider debate reflects how quickly wearable AI hardware has moved from a niche product into mainstream retail, putting regulators, employers and courts in the position of retrofitting privacy rules written for an earlier generation of devices.

The proposal fits a pattern in which Australian authorities have moved early on digital and technology regulation, at times ahead of peer nations. The government previously barred the video sharing application TikTok from official devices on national security grounds, citing advice from intelligence agencies over the handling of user data. That decision placed Australia alongside the United States, Britain, Canada and New Zealand, the other members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, all of which have imposed similar restrictions on the app.

Whether the smart glasses proposal advances beyond an internal review remains open, and any resulting policy would need to balance security concerns against the interests of employees who rely on the devices for accessibility. The Public Service Commission’s advice to Gallagher is expected to shape whether Australia adopts a formal, government wide restriction or leaves individual departments to set their own rules.