Australia's online safety regulator calls for automatic face blurring on smart glasses

The Office of the eSafety Commissioner published guidance on Monday that acknowledges the accessibility benefits smart glasses can offer to low-vision or blind people, but warns that companies may “pit accessibility benefits against safety and privacy considerations.”

The regulator noted there has already been a backlash against the technology, which allows users to discreetly capture video and images in public spaces. The advice calls on manufacturers to implement automatic face blurring as a default setting and to use clearer indicators—such as lights or sounds—that signal when the device is recording.

Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses are among the most prominent products in this category. The eSafety office’s recommendations come as community concern over surreptitious recording grows, and as some politicians and advocacy groups push for a complete ban on camera-enabled smart glasses.

The commissioner did not specify a deadline for industry compliance but emphasised that privacy protections must be built into the design of the devices from the outset.

Why This Matters

The advice signals a regulatory push to codify privacy norms for wearable cameras before they become ubiquitous.
Automatic blurring and clear recording indicators could become a baseline expectation, affecting product design for global manufacturers.
The regulator’s stance may influence other jurisdictions grappling with similar privacy challenges posed by discreet recording devices.

Background

Smart glasses with integrated cameras have grown in capability and popularity, with products like Meta’s Ray-Ban enabling hands-free photography and video. While advocates highlight benefits for navigation and accessibility, critics raise concerns about non-consensual recording in sensitive settings such as change rooms, protests, and private homes. Australia’s eSafety commissioner is responsible for online safety and has previously addressed issues around image-based abuse.

Key Perspectives

eSafety Commissioner: Argues that privacy protections must be embedded by default, not left to users. Automatic face blurring and clear recording signals are necessary safeguards. Smart glass manufacturers: May resist mandatory blurring, arguing it limits the core functionality of the devices and could complicate accessibility features. They may prefer user-configurable settings. Privacy and community advocates: Support stronger regulation, with some calling for outright bans. They argue that existing privacy laws are inadequate for always-on peripherals.

What to Watch

Whether the Australian government moves to enshrine the eSafety advice into binding regulation or legislation.
How major smart glass makers respond—compliance with the voluntary advice or lobbying against it.
Developments in other countries, such as the European Union or US states, that may follow with similar requirements.

ZOTPAPER