13 Aug 2026In the past the subject of a photo or video was able to see that someone was recording them, providing them with at least a flimsy layer of protection. Smart glasses remove that protection. Their live-streaming capability means instant distribution, without any possibility of preventing this.
Recent changes in law intended to strengthen protection of privacy
In January 2026 we published the article Impact on photography of new laws on “serious invasions of privacy”, that looked at recent changes to privacy law, both by way of statutory amendment and judicial decision, that strengthened protection for privacy, as most people would understand that notion.
The description of “privacy”, by US Supreme Court judge Louis Brandeis, as being “the right to be left alone”, was quoted in the article because it has, arguably, not been since bettered.
As almost inevitably happens, however, developments in technology leap ahead of the law. And so it is with “smart glasses”.
Photography and videography treated equally under law
The privacy law article referred to above was the culmination of a series of articles, spanning a period of over ten years, which was principally about photography. (See end for links.)
The intended reading audience for these articles was private citizens who take photos for personal reasons.
The law applicable to photography was pretty much the same as that applying to videography, in the sense that if a visual image was captured, not a lot turned on whether it was or wasn’t a moving image.
CCTV and the Surveillance Devices Act
In NSW, deliberate and systematic surveillance (the obvious instrument of which is the CCTV camera) is subject to the Surveillance Devices Act 2007.
This Act applies also to sound recording, notably done covertly, or at least in a way which isn’t brought to the attention of one or more of the people whose conversation is being recorded.
However, sound recording was never much discussed, principally because of the fact that sound waves travel only very short distances when simply transmitted through the air.
When readers asked questions about whether it was lawful to take a photo in a particular set of circumstances, an element of almost all answers was that, with a small group of exceptions, a person in a public place could lawfully take a photograph of any person or thing which could be seen from wherever the photographer was standing.
Obvious photography and invasion of privacy
So what might be called “open air” photography didn’t seem too threatening. Privacy was not much invaded without the use of a telephoto lens.
To a person whose photo is taken at short range, use of a camera is very obvious, and it’s even pretty obvious when someone is taking a photo or a video with a mobile phone.
So, in most cases, while there may have been an “invasion of privacy”; it was quite clear to the subjects that their privacy had indeed been invaded.
Until smart glasses came along.
Secret recording made possible by smart glasses
In a sense, smart glasses aren’t any kind of technological innovation. They can record vision and sound, and capture that in various formats. They can live-stream vision. The sounds and images can be downloaded, saved and sent anywhere. So what’s new?
What’s new is that they operate completely covertly, for all that there are differences from regular glasses which, on careful observation, are evident. Secrecy may not have been the intention: smart glasses are marketed as being, among other things, valuable technological aids for people with disabilities.
A great idea for mothers wanting to record the toddler’s first steps but not having hands free to hold a camera or phone. For creative people wanting to capture live, as with a police body-worn camera, a street fair or similar.
The intention may not have been secrecy, but that’s the result.
Smart glasses enable covert videography and instant distribution
Decades ago, devices of this kind were futuristic things used by cartoon or movie good guys: a pen with a microphone in it; a hat with a camera cunningly concealed in the hatband.
Smart glasses would seem to have the effect of removing the protection for the subject, flimsy as it may have been, of usually being able to see the act of taking a photo or recording a video. The live-streaming capability means instant distribution, without any possibility of preventing this.
Some years ago, a reader queried the actions of her ex-husband in taking photos of her messy kitchen without her permission, with the apparent intention of using them in court proceedings over the custody of a child.
Had the ex-husband had a pair of smart glasses, the spaghetti stains on the sink could have been instantly shared with the wider world.
Covert recording of sound and vision does not make smart glasses illegal
Legally, not much has changed. In NSW, there are criminal offences arising out of the taking of photos with some kind of impermissible purpose, such as stalking.
The mere fact that smart glasses have the effect of disguising the fact that vision and sound are being captured does not, in itself, make the use of smart glasses unlawful.
Where it is possible that a criminal offence may be involved, the covert nature of the activity may be an aggravating factor. However, there would likely be difficulties of proof: establishing that the use of smart glasses amounted to a deliberate attempt to conceal the recording of the visible or audible event.
Disclosure that recording of sound and images is taking place
It is quite possible that the use of smart glasses might fall foul of the Surveillance Devices Act, on the basis that someone at a meeting might be expected to disclose a recording device or turn it off. This is a not uncommon requirement presently in some meeting contexts.
In George Orwell’s novel 1984, the all-seeing “Big Brother” was essentially governmental in nature. However, smart glasses enable pretty much the sort of thing Orwell envisaged, even if not necessarily with the malign intent behind it.
In summary, given the present context it may sound corny to say “watch this space”, but that is essentially the situation.
When photos break the law – your rights when taking photos [2013]
Photography and the law – when is it illegal to take a photo? [2019]
When our walls turn to glass – the end of privacy [2020]
Can your boss use electronic surveillance to monitor you when you’re working from home? [2022]
Secretly recording conversations – is it legal in NSW? [2022]
Clear laws needed for use of facial recognition technology [2023]
Workplace surveillance and employee monitoring on the rise [2023]
Cyberstalking on the rise with technological advances [2024]
Photography, privacy and copyright infringement [2025]
Impact on photography of new laws on “serious invasions of privacy” [2026]
