Australia is facing growing calls for tighter controls on camera-equipped smart glasses as privacy advocates warn that increasingly affordable wearable technology could make covert recording far more common.

The debate has intensified as basic recording glasses become available for around A$40, while more advanced models can cost several hundred dollars. Unlike conventional cameras and smartphones, these devices can blend into everyday clothing and accessories, making it difficult for people nearby to know when they are being recorded.

The Australian Greens are preparing legislation that would seek to suspend imports of smart glasses and other wearable recording devices for 12 months. The proposed pause would give lawmakers time to develop stronger privacy protections, while allowing exemptions for legitimate applications, including assistive technology.

The proposal has attracted support from independent politicians including David Pocock and Kate Chaney. However, the federal government has not committed to introducing its own import ban. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland has previously asked Australia’s privacy regulator to examine the risks associated with the technology as part of wider privacy reforms.

Privacy advocates are particularly concerned about recordings being made in gyms, beaches, workplaces and other public or semi-private environments. There are also concerns about social-media creators secretly recording strangers and publishing interactions for entertainment, publicity or commercial purposes.

The issue extends beyond smart glasses. As cameras and artificial intelligence become smaller and cheaper, similar capabilities could soon appear in earbuds, clothing and other wearable products.

Supporters of regulation argue that existing privacy laws were developed before people could carry discreet recording technology on their faces throughout the day. Technology advocates, meanwhile, warn that broad restrictions could also limit beneficial applications.

Australia’s emerging debate therefore raises a larger question: how can governments protect personal privacy without preventing legitimate innovation in wearable technology?