Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Two Sydney councils have banned smart glasses from their community facilities, amid fears of people being filmed without consent.
The City of Sydney and Canterbury-Bankstown councils have barred people from using smart glasses across their swimming pools and fitness facilities, joining the City of Brisbane and City of Yarra in enforcing the ban.
Last week, the Canterbury-Bankstown council voted in favour of preventing people from wearing smart glasses in its leisure centres and pools.
The decision surfaced after women and parents raised concerns that the technology could be used to record people – including children – in areas that are typically private.
Under the new rules, staff at leisure centres can order patrons to remove smart eyewear, confiscate the device, and order those who do not comply to move on.
On Monday (21 September), City of Sydney councillor Matthew Thompson noted:
“(ii) smart glasses are not able to be used at City of Sydney pools.
“(iii) the city has a range of local procedures that govern the operations of our education and care services and community centres.”
With the prevalence of this technology in society, lawyers have expressed potential concerns over the inevitability of employees wearing smart glasses in the office.
It is apparent that workplace surveillance in Australia is not disappearing, with laws such as the NSW Workplace Surveillance Act 2005, the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), and the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) outlining important limits and obligations on employers using monitoring technologies.
‘The technology is insidious’
Paul O’Halloran, an employment lawyer and partner at Dentons, highlighted that the implementation of smart glasses causes much more harm than it does good.
“This technology appears to exist for one practical reason in public or workplace settings only, and that is to record people without their knowledge or consent,” O’Halloran said.
“There is no legitimate justification for that capability that outweighs the very real harm it causes to privacy, dignity and safety. AI smart glasses should be completely banned.”
“The technology is insidious; unlike a phone or a traditional camera, there is no obvious moment of recording.
“That is not a flaw in the design, but it is the feature for the users.
“The question we should be asking is not how we regulate them in swimming pools or workplaces, but why we permit them in public spaces at all.”
‘No hesitation in banning smart glasses from the workplace’
Swaab partner and workplace relations lawyer Michael Byrnes shared a similar view, mentioning that the glasses’ ability to record private conversations breaches the law.
“Employers should have no hesitation in banning smart glasses from the workplace,” Byrnes said.
“It is clearly a reasonable and lawful direction from an employer to its employees to not wear these glasses while at work.
“One particularly problematic aspect of the glasses is the ability to secretly record audio in private conversations, which is potentially in breach of surveillance devices legislation.”
Echoing these workplace concerns, O’Halloran further emphasised the evident operational and regulatory risks smart glasses impose on modern organisations.
“Employers have existing obligations under privacy legislation and work health and safety frameworks and codes to protect their employees from harm, including harm arising from covert surveillance,” O’Halloran said.
“Smart glasses create a serious compliance gap, because an employee could be recorded throughout the working day, in meetings, in break rooms, even in bathrooms or change facilities, and neither the employer nor the victim would necessarily know.
“Waiting for a federal legislative solution while these devices become cheaper and more widely available is not a responsible position.”
However, Byrnes indicated that there are potentially two exceptions as to where smart glasses may still be permissible in the office.
“There are two exceptions to this; the first is where the smart glasses might be used to assist someone with a disability, particularly the visually impaired,” Byrnes said.
“The use of smart glasses by employees with a visual impairment should be permitted to the extent necessary to minimise the impact of the visual impairment on the employee’s ability to perform work.
“Secondly, if there are legitimate safety reasons for using the smart glasses, in that they minimise the risks arising from a workplace hazard, then this might be another justification for wearing the glasses, but again with rules about the retention and use of any video or audio recordings to minimise any potential adverse consequences.”
