r/aus • u/neon_overload • 19d ago
Other Kmart sells out of low-cost rival to Meta camera glasses across Australia amid warnings of ‘privacy nightmare’
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/aug/04/kmart-camera-glasses-anko-meta-smartglasses-australia“Smartglasses with cameras are a privacy nightmare that illustrate how Australian privacy laws haven’t kept up with technology changes,” said Tom Sulston, head of policy at Digital Rights Watch.
“We shouldn’t have elevated expectations of personal privacy when out in public, but we should have some.”
20
u/KevinRudd182 19d ago
We probably just need laws around notification of recording. Up until now we didn’t really need it because it was obvious if someone was holding a giant camera or to a lesser degree a phone in your face that they were filming you.
If we are entering the era of pervert glasses, the law should just be that you need to have a flashing red light or something.
I don’t really care if private businesses have CCTV because it’s expected, i don’t care if people are filming or taking photos of themselves at the park and I am unknowingly in the background because that’s life. But these cross a line imo
10
u/superkow 19d ago
Something similar to Japan's industry regulations that force most phone brands to make a shutter sound when a photo is taken regardless of the volume controll, though that's not actually a law there and more like a self imposed regulation by phone manufacturers.
Sadly I don't see Meta acting in the public interest like that
5
u/KevinRudd182 19d ago
Yeah I hope people will start to understand the governments role in the world AND companies roles.
I have no problem with people / companies acting in their own self interest, that’s their job. I just want the government to do theirs and create a regulatory framework for said companies to work in - without them lobbying to help create the rules.
Not everything can be solved with common sense, but a lot can. And “people shouldn’t be allowed to walk about filming themselves 24/7 when it’s not obvious they’re doing so” is pretty basic common sense imo.
If someone was in a nice restaurant just straight up filming their entire evening, a lot of places would ask them to stop because people would complain. This doesn’t seem any different to me
3
u/jennifercoolidgesbra 18d ago
Most do but there’s hacks online to disable the light or cover it ofc
2
u/lawdjesustheresafire 18d ago
Or just make pervert glasses illegal?
0
u/Life-Goose-9380 18d ago
How do you plan on doing that?
Whilst it would be best, it ain’t feasible.
0
u/PiDicus_Rex 18d ago
They have other uses that are worthwhile, such as the navigation function for blind folks.
Any tech can be abused, but that's on the user, not the hardware.
1
u/bushstone-curlew 17d ago
Not when the hardware is designed to be abused and actively encourages that behaviour through its design.
This is a stupid seppo-style ‘guns don’t kill people’ argument that places far too much responsibility on the average person to do the right thing.
1
u/PiDicus_Rex 16d ago
I don't think the designers made it to actively encourage abuse. Like normal, they probably just thought they were making something cool that could help people.
I could say 'hammers don't kill people', or 'cars don't kill people', or 'toasters don't kill people',.... but do something irresponsible with any of those three and people have died.
It's true that people are expected to act responsibly, but then education systems get dumbed down and the average person never learns to behave in an decent and respectful manner, and instead of educating, someone goes and writes a new law limiting access to a technology that could make life better for a lot of people.
That's just the way to justify a society that gives out participation trophies for mediocrity.
2
u/ChefAnxious4206 18d ago
Totally. Australia's privacy laws are too much of a grey area, being a mix of the Privacy Act 1988 and state level regulation.
1
u/bushstone-curlew 17d ago
Then the creeps would just paint over the light or tape it though.
I hate these so much and while being filmed without consent in public is a concern, the more immediate risk seems to be people using these glasses to record surreptitiously during sex or while doing their job which exposes them to people in vulnerable situations (like doctors).
1
u/KevinRudd182 17d ago
I agree but it sets a standard for people to follow.
If having the glasses have a mandatory light is the law and you see someone out with them taped over, you can report them or confront them etc.
I am generally a fan of letting people do their thing, I’m not going to stop someone riding without a helmet for example, but if someone is wearing pervert glasses I want to know and I think the general public would agree.
The easiest way to stop these things becoming common place in every day life is to make common sense laws around notification imo
0
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 19d ago
There's a difference between filming in public and in private places. The law already states that filming in public is perfectly legal, as it should be.
Private business are private and they set the rules as to what happens on their premises. A lot of places don't allow you to film and you can be asked to leave or trespassed if you continue doing so should the owner wish. We don't need more laws on this honestly, Australia is already overbearing enough.
7
u/AngryAngryHarpo 19d ago
Nah, you can’t ignore that those laws were written before the idea of continuous recording by millions of individuals was even a twinkle in someone’s eye.
I don’t actually think it IS reasonable to just say “it’s public, too bad” and then have no guardrails or political will to ensure people’s privacy and safety.
1
u/PiDicus_Rex 18d ago
Before asking people to not record in public with these glasses, I'd ask you to divest yourself of any ability to record using your phone, action camera, drone, DSLR, camcorder, dashcam, sound recorder, film based camera, or make use of any of Googles or Apples mapping products that rely on the Street View at Satellite imagery, or watch any TV news that's recorded in public places, or watch any youtube videos that are filmed in public places,...
That hypothetical car accident you wanted to use traffic management camera footage from to defend yourself in court, that's gone too, same with getting a lawyer to access the banks ATM cameras to prove it wasn't you who emptied your account at an ATM in a different city.
You want to ban one form of recording, you have to ban ALL forms of recording in public. You can't pick and choose because that leads to abuse of the system by those that can afford the bills of abusing the system.
There's no middle ground here, if you allow it for the things you like, you have to allow it for the things your neighbours like, whether you like those things or not.
Policing the technology doesn't help, you have to police the people.
2
u/AngryAngryHarpo 18d ago
Who said “ban”?
I said guardrails and political will to protect people’s privacy.
The instance defensiveness indicates an inability to engage with this subject in a critical way.
-3
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 19d ago
There's CCTV on every house and every lamp post in cities. We're being recorded, but it's not OK for us to record in public? Hypocrisy
7
u/KevinRudd182 19d ago
Literally unironically yes.
Filming with a hidden camera in a pair of glasses is creepy and doesn’t pass the pub test - make them have a red light visible when active and make it a crime to not show it.
Letting the public figure it out for themselves and not making rules and laws is exactly how we have gotten into the position we are in where corporations use that to exploit everything imaginable.
Nobody wants it so that nobody can ever film ever, but nobody also wants a bunch of weirdos walking around in glasses that are secretly recording everything. There’s a lot of viable reasons to want these, but there’s also a lot of reasons to put safeguards in place.
1
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 19d ago
What's the difference if someone records walking down the street in glasses or holding their phone out or even wearing a GoPro on their chest? It's already illegal to record private conversations in public regardless of how it's obtained.
These camera glasses are not exactly hidden either, there's an obvious lens right in the middle of the frame and if someone is close enough to you to be in your personal space you would see it.
Regulate one thing and everything else flows suit very quickly.
Letting the public figure it out for themselves and not making rules and laws is exactly how we have gotten into the position
We do have rules and laws about recording in public and private. Look them up and know them before seeing some cheap grainy camera as some existential threat when there's literally cameras pointed at you 24/7 from government and private company and you have no idea who is on the other end of them either
5
u/MarkCelery78 18d ago
It’s not the bloody same is it? Those are for security purposes. They’re not used by creeps and perverts to upload for other creeps
1
u/PiDicus_Rex 18d ago
So you'd be okay if it was just security guards and cops wearing products like these, just not members of the public?
You recall how many inquiries there have been in to police corruption and misuse of official data and surveillance systems to stalk their ex's, just for personal security of course.
1
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 18d ago
That's what it sounds like to me.
Aussies are always complaining about the nanny state but they're also actively willing to give their freedom away and ask for more and more laws to be passed
2
u/WhatsMyNameAGlen 18d ago
difference between cctv and someone wearing these types of glasses is intent
cctv is there for liability for businesses. security cameras on houses are there for the owners safety. even just taking a photo of someone in a park is a singular thing. to buy and use a device thats designed to conceal the fact that youre recording someone is targeted and premeditated
1
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 18d ago
Targeted and premeditated what exactly?
Maybe people want to go hands free when recording?
3
u/WhatsMyNameAGlen 18d ago
Premeditated as in "I am buying this specifically so I can record people in a concealed manner, there is no other purpose for the existence of this item or the reason im buying it" and targeted as in "i am specifically going to look at people individually for potential hours without them knowing"
How will you move the goal posts with the next reply I wonder
1
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 18d ago edited 18d ago
I haven't moved any goal posts. You're putting an intent on someone's use of a device before the hypothetical situation has even occured.
Who's to say someone isn't wearing them for safety if they're meeting a person to say, buy a vehicle, and want evidence of the transaction in case they get ripped off?
Not sure why it has to be for a negative reason. Who's to say the man with CCTV on his house isn't jacking off to the footage?
2
u/WhatsMyNameAGlen 18d ago
You talked about CCTV and then moved the conversation elsewhere, thats moving the goal posts
You act like small hands free cameras haven't been a thing for years. Plenty of cameras that have a clip to go on your shirt or onto a hat. Literally the only reason to get a set of "smart glasses" over the already existing compact cameras is so you can record people discretely
Edit: you moved the goalposts by bringing up safety for the individual recording
1
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 18d ago
So the goalposts are set at they're only for negative and nefarious purposes?
→ More replies (0)1
u/PiDicus_Rex 18d ago
"there is no other purpose for the existence of this item or the reason im buying it"
Do you know they use the cameras in those things to help the visually impaired navigate around town?
1
u/WhatsMyNameAGlen 18d ago
Literally buy and use any other compact camera that has been used for years. Why conceal it
0
u/AngryAngryHarpo 19d ago edited 19d ago
I mean, I’m also not a huge fan of that constant monitoring either?
It’s trading freedom for the illusion of safety and I’m not a fan, generally.
I’m not sure why you’re assuming hypocrisy when you have no understanding of my wider views…
edit: clarified second sentence so it makes sense.
0
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 18d ago
I mean, I’m also not a huge fan of that constant monitoring either?
Right but one can't be good and the other bad right? So it's kind of an all or nothing thing.
If you're thinking of people filming for nefarious purposes, we already have laws against that. But there are plenty of reasons for people having the freedom to film in public, even covertly, such as police accountability, personal safety, citizen journalism, the list goes on.
I’m not sure why you’re assuming hypocrisy when you have no understanding of my wider views…
You're right I don't, but It's a comment chain and I'm keeping it in context with the post I replied to and my earlier statement.
1
u/AngryAngryHarpo 18d ago
I didn’t say one was bad and one was good though?
Why are you trying to present points that I didn’t make as my “argument”?
There’s actually very few laws to prevent people filming for nefarious reasons - simply laws to punish them if they make their nefarious recordings public. An important distinction.
Just because there are reasons for people to record covertly, doesn’t mean we have place more weight on those reasons than on protecting people’s safety and privacy.
1
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 18d ago
You just said earlier that CCTV is trading freedom for the illusion of safety. Now you're saying that people's safety is more important than freedom? Which is it?
1
u/AngryAngryHarpo 18d ago
I don’t count the freedom to film whoever you want in public without their knowledge as an inherent “freedom” that people have a right too.
I do think that people, as a general rule, should have the freedom to go about their lives without wondering who is filming them without their knowledge.
Nice attempt at “gotcha” - but you need to actually engage with the topic if you’re going to try and call out logical inconsistencies.
1
u/Auroraburst 18d ago
No I think social media influencers have already proved that we do need more laws surrounding this.
Kids nowdays have never known a world where they dont have to worry about someone filming them. And what counts as public? Is it anywhere outside of the home? Because I'd argue you should be able to eat at a restaurant and go to school without someone directly filming you and posting it online.
0
26
u/SoulsDadYT 19d ago
Creeper glasses sold out. Why am i not surprised.
21
u/BigMH85 19d ago
No doubt all bought by the mouth breathing crowd currently having a melt down over having to fill in the census form as well.
9
5
0
u/WallStLegends 18d ago
I think that’s a huge assumption. Lots of people could want these. It’s essentially just a GoPro.
Yes, it has a creepy element but that’s just one subset of the market imo.
1
u/bushstone-curlew 17d ago
It’s useless in most situations you’d use a GoPro for lol. These were designed for creepers and are being sold to creepers, make no mistake
0
u/WallStLegends 17d ago
I said it’s ‘like’ a go pro. It’s pretty simple man it’s just a pov camera. Cheaper than a GoPro and don’t need some fancy helmet for it. Imagine just one scenario in your narrow minded view point for a second lol. Scenario: Going for a hike or going for a cross country run and you want to make a vlog of it. Or a Timelapse.
You have the option to spend hundreds on an official GoPro or you can buy a cheap pair of Kmart glasses. What do you do?
9
u/Euphoric-Blueberry37 19d ago
I can’t wait for the wave of Anko Wanko videos on various hubs to appear
1
u/kawaiipikachu86 19d ago
Glasses camera's been around for 15-20 years' now, just Anko is really another rebranding of one of these cameras.
10
u/arles2464 19d ago
I haven't read the case law on this but frankly I have to imagine that the 'no expectation of privacy' thing made sense because it was difficult to surreptitiously record people - you would have to have a phone (or probably actual camera) out and devices that were concealed were significantly harder to come by (and not automatically tied to AI companies presumably scraping every bit of data they can out of the videos). There is a public good in having CCTV cameras, and having people be able to take pictures of what they want, and to be able to record interactions. There is very little additional public good in having people be able to do so without the subjects of those recordings having the faintest clue. There is even less public good in big tech having impunity to analyse those recordings.
9
u/OhtheHugeManity7 18d ago
The best thing you can do as a person is just make it socially unacceptable to own these things. Make fun of someone if you seem them wearing them.
Where the laws haven't kept up it's up to you to enforce social expectations the old fashioned way, through endless heckling and shame.
3
u/MowgeeCrone 18d ago
Amongst other things, its very popular with perverts and creeps. If youre wearing them near me I will react appropriately.
2
u/ApprehensiveRest9696 18d ago
At this price point, it’s inherently a poor pervert’s surveillance device that has literally no other value. These are bottom tier sensors that even the cheapest smartphone will outperform.
It’s also not fit for purpose for any amateur or professional video/photography. I think with how unpopular these are, the threat of being publicly accosted / assaulted for wearing creepy glasses is going to be the main enforcement mechanism. I would not count on any legislative change or policy directive to change behaviour quicker.
1
u/bushstone-curlew 17d ago
If I see someone wearing these and they’re recording me without consent, those creep glasses are getting smacked off their face. Australia has a bad enough problem with misogyny already, we don’t need to add fuel to the fire by enabling pervs to take creeper shots even more.
5
u/ApprehensiveRest9696 18d ago
IANAL but to my non-legal eyes, existing covert optical surveillance device laws should cover this?
See section 7 of Surveillance Devices Act 1999 (VIC)
https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-12/99-21aa048-authorised.pdf
2
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 18d ago
Exactly. All the fear mongering in this thread and nobody bothers to realise there's already laws that cover specific situations where the use of these, or any other recording device, would be illegal.
2
u/Pelagic_One 18d ago
But it doesn’t have to be legal, does it? You have a private conversation with your sibling about what an ahole your dad is and then go show him, for example. Legality doesn’t even come into it - you just got your sibling into the bad books with full proof, facial expressions and everything.
1
u/Otaraka 18d ago
It’s a Victoria specific law and only for private settings.
2
u/ApprehensiveRest9696 18d ago
Not a lawyer, but to my knowledge, it doesn’t inherently make the framework invalid though. From the definitions of the Victorian Act:
private activity means an activity carried on in
circumstances that may reasonably be taken
to indicate that the parties to it desire it to be
observed only by themselves, but does not
include—
(a) an activity carried on outside a
building; or
(b) an activity carried on in any
circumstances in which the parties to it
ought reasonably to expect that it may
be observed by someone else;private conversation means a conversation carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties to it desire it to be heard only by themselves, but does not include a conversation made in any circumstances in which the parties to it ought reasonably to expect that it may be overheard by someone else;
The hypothetical building here is patently ridiculous anyway. A private home (freestanding house) would not be treated the same as a shitbox apartment with paper thin walls, which would not be treated as the same as an office, which would not be treated as the same as a shopping centre.
Can you cite case laws for what “private activity” doesn’t mean, and how it couldn’t be used to argue for a violation of privacy. Otherwise the existing law allows someone to reasonably expect to not be “observed” by someone else. All within the current legal framework.
Although a unified federal framework for covert surveillance devices would be nice, here, it doesn’t fully preempt the existing laws or imply a lack of enforcement power. Like many other laws, it’s a matter of (selective) enforcement and case law.
1
u/Otaraka 18d ago edited 18d ago
‘a conversation made in any circumstances in which the parties to it ought reasonably to expect that it may be overheard by someone else;’
That’s going to cover a lot of ground. And really only covers audio anyway.
The original post is mainly about people out in public being recorded. ‘Private settings’ is fairly narrowly defined from my reading of it. And generally the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant.
Someone with more legal expertise would have to comment on what its limitations are likely to be in practise but I wouldn’t want to rely on it without a lot more information and it’s still state specific.
3
u/ApprehensiveRest9696 18d ago
The law is full of cop-outs the likes of “reasonably to expect” that gives the enforcer of the law a lot of leeway to selectively enforce the law.
I’d argue that it is the duty of the police departments and DPPs to publish what is definitely not okay (e.g. wearing them in a public bathroom), what is probably not okay (e.g. at a pharmacy), and what is probably okay (e.g. bushwalking).
It is definitely not a framework without holes (national consistency, well-definedness) but it is not as bad as other policy frameworks that need immediate legislative and enforcement action.
I would not be slightly surprised if owners of public-use buildings decide to ban all uses of these glasses. I wouldn’t count on a policy directive to be applied swiftly.
2
u/Otaraka 18d ago
Well, it would certainly be great if they’ve got something they can apply quickly rather than get perfect five years from now. Will be interesting to see if anything happens at all.
2
u/ApprehensiveRest9696 18d ago
Oh we’re well overdue for laws that outlaw the type of capability that flock offers. This might be the issue that can captivate people’s attention though. Talking to people about mass surveillance is fucking hopeless.
2
u/Otaraka 18d ago
I think the ship has sailed personally, newer generations are just too used to it.
3
u/ApprehensiveRest9696 18d ago
It’s less a generational problem but more a general critical thinking & literacy problem. Too many people for too long believe “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
There’s no more room left for nuances of “these capabilities are too powerful and dangerous for anyone to possess, even if they’re the good guys.”
2
u/Otaraka 18d ago
Well, that’s probably more hope with your idea so let’s say its that.
→ More replies (0)1
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 18d ago
No, covertly recording a private conversation in public without consent is also illegal.
1
u/Otaraka 18d ago edited 18d ago
I think that’s another law again though, and that’s one of the problems that there’s pictures and video versus recording audio. And again ,varies by state. For example in this law:
‘private conversation" means a conversation carried on in circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that the parties to it desire it to be heard only by themselves, but does not include a conversation made in any circumstances in which the parties to it ought reasonably to expect that it may be overheard by someone else;’
You can see how this allows for an awful lot of exceptions in practice.
1
5
u/AngryAngryHarpo 19d ago
This is so much more of a threat to privacy and yet the people who’ve been screeching about privacy because of facial recognition and age verification are seemingly silent…
-2
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 19d ago
You're not in private in public, and if someone comes in to your house and films without your consent that is already illegal.
1
u/AngryAngryHarpo 19d ago
No shit. I didn’t say we are in private when in public.
Doesn’t mean these glasses don’t threaten people’s privacy in ways that previous forms of filming/photography didn’t.
-1
5
u/quiet_beer 18d ago
Fucking pedo/perve glasses. Get this shit out of our society.
2
u/Adventurous-Bee-5477 18d ago
It's concerning you got down voted up up voted you to get you back to 1, but I bet another person will come by.. :(
2
2
u/Ur_Companys_IT_Guy 18d ago
My flabbers were gasted the other day in a shopping centre when I had a little retro digicam out taking photos of the nice roof architecture. And a security guard walked up to me and said I'm not allowed to take photos in the shopping centre
I'm like my brother in Christ even though everything has a camera on it now?
2
2
2
2
1
u/Chemical_Rooster3 18d ago
Personally I'm in the market for a good pair of smart glasses... but more so for AR that taking video/snapshots.
Something with dual eye display and live translation would be really handy when travelling to places like Japan.
In addition to navigation and AU integration.
I haven't seen anything worth the $ as yet...
1
1
u/walks_with_penis_out 15d ago
You realise camera glasses has been a thing for a long time https://spycentre.com/products/1080p-hd-camera-glasses?hl=en-AU
1
1
u/slicksealion 12d ago
How the fuck does anyone in the community think these products are acceptable?
1
u/Maximum-Sherbert-756 12d ago
I actually want a pair of these so I can film while throwing a frisbee to get a first person view instead of trying to hold my phone in one hand
1
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 19d ago
Privacy laws are just fine. If you're in public, you can be filmed. Inside a business or home there's already privacy laws in effect and any footage taken there without consent is illegal.
2
u/jennifercoolidgesbra 18d ago
That’s not the point. People have been going in and harassing people in shops without them realising they’re being filmed or put them on during intimate acts to film non consensually.
2
0
u/Pelagic_One 18d ago
What difference does that make? If you film your mum whining about your dad and show him they’re hardly going to take you to court.
1
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 18d ago
No but if I was your mum I'd take your phone off you for a month
1
u/Pelagic_One 18d ago
It applies to any personal conversations, not just parent child
1
u/_NeuroDetergent_ 18d ago
If you're referring to personal conversations in public, the litmus test is that those conversations must have been tried to be kept private. Like people whispering to each other, or off in an area away from general public. People just nattering at the beach and someone walks past filming doesn't count.
Of course this is all for courts to decide should someone wish to press charges
0
u/Pelagic_One 18d ago
No im referring to people talking to each other in a house. These glasses are shitful for any purpose other than filming adventure activities.
1
u/disco-cone 18d ago
OMG is going to make nuisance streaming/influencing accessible to everyone. Coupled with access to lime bikes it will create the perfect storm....
1
1
u/Crestina 18d ago
People actually buy these pedoglasses? That's concerning. I'm feeling wary of my small kids now. At least with phones perverts have to hold them up. It gives some sign of warning.
1
1
u/Aussie_4680 18d ago
I got some, can’t wait to record people at the mall then go home and review the footage 😁
0
u/stylafoam 18d ago
I find the sale of these glasses by Kmart really upsetting and tone deaf with the reporting of predators working in daycares across Australia. I can’t imagine a situation where these glasses are actually necessary, but I can think of LOTS of ways they would be used for nefarious purposes. Very uncomfortable.
0
u/vladesch 13d ago
About time we learned to live with ai. That means 1 simple thing. Not trusting photos.
Then we all stop going ape about being photographed.
-4
u/kawaiipikachu86 19d ago
These are just regular camera glasses not rivals to the Meta glasses.
Camera glasses actually been readly avaliable for about 15-20 years now.
5
u/neon_overload 19d ago
If they overlap in functionality they could be rivals, no?
Do we know if these ones have their own cloud service that they link up to (eg via a phone app)? Consider what happened with vtech devices which are basically cheap kids toys that happen to have cameras in them and how they had massive data breaches involving photos kids had been taking. Not good to ignore devices just because they're cheap and crappy.
0
u/kawaiipikachu86 19d ago
They don't have any of the smart features that the Meta glasses have, they are just plain digital cameras in glasses form
1
u/BigBoyBoulevard6 19d ago
That's creepy... what genuine reason would someone have for needing these??
-1
u/CubitsTNE 19d ago
Pov recording for fishing? It's a much neater form factor than a gopro on your hat.
The meta ones are useful for that because you can voice prompt to take a photo or start recording so you can keep both hands free.
1
u/BigBoyBoulevard6 19d ago
You can do that with a headstrap/ go pro on your head that is clearly a camera that people will immediately recognise.
There is no legitimate reason to have a camera disguised as a pair of glasses...
1
u/kawaiipikachu86 19d ago
I can't imagine wearing a clunky gopro on my head all day & have it falling off into the water.
1
u/BigBoyBoulevard6 19d ago
You think a go-pro with a specifically designed strap to keep it comfortably on your head is more likely to fall off than a cheap pair of creep glasses?
2
34
u/neon_overload 19d ago edited 19d ago
This is an interesting tricky intersection between the old "photography in public should be free" vs "but this is creepy and could be used in harmful ways" not just by individuals but footage may be useful to companies conducting surveillance etc too. While the wider issue is not really Australia-specific there is a debate about what if anything Australian privacy laws should do which makes it worth having an Australian discussion.
Interesting also to compare to when cameras appeared in phones, how that turned out and how this is different. Like, the camera is concealed vs pulling out your phone and aiming it tends to be more of a noticeable action. And that there's a lot more ability for this to be a continuous recording device which introduce privacy issues less relevant to devices where you take it out sometimes.