Sydney Council Bans AI Smart Glasses at Public Pools

Published: 15 September 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

One of Sydney’s largest local councils has joined a growing group of Australian authorities banning AI-powered smart glasses from public swimming pools, citing concerns about privacy, covert filming and the safety of children and families.

Canterbury-Bankstown Council voted overwhelmingly in favour of prohibiting the devices at its public pools, following similar decisions by councils in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney’s eastern suburbs. The measures reflect growing unease about wearable technology equipped with high-resolution cameras and artificial intelligence features that can record people discreetly.

Canterbury-Bankstown mayor Bilal El-Hayek used the term “pervert glasses” when describing the devices, highlighting the strength of concern among some councillors and residents. Community members have reportedly raised fears that people could use camera-equipped glasses to secretly record others in changing rooms, swimming pools and areas surrounding schools.

Speaking to councillors, El-Hayek said concerns had been raised across online community groups and social media platforms. He said women in particular had expressed worries about the possibility of being recorded without their knowledge or consent.

The debate reflects a broader question facing governments and communities as wearable artificial intelligence technology becomes increasingly accessible. Smart glasses can resemble ordinary eyewear while incorporating cameras, microphones and AI-powered functions, potentially making it difficult for people nearby to know when they are being recorded.

Modern smart glasses can provide features such as real-time translation, object recognition and audio assistance. For some users, particularly people with vision impairment, such technology can offer meaningful accessibility benefits. But the same features have raised concerns about privacy and the potential misuse of cameras in public spaces.

Canterbury-Bankstown is not the first Australian council to respond to those concerns. Brisbane became the first council in the country to publicly announce a ban on covert filming involving smart glasses at its 21 public swimming pools.

The Brisbane decision helped trigger a wider discussion about whether swimming pools and leisure facilities should have specific rules governing wearable cameras. Such locations are considered particularly sensitive because people may be changing clothes, swimming or participating in activities where they have a heightened expectation of privacy.

Digital Rights Watch policy head Tom Sulston welcomed the expansion of the restrictions. He argued that families should be able to use public facilities without fearing that they could be recorded without their knowledge and that footage could later appear online.

Sulston also called for the issue to be addressed beyond individual council policies, suggesting that state and federal authorities should consider broader measures as the technology becomes more widespread.

The City of Yarra in inner Melbourne subsequently voted to prohibit smart glasses from its leisure and aquatic facilities, childcare centres and playgrounds. The council also agreed to call on the federal government to strengthen privacy protections in response to emerging technologies.

In Sydney’s eastern suburbs, Randwick Council has separately prohibited smart glasses at the Des Renford Leisure Centre. The council said the decision followed growing community concerns about the potential misuse of the technology.

Signs have been installed at the entrance to the centre, with people wearing smart glasses expected to remove them or leave the facility. The council described the policy as a precaution designed to maintain a safe and welcoming environment for visitors.

The restrictions introduced by councils are not intended to prevent people with accessibility needs from using assistive technology. Exemptions will apply to people who require smart glasses because of vision impairment or other accessibility concerns.

That distinction is important because smart glasses are not solely designed for recording. Their AI functions can provide practical assistance to people with disabilities, including helping users identify objects or navigate their surroundings.

The challenge for policymakers is therefore to address potential privacy risks without unnecessarily restricting technology that can improve accessibility.

The Australian federal government is also examining the issue. Attorney General Michelle Rowland has not ruled out stronger action concerning smart glasses but has acknowledged that the legal questions surrounding the technology are complex.

In August, Rowland wrote to Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind after receiving concerns from members of the public about the increasing use of smart glasses. She asked the privacy regulator to give the issue priority consideration.

Rowland has emphasised that privacy protections need to remain effective as technology changes. She noted that smart glasses can be used more discreetly than many conventional recording devices, potentially making it difficult for individuals to know whether they are being filmed.

The federal government is continuing work on the next stage of privacy reforms, with the aim of ensuring that existing laws remain appropriate for a rapidly changing digital environment.

The issue is particularly significant because footage captured by wearable devices can potentially be shared online within seconds. Once images or videos have been uploaded to social media or other platforms, people who were recorded without consent may have limited ability to control how the material is distributed.

Australia’s online safety regulator has also become involved in the debate. The eSafety Commissioner has urged manufacturers of smart glasses to introduce stronger privacy protections, including automatic blurring of the faces of people captured by cameras.

The regulator has also called for clearer indications that a device is recording. Such measures could make it easier for members of the public to recognise when they are being filmed and potentially challenge recording where they believe it is inappropriate.

The eSafety Commissioner’s guidance acknowledges that camera-equipped smart glasses can provide important accessibility benefits, particularly for people who are blind or have low vision. However, it has warned that manufacturers need to consider those benefits alongside safety and privacy concerns.

The growing backlash against the devices illustrates the difficulty of regulating technology that can serve both legitimate and potentially harmful purposes.

Unlike a conventional camera or smartphone, smart glasses can be worn continuously and used without requiring the user to hold a visible recording device. That creates a different privacy environment in places where people may not expect to be filmed.

Swimming pools, changing areas, playgrounds and childcare facilities are particularly sensitive because children and families frequently use them. Councils introducing bans argue that preventing camera-equipped eyewear in those locations is a practical way of reducing the risk of covert recording.

However, local restrictions also raise questions about consistency. If councils adopt different policies, users may face different rules depending on which swimming pool or leisure centre they visit. A national regulatory framework could potentially provide greater clarity for consumers, businesses and public facilities.

The federal government’s privacy reform process could therefore become increasingly important as smart glasses become more common.

For councils, the immediate priority is protecting visitors and responding to community concerns. Their decisions demonstrate that local authorities can introduce facility-specific rules even while broader national laws are being considered.

For technology companies, the growing restrictions could create pressure to develop stronger privacy features. Automatic facial blurring, visible recording indicators and clearer controls could become increasingly important if manufacturers want their products to gain wider public acceptance.

The debate also highlights the wider challenge created by artificial intelligence. Technology that offers convenience, accessibility and new forms of interaction can simultaneously introduce risks that were difficult to anticipate when existing privacy laws were written.

Smart glasses are still a relatively new category of consumer technology, and their long-term impact on public behaviour and privacy remains uncertain. The response from Australian councils suggests that communities are unwilling to wait for widespread misuse before establishing boundaries in sensitive public spaces.

The decisions in Canterbury-Bankstown, Brisbane, Yarra and Randwick indicate a growing preference for precaution where children, changing areas and other privacy-sensitive environments are involved.

At the same time, policymakers must ensure that restrictions do not unintentionally prevent people with disabilities from accessing useful assistive technology.

The balance between privacy, safety, accessibility and technological innovation will likely become more complicated as AI-enabled wearable devices develop. For now, Australian councils are taking a cautious approach, using local bans to reassure residents that public swimming pools and family facilities should remain places where people can expect a reasonable degree of privacy.

The growing number of restrictions also sends a message to technology companies and governments that public acceptance will depend not only on what smart glasses can do, but also on how effectively people can be protected from unwanted recording and the misuse of personal information.