Australia broadens privacy protections for digital ID with new strategy

An increased risk of data breaches and biometric surveillance have prompted Australia’s federal government to introduce a broad new digital identity protection strategy. The plan targets wearable tech including smart glasses, as the government aims to “bolster privacy protections for Australians and help tackle emerging risks from new technologies,” according to a government release.

“Australians are also facing growing risks from data breaches, identity theft and scams,” the government says. “The misuse of personal information can disproportionately harm vulnerable Australians and, at scale, pose national security risks. AI-powered tools and devices, such as those used in connected vehicles which continuously collect and process personal information, are amplifying these risks.”

Key details in the plan include a right to erasure, which gives individuals the right to request the destruction of personal information shared with large digital platforms including social and search, as well as stronger standards for consent to collect data, and “measures to stop businesses from trading in personal information without clear permission.”

It also introduces new ID protection in the form of IDLock, a service added to the myGov platform that will give Australians “direct control over how their identity documents are used for verification.” It will do so by allowing them to block, unblock and monitor the use of identity documents through the Document Verification Service at any time – a kind of amped-up selective disclosure feature.

The project builds on the protections established in the Credential Protection Register in 2022, following the catastrophic Optus and Medibank breaches that exposed the personal information of millions of Australians. According to government documents, since launching, the register has blocked over 830,000 fraudulent identity verification attempts, averaging around 18,000 each month.

Attorney General Michelle Rowland says that as data breaches, scams and cyber-enabled crime continue to evolve, Australia’s approach must evolve with them. “Almost four in five Australians report they have very little or no control over how their personal information is collected or used,” Rowland says.

“As more of our lives move online, these reforms will help strengthen privacy protections, boost accountability, and ensure Australians can embrace technology with greater confidence.”

Smart glasses on the regulatory agenda

The emergence of wearables into the general marketplace further complicates privacy protections for Australian lawmakers. A blog by Australia’s privacy commissioner, Carly Kind, addresses some of the concerns raised by the rising popularity of Meta Glasses – and points to how those concerns stand to deepen as more companies follow Meta into the smart wearables market.

“A decade after Google’s failed attempt to launch Google Glass,” writes Kind, “we are seeing the growth of surveillance wearables available on the consumer market.” Google plans to try again later this year with the launch of Android XR smart glasses, and Apple’s offering is set to hit shelves in 2027. “Cut price versions are beginning to be offered by mainstream retailers such as Kmart and Amazon. OpenAI has its own secretive plans to launch a wearable device to facilitate the ambient collection of data to power AI assistants.”

While Kind concedes that smart glasses look like a different proposition in 2026, wherein the global tolerance for surveillance tech has shifted with the rise of AI and facial recognition tech, she says privacy concerns remain a key issue for Australians. “More than 85 percent of them recently told us in a privacy attitudes survey that their concerns about privacy have only increased in the last five years,” Kind says. Indeed, they largely indicate that “they have almost no trust in social media and AI companies.”

Kind also notes how companies that harvest data for profit sow distrust in tech that, for certain use cases, actually helps. She mentions airports and retail spaces as sites for place-based surveillance, “which have been able to meet the relevant thresholds to justify its deployment.”

For Kind, wearable smart glasses don’t make the grade. For one, they would “fundamentally alter our experience of interpersonal interactions, in both private and public spaces. Without knowing, we could be filmed, recorded or photographed at any time.”

In tandem with Kind, the eSafety Commissioner is also pushing for rules requiring safer design features, such as “clear visual indicators when recording audio or video that cannot be disabled or obscured.” According to the Guardian, eSafety believes smart glasses should also automatically blur people’s faces whenever they have not provided informed consent.

Privacy law could be revised to factor in wearables

The new privacy risks that wearables present could force the government to tweak its privacy laws, in that “Australia’s Privacy Act only applies to businesses and government agencies, not to individuals, and it only applies when those entities collect personal information.”

When individuals are collecting personal information, all kinds of questions arise over the mechanics of notification, consent and retention. Kind says the Tranche 2 reforms to the Privacy Act, currently in development, “are likely to include expanding the scope of application of privacy law in ways that create additional hurdles for the developers of surveillance wearables.” She also flags the forthcoming digital duty of care, which is designed to make tech companies more accountable for what their products do to their users.

“As long as public trust in technology companies remains extremely low, the bar for establishing a social licence for rolling out new tech will be high,” she says. “Privacy remains a vitally important individual right and public value in Australia, and we at the OAIC will continue to promote and protect it even as surveillance wearables proliferate.”

Kind has not ruled out banning smart glasses in Australia, and while she currently does not have the legal authority to do so, there is movement afoot to introduce a private member’s bill to ban the glasses for 12 months, to give legislation and policy time to develop appropriate protections.

The scenario could easily develop into yet another standoff between Australian regulators and Meta, which will surely not let a ban on its latest hot product go unchallenged. Indeed, eSafety has already warned that Meta is likely to pit would-be accessibility benefits it says its glasses offer against general safety and privacy concerns. This would be in keeping with Meta’s arguments against age assurance laws, which often suggest that social media platforms should not be restricted because they provide an important way for marginalized youth to connect.

Article Topics

Australia  |  biometrics  |  data protection  |  digital ID  |  facial recognition  |  IDLock  |  myGov (Australia)  |  smart glasses  |  wearables