Are smart glasses and recording sunglasses legal to use in Queensland?

In most public and semi-public settings in Queensland, wearing smart glasses or camera sunglasses is not prohibited by any specific statute. Understanding why requires a brief tour of Queensland’s surveillance law architecture, which has a significant and widely misunderstood gap at its centre.

1. Queensland Has No General Optical Surveillance Law

The Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 (Qld), Queensland’s only dedicated surveillance statute, regulates listening devices only. It criminalises overhearing, recording, or monitoring a “private conversation” without the consent of the parties. It says nothing whatsoever about cameras, visual recording devices, or smart glasses.

The Queensland Law Reform Commission confirmed this gap directly in its 2018 working paper on civil surveillance, noting that the Act “does not prohibit or regulate optical, tracking or data surveillance devices.” As of 2026, this position has not changed through legislation. Queensland remains one of the few Australian jurisdictions without dedicated optical surveillance legislation.

2. Section 227A: The Narrow Criminal Prohibition

The relevant criminal law provision for visual recording in Queensland is section 227A of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), which creates two specific offences:

• Observing or visually recording a person without their consent in circumstances where a reasonable adult would expect privacy, where that person is in a private place or engaged in a private act; and
• Observing or recording a person’s genital or anal region without consent.

The Office of the Information Commissioner Queensland’s own community guide is explicit about what this covers: “places where they would expect to be private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or changeroom.”

A cafe table, footpath, shopping centre, gym floor, or any ordinary public or semi-public setting is not a private place for the purposes of section 227A. Ordinary clothed activity in these spaces sits entirely outside the provision’s reach.

3. The New Federal Privacy Tort: The National Backstop

Since 10 June 2025, the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) has included a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy. This is a civil remedy, not a criminal offence. A plaintiff must prove:

• The defendant intruded on their seclusion or misused information relating to them;
• A reasonable expectation of privacy existed;
• The invasion was intentional or reckless;
• The invasion was serious; and
• The public interest in privacy outweighed any countervailing public interest.

Ordinary, momentary capture of a passer-by in a public place is unlikely to meet the “serious” threshold on its own. However, using smart glasses to identify a stranger, research them, or track their movements across multiple locations is a strong candidate for the misuse of information limb of the tort.

4. Other States Go Further

New South Wales, South Australia, and Victoria each have dedicated optical surveillance device statutes. However, even those Acts are generally anchored to trespass (installing a hidden camera in a premises without consent) or observing “private activities,” and each contains an exclusion for “spectacles, contact lenses or a similar device used by a person to overcome a vision impairment.” Whether AI smart glasses that also correct vision fall within that exclusion is currently untested by any Australian court.

Related Topics

• Smart Glasses, Cameras and the Death of Ambient Privacy
• Can a business ban smart glasses on their premises?
• Smart glasses, facial recognition and the Privacy Act
• What is the federal privacy tort for serious invasions of privacy?
• Who is liable when an AI agent causes harm in Australia?

Need advice on surveillance law compliance, privacy audits, or technology disputes? Call Bell & Senior Lawyers at (07) 5532 8777 or contact us online .