In the quiet proliferation of affordable technology, a pair of $89 smartglasses sold at Kmart has forced Australia to confront a question that will only grow more urgent: when surveillance becomes invisible and wearable, who is responsible for the dignity of those being watched? Australia's Privacy Commissioner has opened a formal investigation into Shenzhen Qingcheng, the Chinese company behind the HeyCyan app powering the glasses, after the firm refused to engage with official inquiries — a silence that speaks volumes about the gaps between global technology markets and national privacy fram
Australia opens privacy probe into China firm behind Kmart smartglasses app
Research found approximately 60% of smartglasses recordings analyzed showed potential harassment, with subjects visibly uneasy or attempting to disengage.
Discreet, point-of-view recording that is difficult for bystanders to detect
Mark
So the privacy commissioner opened an investigation into this Chinese company. What exactly triggered that—was it just the public outcry, or something specific about how they handled the inquiry?
Mimi
They didn't respond at all. The commissioner wrote to them asking about privacy concerns, and Shenzhen Qingcheng simply didn't answer. That non-response, combined with independent analysis of the app and its privacy policy, was enough to open the formal investigation.
Luke
But here's the thing—we don't know yet what Shenzhen Qingcheng actually does with the data, or even if they're collecting it. The investigation is just starting. The research showing 60 percent of recordings looked like harassment is striking, but that's about how people are using the glasses, not necessarily about the company's practices.
Mark
Right, so the real problem is that current privacy law doesn't even cover individual users wearing the glasses. How does that get fixed?
Mimi
The government is proposing reforms that would shift from a "reasonably necessary" standard to a "fair and reasonable" one. It would require companies to show people actually had a choice about whether their data gets collected.
Luke
That's a meaningful change, but it still only applies to companies. If someone buys these glasses and records people without consent in a public space, the Privacy Act still won't touch them as an individual. The law can regulate the manufacturer and the app maker, but not the person holding the camera.
Mark
So banning them from certain places—like the councils are doing—might be the only real protection right now?
Mimi
It seems that way. Canterbury-Bankstown, Sydney City, Brisbane, Yarra—they're all restricting use in public venues. It's a workaround while the law catches up.
Luke
Though we should note that enforcement would be tricky. How do you prove someone is wearing smartglasses versus regular glasses? And the glasses sold out and disappeared from Kmart's website—we don't know how many are already in circulation or being used.
Mark
What about Meta and Google? They make smartglasses too. Why aren't they being investigated?
Mimi
The commissioner said they won't be part of this investigation. Meta's Ray-Bans and Google's upcoming glasses presumably responded to the inquiries, or at least engaged with the process. Shenzhen Qingcheng didn't.
The Pulse
- Kmart's $89 smartglasses — capable of silently recording high-definition video — sold out rapidly before vanishing from the retailer's website amid a nationwide wave of public alarm.
- A petition labeling the devices 'pervert glasses' has surpassed 55,000 signatures, while city councils in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane have moved to ban them from public spaces like swimming pools.
- University of Sydney researchers found that in roughly 60% of smartglasses videos analyzed, subjects appeared visibly distressed or were actively trying to escape the encounter — pointing to systematic covert harassment rather than casual use.
- Australian privacy law has been exposed as structurally ill-equipped: it cannot reach individual wearers or retailers who don't directly collect data, leaving the Chinese software provider as the sole regulated party — one that has chosen not to respond.
- Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind has launched a formal investigation into Shenzhen Qingcheng and is pressing for legislative reform that would replace a narrow 'reasonably necessary' standard with a broader 'fair and reasonable' test to govern what wearable devices can capture.
In the quiet proliferation of affordable technology, a pair of $89 smartglasses sold at Kmart has forced Australia to confront a question that will only grow more urgent: when surveillance becomes invisible and wearable, who is responsible for the dignity of those being watched? Australia's Privacy Commissioner has opened a formal investigation into Shenzhen Qingcheng, the Chinese company behind the HeyCyan app powering the glasses, after the firm refused to engage with official inquiries — a silence that speaks volumes about the gaps between global technology markets and national privacy frameworks. The case has become a mirror held up to Australian law itself, revealing that existing protections were written for a world where surveillance required intention and infrastructure, not a $89 impulse purchase.
When Guardian Australia first reported in August on a pair of $89 Kmart smartglasses capable of silently recording high-definition video, the story moved quickly from technology curiosity to national controversy. The glasses — an affordable echo of Meta's Ray-Bans — sold out before disappearing from Kmart's website altogether, as public unease crystallised into organised opposition. A GetUp petition has since gathered more than 55,000 signatures, with activists calling the devices 'pervert glasses' and demanding bans in public spaces. City councils across Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane have already begun restricting their use near swimming pools, and the federal government is considering prohibiting them in government workplaces.
At the centre of the legal response is Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind, who was asked by the attorney general to assess the implications of the technology. She wrote to Kmart, its distributor BDI Technology, Shenzhen Qingcheng — the Chinese company behind the embedded HeyCyan app — as well as Meta and Google. Every party engaged except Shenzhen Qingcheng, whose silence, combined with concerns raised by independent technical analysis of the app and its privacy policy, prompted Kind to announce a formal investigation.
The case has illuminated a structural weakness in Australian privacy law: the Privacy Act applies to companies and government bodies, not to individuals wearing the glasses. Retailers face no obligations unless they directly collect personal data. That leaves the software provider — in this instance, an unresponsive Chinese firm — as the primary regulated entity, a narrow and precarious hook on which to hang public protection.
Research from the University of Sydney deepened the concern. An analysis of 350 publicly available Instagram videos recorded on smartglasses between 2023 and 2026 found a clear trend toward covert, point-of-view recording. In approximately 60% of cases, subjects appeared visibly uncomfortable or were actively trying to disengage — suggesting the glasses are functioning less as a novelty and more as a tool for capturing people without their knowledge.
Kind has pointed to proposed legislative reforms as a partial remedy, most notably replacing the existing 'reasonably necessary' standard with a 'fair and reasonable' test — one that would require companies to weigh genuine consumer choice and the particular vulnerability of children. She acknowledged, however, that smartglasses are only the opening chapter: personal assistant devices and ambient recording badges are already emerging. The investigation into Shenzhen Qingcheng is a beginning, but the deeper question is whether Australian law can evolve fast enough to meet technology that has made surveillance something you can wear to the shops.
Australia's privacy commissioner has launched a formal investigation into Shenzhen Qingcheng, a Chinese software company, after it refused to respond to official inquiries about the HeyCyan app embedded in Kmart's $89 smartglasses. The move marks an escalation in a controversy that erupted in August when Guardian Australia first reported on the discount smartglasses—a knockoff version of Meta's Ray-Bans that can silently capture images and record high-definition video. The glasses sold out quickly, then vanished from Kmart's website by Wednesday as public alarm spread across the country.
The backlash has been swift and broad. A GetUp petition opposing the devices has gathered more than 55,000 signatures, with activists labeling them "pervert glasses" and calling for outright bans. City councils from Sydney to Melbourne to Brisbane have begun restricting their use in public spaces like swimming pools. The federal government is weighing whether to prohibit them in government workplaces altogether. Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind was asked by the attorney general to assess the legal and privacy implications, and she wrote directly to Kmart, its distributor BDI Technology, Shenzhen Qingcheng, Meta, and Google—which is developing its own smartglasses. Only Shenzhen Qingcheng refused to engage, prompting Kind to announce the investigation on Wednesday. She cited not only the company's silence but also "concerns arising from third party analysis of the technology itself as well as the entity's privacy policy."
The investigation has exposed a significant gap in how Australian privacy law actually works. Kind explained that the Privacy Act only applies to companies and government agencies, not to individuals wearing the glasses. Retailers selling smartglasses may have no legal obligations under the act if they don't directly collect personal information themselves. Instead, the software provider—in this case, Shenzhen Qingcheng—becomes the entity responsible for handling data under privacy law. This creates a narrow regulatory window, and Kind acknowledged that current law struggles to address the reality of surveillance wearables in public spaces.
Research from the University of Sydney has added weight to the privacy concerns. Analysts examined 350 publicly available Instagram videos shot on smartglasses between 2023 and 2026, documenting what they described as a clear shift toward "discreet, point-of-view recording that is difficult for bystanders to detect." In roughly 60 percent of the videos analyzed, the interactions could be classified as potential harassment—subjects were visibly uncomfortable or actively trying to end the encounter. The research suggests the glasses are being used not as a casual recording tool but as a means to capture people without their knowledge or consent.
Kind signaled that the government's proposed reforms to privacy law would address some of these vulnerabilities. The most significant change would replace the current "reasonably necessary for an entity's functions and activities" standard with a "fair and reasonable" test. This new framework would require companies to consider whether individuals had genuine choice in whether their data was collected, and to weigh the interests of children if they are involved. Kind expressed hope that these reforms would "raise the bar" on what smartglasses manufacturers can collect, though she acknowledged that surveillance wearables are only the beginning—personal assistant devices and ambient recording badges are already on the horizon. The investigation into Shenzhen Qingcheng is a first step, but the real test will be whether Australia's privacy laws can keep pace with technology that makes surveillance invisible.
Notable Quotes
Retailers that sell smart glasses may not have any Privacy Act obligations if they do not collect any personal information with respect to those devices. Instead, the entity providing the software at use in the device is likely to be the entity that collects and holds the information.— Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind
A shift to discreet, point-of-view recording that is difficult for bystanders to detect— University of Sydney researchers analyzing smartglasses usage
Want the full story?
Read the original at The Guardian ↗