Pervertglasses should punch the face of their whearer

They'll probably add some dumb shit like "send the unredacted face to Meta for to check if your face is on the opt-out list, and blur if it is".

Then send it to AFP ASIS and ASIO to check against their lists too.

And of course, log it for themselves under mandatory data retention laws.

Wait until OP finds out flock is rolling out in Australia too. What is privacy laws.

should we use bluetooth jammers everywhere now? i think so.

I think this whole topic is a beat-up. There is nothing here to debate. For a start, the talk should not be about "smart" glasses. Most of the glasses under debate are not smart at all. Just a camera that can be turned on or off. Simple technology that is not capable of any sort of smarts - certainly not blurring faces.

I genuinely don't see how we can legislate these things. They're out there and from a legal standpoint, are no different to any other camera you can buy. Even forgetting the 'smart' adjective and making the talk about glasses would be limiting. You can get cameras embedded into hats, necklaces, broaches/tiepins. Say you make all these illegal, how do you define them? Cameras you wear? suddenly the bodycams worn by the kids at Woolies or police are illegal. Go-Pros attached to your head/chest are illegal.

What if you have a shirt pocket, and the top of your phone is sticking out and recording. Are you going to make phone cameras illegal? I think this horse has bolted.

How would Anthony Albanese be able to tell Rhonda Burchmore, Kylie Minogue, and Nicole Kidman apart if pervert glasses blurred faces?