Kmart’s controversial $89 ‘pervert glasses’ vanish from retailer’s website after backlash from Aussies
Kmart’s $89 Anko smart glasses, which could take photos and record video, disappeared from its Australian website about two months after their launch prompted privacy concerns and public criticism. Their removal follows calls for stronger safeguards against covert recording, while Australia’s Privacy Commissioner investigates the app linked to the glasses.
The glasses sold out within a week of going on sale on 28 July and were marketed as a cheaper option than Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses, which start at $679. They connect through the Chinese-owned HeyCyan app; Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind said its developer had not answered questions about how recordings and personal data are stored. More than 57,000 people signed a GetUp petition calling for the glasses to be removed, while Kmart’s audio-only $39 Speaker Glasses remain listed.
- Kmart’s $89 camera glasses are no longer listed online.
- The removal follows privacy concerns and an ongoing investigation.
- More than 57,000 people signed a campaign petition.
New here? Start with this
Kmart sold a pair of smart glasses called Anko for $89 that could secretly record video and take photographs. The glasses connected via a Chinese-owned app called HeyCyan, and Australia's Privacy Commissioner raised concerns about whether the app properly protected personal data and recordings from users.
The product prompted significant public backlash in Australia, with more than 57,000 people signing a petition demanding Kmart remove them from sale. The controversy centred on the potential for covert surveillance and the lack of clear safeguards to prevent people being filmed without their knowledge or consent.
Kmart launched the glasses as a much cheaper alternative to Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses, which cost $679. The glasses sold out within a week but have since disappeared from Kmart's Australian website, though the retailer continues to sell a related product—audio-only speaker glasses—at $39.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Smart glasses engineered to record discreetly pose a distinctive threat because concealment is their primary appeal – unlike visibly carried phones, they enable non-consensual documentation of intimate moments. The Privacy Commissioner's investigation revealed unanswered questions about data storage through a Chinese-owned app, raising legitimate concerns about both immediate privacy invasion and broader potential misuse. The substantial public response reflects genuine concern about normalising covert observation, and Kmart's withdrawal appropriately acknowledges that enabling non-consensual surveillance should not be profitable.
The case against
The removal reflects disproportionate concern about a legal product with legitimate applications for hands-free documentation and accessibility. Smartphones possess identical recording capabilities yet attract no comparable backlash, suggesting the reaction was driven more by appearance than consistent principle; the proper response to data handling concerns is investigation and regulation rather than preemptive product removal. Consumer demand existed, as the product sold out, and restricting legal consumer choice based on potential risks sets a concerning precedent for how corporations respond to public pressure.