The Meta ‘pervert glasses’ don’t violate privacy, they say, but the government has moved to conceal disclosure by company directors at the Big End of Town. Wally the Chartered Accountant on the double standards.
Are you a perv? Are you a spy? You can pick up a pair of Meta Fury glasses for just $469 recommended retail prices, or Ray-Ban Meta (Gen 2) for a touch more. Voice controlled spyware. Secret cameras. Great for stalkers too. Pedophiles at the beach will love them.
Use the ‘magnification settings’ to zoom in on breasts and crotches before you capture your dream image on your new Meta Ray-Ban Display Glasses. Gen 2.
If however you have privacy concerns, your best bet that somebody in power might see you and hear you may be to contact Treasurer Jim Chalmers using the letterhead of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD)
For, when Jim hears privacy concerns from the Big End of Town, it’s Ooh-Rah, kit on, Oscar Mike, move out. The corporate regulator ASIC has suddenly decided to exercise its existing powers to remove directors’ residential addresses from company search extracts available to the general public.
“We will implement this change as a matter of priority over the coming days.”
Done deal. Tango Down, transparency threat neutralised.
Pervert glasses
In contrast, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland ruled out an import or retail ban on pervert glasses, stating the government wants to avoid a “whack-a-mole” approach with individual devices and acknowledging their legitimate accessibility benefits for people with vision impairments. Blind people are a convenient excuse.
Got your target, eyes on Six.
According to Meta, privacy is built into every pair of its pervert glasses if only people would follow these helpful tips to make people feel safe and comfortable:
- Respect peoples’ preferences because not everyone loves being photographed.
- Show others how the capture LED works so they know when you’re recording photos or videos for your gallery
- Power off in private spaces or sensitive spaces like a changing room or school
- Be a good community member. If you wouldn’t film it with your phone, then you shouldn’t film it with your glasses (but then again who is going to know?)
That’s good enough for our AG, who spent years dithering over the gambling reforms as Comms Minister before moving out.So, the privacy built into every pair of Meta AI glasses is reliance on human nature or the goodwill of all humans. Self regulation. DIY.
Stalkers, please respect our helpful guidelines,
Mark Zuckerberg and the directors of Meta ask that you show discretion.
No ban AI Ray-Ban
This week Attorney-General Michelle Rowland announced that the Government was not currently planning a ban on the Meta AI glasses. “Right now, we need to look at the harms that are being caused … and be proportionate in that response” she said.
Look at the harms mind you, not prevent them from happening in the first place. Bit like those gambling harms. Let’s continue to monitor the situation. Our stakeholders Newscorp are on board. After all, they deployed them in one of their stunts.
“Misleading, deceptive”. Judge scathing on ‘Undercover Jew’ stunt by NewsCorp, Israel activist
ABC News reports that the Greens and Independents plan to launch a bill to halt the import of pervert glasses until tougher privacy protections have been passed into law.
“If we end up having millions of these devices in the country, there’ll be no place that’s free for your privacy,” Greens senator David Shoebridge said. “Maybe we should think ahead for once”.
Such a radical left alternative to the Albanese government approach of inviting widescale harm to citizens’ privacy and then looking at it for a couple of years.
Privacy a human right? For company directors it is
According to the website of the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC), “Privacy is a fundamental human right”. Alas, humans cannot expect human rights equally. A recent FOI request shows that the Albanese government places a higher value on the privacy of company directors.
The directors of Meta subsidiary, Facebook Australia, are bestowed with urgent Government action whereas other members of the public must put up with the Government looking at the harm caused by Meta’s pervert glasses. It is hard not to avoid the conclusion that the Albanese government gives preference to protecting Meta from us rather than the other way around.
FOI 021-2026 and FOI 022-026 are included in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission ASIC disclosure log table and request access to ASIC;’s decision to remove the addresses of company officeholders from company extracts purchased through ASIC connect. ASIC released 44 documents for these two FOI requests with much of the content redacted.
Once their masters read this article, ASIC may regret that they didn’t black out even more in pursuit of freedom of redacted information.
Document 1 Email chain between ASIC and Treasury from 5 January 2026
Subject: catch-up on options for responding to AICD as in the Australian Institute of Company Directors.
It appears that a recent AICD complaint needed a response and that that compliant was the origin of ASIC’s decision to ban the release of addresses of directors from company extracts.
Document 3 Email from ASIC to Treasury dated 21 January 2026
Subject: Director residential addresses – urgent need for policy intervention. “thanks for sharing with ASIC. AICD also sent to ASIC Chair and CEO yesterday.”
Document 10 Correspondence from the Treasurer – Letter dated 28 January 2026
“Dear Mr Longo As you are aware, there have been longstanding concerns about the availability of directors’ personal information on ASIC business registers. While the Government and ASIC have been working on a permanent solution, I consider that more immediate interim steps are required to address security concerns raised by agencies and some stakeholders.
Specifically, I would support ASIC taking action within its existing powers to remove residential addresses from the company search extracts for the general public as soon as possible. This would remove addresses from the most widely available access point.”
Document 11 Correspondence to the Treasurer – Letter dated 30 January 2026
“Dear Treasurer Thank you for your letter of 28 January 2026 regarding the availability of director’s personal information on ASIC’s business registers. The Commission agrees with the concerns you have outlined and supports the Government’s objective of reducing privacy and security risks associated with upfront availability of residential address information.
Consistent with your request, the Commission has decided to exercise its existing powers to remove directors’ residential addresses from company search extracts available to the general public. We will implement this change as a matter of priority over the coming days”.
That’s decisive action by a government agency around 30 days after an official AICD complaint about privacy for company directors to the Treasury. In contrast to the Meta pervert glasses there was no waiting about. No need to look at the harms being caused first.
The government dealt with the risk (no matter how small) to protect the privacy and security of the people, that is, this special subset of people, Australian company directors.
Document 12 Commission Meeting 1048 dated 29 January 2026
The long-standing concerns referred to by Treasurer Jim Chalmers already had a long-standing solution but that wasn’t enough for the AICD. They wanted a blanket ban on directors addresses in ASIC company extracts and they got it.
“ASIC has invested in supporting requests for address suppression and operates a low friction, pragmatic and fast process under the current legislative framework and has made this clear on its website. Applications have increased 50% from 525 in 2024 to 788 in 2025. Average time for actioning requests has gone from 8 business days to 1 business day.”
Document 31 Commission Meeting 1046 dated 21 January 2026
Subject: Removal of directors’ residential addresses from the public register. This document shows the rigorous [or rigor mortis] process undertaken by ASIC leading up to the change.
- What is the key issue(s) for decision? NA
- When is a decision needed by? NA
- Has the matter previously been considered by this or another internal forum? No
- Is there a communications plan that has been prepared? No
- What consultation has been undertaken? Were there any materially different
- views? No. Legal Services, DDT, Registry Operations.
So, directors’ addresses are no more on ASIC company extracts.
There is anecdotal evidence that ASIC may have removed or redacted directors’ names from some company extracts too.
Perhaps auditors will be the next company officeholder to go dark in ASIC company extracts. This might be a welcomed change for company stakeholders that use the extracts because not knowing KPMG is the auditor might make you feel better than knowing that they are.
Wally the Chartered Accountant (not his real name) is a veteran of the accounting profession who is concerned about dishonesty and falling professional standards. Wally's true identity is known to MWM.