From buhrow at nfbcal.org  Thu Aug  6 11:21:50 2026
From: buhrow at nfbcal.org (Brian Buhrow)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2026 11:21:50 -0700
Subject: [Nfbc-sj] GOOGLE STUDY ON NAVIGATION FOR LOCAL BAY AREA RESIDENTS
Message-ID: <202608061821.676ILouC001939@nfbcal.org>

	hello Everyone!  Google is conducting a study on using navigation aids for blind and low
vision travelers.  If you are interested, live near San Jose California and are able to spend a
few hours in the next week or two and do not work for Google, the details and the link for
applying are below.

-thanks
-Brian

--- Forwarded mail from jenniferne at xwf.google.com

From: "Jennifer Nelson (xWF)" <jenniferne at xwf.google.com>


Study link: 
   https://research.rallyuxr.com/recruit/cm20o1w2l00001ald8mja8tb8/study/cmrw99foj141k1cln5ger6wsx/splash?channel=share&ref=4pd8k7bpchvco_a11yORG

     * Study name: Maps On Glasses - Outdoor Navigation study
     * Length of Study: 2 hours - in-person
     * Date: August 3rd through August 14th (choose one date that works
       for you)
     * Details:

     * All participants must live within 50 minutes from San Jose,
       California as this will be an in-person research study.
     * If you are selected to participate you will navigate an outdoor
       shopping mall across the street from our Google office. A
       researcher will accompany you at all times.
     * Only participants who have the physical capacity to walk around for
       60 minutes in a mall will be considered for this study. (Breaks
       will be given throughout)
     * You must be fluent and capable of communicating in spoken English.
     * The ideal candidate regularly uses commercial AI visual description
       tools eg. Google Lookout, Be My Eyes/Be My AI, or Ray-Ban Meta
       glasses.
     * Please note that if you utilize assistive hearing aids or cochlear
       implants they must not interfere with headware/glasses frames as
       you will be required to wear specific hardware during the research
       session.



   Location: San Jose, California (In-person)

     * Incentive: $125 USD. Besides the initial incentive, you will be
       given a choice to a.) receive an Uber voucher for your transport to
       and from the study, or b.) an increased fixed incentive sum ($100
       USD) that is meant to cover your transportation expenses. (for the
       Uber voucher, you do need to have the Uber app installed on your
       phone).
     * Link for participating: [1]AI Supported Outdoor Navigation research
       study eligibility form.

   https://research.rallyuxr.com/recruit/cm20o1w2l00001ald8mja8tb8/study/cmrw99foj141k1cln5ger6wsx/splash?channel=share&ref=4pd8k7bpchvco_a11yORG


From buhrow at nfbcal.org  Sat Aug  8 07:20:04 2026
From: buhrow at nfbcal.org (Brian Buhrow)
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 2026 07:20:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Nfbc-sj] REMINDER: OUR NEXT CHAPTER MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR
 Saturday, August 15, 2026 at 3PM VIA ZOOM
Message-ID: <202608081420.678EK4Q7005012@nfbcal.org>

Hello Fellow NFB of San Jose Chapter members.

This is a friendly reminder that our next chapter meeting is scheduled for Saturday, August 15, 2026 at 3:00 PM
via Zoom.

The zoom information is below.

Looking forward to seeing all of you  via Zoom at the meeting.

Brian Buhrow, Secretary, NFB of San Jose.

------------------------------

   Jamie Crane is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

   Topic: NFBC San Jose Chapter Meeting


           Every month on the Third Sat, 

   Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your
   calendar system.

   Monthly:
https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/tZArfu-gqTwpGNWmjVSuuTih4Rb5ON836Ng9/ics?icsToken=DMmo6lQevBEW_o0ICgAALAAAAAwGA8OicZlrcrj4dAniEHKKgZK5NWrXihH3f2BtV5oPNSRZiAwZy5dlXD6KDXiGdsofbc_0GkoBIUNk2zAwMDAwMQ&meetingMasterEventId=p3c4HO25Rw6XT6DJ4RvUrQ

   Join Zoom Meeting

   https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84696877321?pwd=WfJ2ndBvAgh4sgcinaBc2Hrjcf19CE.1

   Meeting ID: 846 9687 7321

   Passcode: 514697

   ---

   One tap mobile

   +16699006833,,84696877321#,,,,*514697# US (San Jose)

   +16694449171,,84696877321#,,,,*514697# US

   ---

   Join by SIP

   o 84696877321 at zoomcrc.com

   Join instructions

   https://us06web.zoom.us/meetings/84696877321/invitations?signature=SGhAxo5NlUgPjUjid0Mi5wwhyeNDmBi2vLiOyAlJbtw

From buhrow at nfbcal.org  Fri Aug 14 07:20:01 2026
From: buhrow at nfbcal.org (Brian Buhrow)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 07:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Nfbc-sj] REMINDER: OUR NEXT CHAPTER MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR
 Saturday, August 15, 2026 at 3PM VIA ZOOM
Message-ID: <202608141420.67EEK1Ca016858@nfbcal.org>

Hello Fellow NFB of San Jose Chapter members.

This is a friendly reminder that our next chapter meeting is scheduled for Saturday, August 15, 2026 at 3:00 PM
via Zoom.

The zoom information is below.

Looking forward to seeing all of you  via Zoom at the meeting.

Brian Buhrow, Secretary, NFB of San Jose.

------------------------------

   Jamie Crane is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

   Topic: NFBC San Jose Chapter Meeting


           Every month on the Third Sat, 

   Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your
   calendar system.

   Monthly:
https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/tZArfu-gqTwpGNWmjVSuuTih4Rb5ON836Ng9/ics?icsToken=DMmo6lQevBEW_o0ICgAALAAAAAwGA8OicZlrcrj4dAniEHKKgZK5NWrXihH3f2BtV5oPNSRZiAwZy5dlXD6KDXiGdsofbc_0GkoBIUNk2zAwMDAwMQ&meetingMasterEventId=p3c4HO25Rw6XT6DJ4RvUrQ

   Join Zoom Meeting

   https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84696877321?pwd=WfJ2ndBvAgh4sgcinaBc2Hrjcf19CE.1

   Meeting ID: 846 9687 7321

   Passcode: 514697

   ---

   One tap mobile

   +16699006833,,84696877321#,,,,*514697# US (San Jose)

   +16694449171,,84696877321#,,,,*514697# US

   ---

   Join by SIP

   o 84696877321 at zoomcrc.com

   Join instructions

   https://us06web.zoom.us/meetings/84696877321/invitations?signature=SGhAxo5NlUgPjUjid0Mi5wwhyeNDmBi2vLiOyAlJbtw

From kulkarnitrisha909 at gmail.com  Fri Aug 14 14:46:06 2026
From: kulkarnitrisha909 at gmail.com (Trisha Kulkarni)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 14:46:06 -0700
Subject: [Nfbc-sj] REMINDER: OUR NEXT CHAPTER MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR
 Saturday, August 15, 2026 at 3PM VIA ZOOM
In-Reply-To: <202608141420.67EEK1Ca016858@nfbcal.org>
References: <202608141420.67EEK1Ca016858@nfbcal.org>
Message-ID: <3F62A1BD-948A-4B39-AA70-EA1166F0A8A3@gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

Just a friendly reminder about our call tomorrow! Jamie has organized a really interesting presentation.



This month, we?re excited to welcome Sucheta Narang, one of the NFB's 2026 Bolotin Award winners, who will share her work on an accessible stock market app and take us on a deeper dive into financial literacy for blind people.



Looking forward to seeing everyone!

Best,
Trisha



> On Aug 14, 2026, at 7:20?AM, Brian Buhrow <buhrow at nfbcal.org> wrote:
> 
> ?Hello Fellow NFB of San Jose Chapter members.
> 
> This is a friendly reminder that our next chapter meeting is scheduled for Saturday, August 15, 2026 at 3:00 PM
> via Zoom.
> 
> The zoom information is below.
> 
> Looking forward to seeing all of you  via Zoom at the meeting.
> 
> Brian Buhrow, Secretary, NFB of San Jose.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
>   Jamie Crane is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
> 
>   Topic: NFBC San Jose Chapter Meeting
> 
> 
>           Every month on the Third Sat,
> 
>   Please download and import the following iCalendar (.ics) files to your
>   calendar system.
> 
>   Monthly:
> https://us06web.zoom.us/meeting/tZArfu-gqTwpGNWmjVSuuTih4Rb5ON836Ng9/ics?icsToken=DMmo6lQevBEW_o0ICgAALAAAAAwGA8OicZlrcrj4dAniEHKKgZK5NWrXihH3f2BtV5oPNSRZiAwZy5dlXD6KDXiGdsofbc_0GkoBIUNk2zAwMDAwMQ&meetingMasterEventId=p3c4HO25Rw6XT6DJ4RvUrQ
> 
>   Join Zoom Meeting
> 
>   https://us06web.zoom.us/j/84696877321?pwd=WfJ2ndBvAgh4sgcinaBc2Hrjcf19CE.1
> 
>   Meeting ID: 846 9687 7321
> 
>   Passcode: 514697
> 
>   ---
> 
>   One tap mobile
> 
>   +16699006833,,84696877321#,,,,*514697# US (San Jose)
> 
>   +16694449171,,84696877321#,,,,*514697# US
> 
>   ---
> 
>   Join by SIP
> 
>   o 84696877321 at zoomcrc.com
> 
>   Join instructions
> 
>   https://us06web.zoom.us/meetings/84696877321/invitations?signature=SGhAxo5NlUgPjUjid0Mi5wwhyeNDmBi2vLiOyAlJbtw
> _______________________________________________
> Nfbc-sj mailing list
> Nfbc-sj at nfbcal.org
> https://nfbcal.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/nfbc-sj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbcal.org/pipermail/nfbc-sj/attachments/20260814/4afc2e1a/attachment.htm>

From buhrow at nfbcal.org  Sat Aug 15 17:25:49 2026
From: buhrow at nfbcal.org (Brian Buhrow)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 17:25:49 -0700
Subject: [Nfbc-sj] JOINING THE SAN DIEGO CHAPTER IN RESPONDING TO THE LA
 TIMES ARTICLE REGARDING META GLASSES
Message-ID: <202608160025.67G0PnJr010221@nfbcal.org>

	Hello.  Following up on today's discussion regarding joining the San Diego Chapter in
responding to a Los Angeles Times article regarding the  
growing baklash with respect to Meta Glasses and privacy issues.  

We took a vote and as a chapter we would like to become a co-signer to the letter.


Below are the e-mail messages from Julia, President of the San Diego Chapter, with a copy of
the letter from the chapter first, followed by the original  story. this makes for a very long
e-mail message, so be patient and scroll!  It's all here.

I'm including the e-mail addressfor Julia.  

Sincerely,

Brian Buhrow,Secretary, NFB San Jose/Silicon Valey Chapter.


From: "Julia Cardenas via groups.io" <julia.cardenas03=gmail.com at groups.io>
To: "NFB of California Presidents List Serve" <nfbofca at groups.io>
Cc: "Jerrod Harrison" <jerrodharrison at gmail.com>
Subject: [nfbofca] Request for Chapter Support: Response to LA Times Article on SMartglasses
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:09:01 -0700

   Dear Fellow Chapter Leaders,
   I am reaching out to see whether your chapter would be interested in
   joining the San Diego Chapter in responding to a recent Los Angeles
   Times article concerning growing public anxiety about Meta's AI smart
   glasses and their use in public spaces.
   Los Angeles Times article: "Fear and backlash build over smart glasses
   and privacy"
   Read the Los Angeles Times article
   ([1]https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-08-07/pervert-glasses-b
   acklash-against-metas-smart-glasses-grows?utm_source=chatgpt.com)?
   The article raises legitimate privacy issues and the potential misuse
   of recording technology, which we certainly recognize. However, we are
   troubled by the broader implications of coverage that focuses heavily
   on those issues without adequately addressing the significant
   accessibility benefits that smart glasses are providing for blind
   people. As these devices become increasingly useful for reading menus
   and signs, identifying objects, obtaining information about our
   surroundings, and navigating independently; growing public stigma or
   blanket bans could create significant barriers for blind people who
   rely on them.
   We believe a response is warranted--not to minimize legitimate privacy
   issues but to encourage a more balanced conversation that recognizes
   both privacy and accessibility. In particular, we believe businesses
   that are considering blanket prohibitions on smart glasses should
   reconsider how those policies could affect blind customers who use the
   devices as accessibility aids.
   The San Diego Chapter has prepared the draft email below, which we
   intend to send to the Times reporter, Queenie Wong. We would be pleased
   to have other California chapters join us in signing the email if they
   share these views.
   If your chapter is interested in signing on, please let me know. We
   welcome any suggestions you may have for strengthening the email.
   Additionally, if the reporter follows up, we'd welcome any members of
   your chapter to share their personal experiences with smart glasses.
   I believe there is value in presenting a coordinated voice on this
   issue. The public conversation surrounding smart glasses is developing
   quickly, and it is important that the perspectives of blind people who
   use this technology not be left out of it.
   Thank you for considering this and I look forward to hearing from you.
   We will plan to move forward with sending Ms. Wong our response on
   Monday.
   Best regards,
   Jerrod Harrison
   Vice President
   National Federation of the Blind of California, San Diego

   *********


   A Call for a Fuller Conversation Regarding Smart Glasses, Privacy, and
   Accessibility


   Dear Ms. Wong:
   I am writing on behalf of the San Diego Chapter of the National
   Federation of the Blind of California regarding your August 7 article,
   "Fear and backlash build over smart glasses and privacy." We appreciate
   the legitimate privacy concerns your reporting raises. No one should be
   secretly recorded, harassed, or exploited without their knowledge or
   consent, and the misuse of recording technology deserves serious
   scrutiny.
   At the same time, we are concerned that the article's emphasis on the
   abusive use of smart glasses, coupled with its discussion of businesses
   banning them, does not sufficiently address another important dimension
   of this technology: accessibility.
   For many blind people, smart glasses are not novelty gadgets or tools
   for surreptitiously recording strangers. They are rapidly becoming a
   powerful accessibility aid that provides information about the world
   around them. A blind person can use them to read a menu, identify an
   object, read signage, obtain information about their surroundings, and
   navigate unfamiliar environments. In many respects, the camera and
   artificial intelligence built into these devices can function as an
   additional sensory interface, helping a blind person access information
   that sighted people obtain simply by looking.
   The benefits are not merely theoretical. KTLA recently reported that
   the Braille Institute in Los Angeles is teaching blind people to use
   smart glasses and their built-in artificial intelligence to make daily
   life easier and more independent. Among other benefits, the technology
   can allow blind users to obtain information while keeping their hands
   free for mobility--a particularly important advantage for someone
   navigating with a white cane. This illustrates how smart glasses can
   complement rather than replace established blindness aids and
   techniques.
   For someone who relies on this technology, a blanket prohibition on
   smart glasses in public establishments could lead to being denied
   access to the same information that sighted customers take for granted.
   That is not merely an inconvenience; it can directly affect a person's
   ability to participate independently in ordinary public life.

   This is why the growing stigma surrounding these devices concerns us.
   We should absolutely have a public conversation about privacy but that
   conversation must distinguish between abusive conduct and legitimate
   use--including disability-related uses. Otherwise, well-intentioned
   efforts to protect privacy may inadvertently create new barriers for
   people with disabilities.
   The businesses discussed in your article that have prohibited smart
   glasses raise an especially important question: Would those same
   businesses prohibit a blind customer from using smart glasses to read a
   menu, identify a restroom, chat with  friends, notify staff, navigate
   the establishment, or otherwise obtain information necessary to use
   their services? If the answer is no, how will they ensure that policies
   concerning smart glasses do not become barriers to equal access for
   blind customers?
   The significance of this issue extends well beyond a small group of
   technology enthusiasts. In June, Meta announced that more than 130,000
   legally blind American veterans would be eligible to receive Ray-Ban
   Meta smart glasses at no cost, with training provided in partnership
   with the Blinded Veterans Association and other organizations serving
   people with vision loss. Whatever one's views of Meta or its products,
   the scale of this initiative underscores the growing recognition that
   AI-enabled smart glasses can serve as an important accessibility
   function.
   The San Diego Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
   California includes blind people who use smart glasses as accessibility
   tools. They can provide a firsthand perspective on both the
   extraordinary benefits of this technology as well as the challenges
   that occur when those benefits are overshadowed by concerns of misuse.
   We hope the Times will consider expanding its coverage to include the
   voices of blind people who utilize this emerging technology. Privacy
   and accessibility need not be competing values. A responsible
   conversation about smart glasses should make room for both--and should
   recognize that a device that can be misused by one person may
   simultaneously provide life-changing independence to another.
   Sincerely,
   Julia Cardenas
   President
   National Federation of the Blind of California, San Diego Chapter


   Jerrod Harrison
   Vice President
   National Federation of the Blind of California, San Diego



   Sincerely,

   Julia Cardenas (she/her)

   President, NFBC San Diego Chapter

   Secretary, National Federation of the Blind of California Affiliate

   [2]Julia.cardenas03 at gmail.com

   619.884.3930


   1. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-08-07/pervert-glasses-backlash-against-metas-smart-glasses-grows?utm_source=chatgpt.com%29



From: "Julia Cardenas via groups.io" <julia.cardenas03=gmail.com at groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nfbofca] Request for Chapter Support: Response to LA Times Article on SMartglasses
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 07:32:49 -0700

   Thanks Tim for your response. My VP was bothered by the article. I
   understand your reasoning.

     On Aug 14, 2026, at 10:45PM, nfbdbpresident via groups.io
     <nfbdbpresident=mamines.org at groups.io> wrote:

   ?

   Hello, I respectfully don't think this article has anything to do with
   blindness and or the Federation. And that someone can enlighten me and
   show me in the article where there is the concern this article has
   nothing to do with us and on the surface of it I don't see the state
   affiliate or the national office paying any concern to this article

   Now if this article says something that directly says that this is a
   problem for blind people a.k.a. something that looks like it's
   something that smacks of discrimination and our public hostility
   towards the line etc. then certainly when you jump in and and write the
   record and inform the public but at this time I see nothing to do here
   I hope this helps

   On Aug 14, 2026, at 23:47, Julia Cardenas via groups.io
   <julia.cardenas03=gmail.com at groups.io> wrote:

   Dear Fellow Chapter Leaders,

   As a follow-up to my previous email, it was pointed out that some
   people may not be able to access the Los Angeles Times article through
   the link we originally provided. I have therefore included the article
   below for anyone who would like to review it.

   There was also a suggestion that this response might be more effective
   coming from the state affiliate or the national organization. We
   certainly agree that this is an issue that merits consideration at
   those levels. Our initial thought was that, because this particular
   article was published by a Southern California newspaper, a response
   from locally based NFB organizations would be a useful first step in
   letting the reporter know that blind people in the region are paying
   attention to this issue and have a perspective that should be included.

   At the same time, we believe this issue extends well beyond this
   particular article. Other news and media organizations, including The
   Guardian, Forbes, NBC News, and even Jimmy Kimmel, have recently
   produced coverage focusing on similar concerns about smart glasses. We
   believe this broader trend merits a response from the blindness
   community, and that this initial effort could serve as a starting point
   for broader advocacy by the state affiliate and potentially the
   national organization.

   Thank you again for the thoughtful suggestions, and I welcome any
   additional thoughts about how we can most effectively move this issue
   forward.

   Best regards,

   Julia C?rdenas

   President

   National Federation of the Blind of California, San Diego
   Chapter public from Meta`s product.

     On Aug 14, 2026, at 4:22PM, Julia Cardenas
     via [1]groups.io<[2]julia.cardenas03=gmail.com at groups.io> wrote:

   ?
   Hello all,
   Please find below the text for the article regarding the smart glasses.
   Thanks David for letting me know that the link does not direct you to
   the article.
   "Fear and backlash build over smart glasses and privacy"
   Meta's AI smart glasses face mounting backlash, with viral pickup and
   prank videos secretly filming women and strangers in gyms, clubs,
   campuses and even bedrooms without consent.
   Privacy fears are driving bans from Seattle cafes to courtrooms and
   universities, while Meta moves to add safeguards as civil liberties
   groups demand limits on facial recognition and data use.
   Meta wants its smart glasses to be a big hit, but the high-tech specs
   have also turned into a liability, as some are calling the gadget
   "pervert glasses."
   The social media giant dominates the market for smart glasses, which
   allow people to capture photos and videos, listen to music, take phone
   calls and ask questions to an artificial intelligence assistant.
   Some people are using the glasses -- which look like a pair of regular
   spectacles -- to record people without their knowledge and publish the
   videos on social media.
   The users secretly videotape and share what happens when they try to
   pick up women. Now, a growing number of people are worried they could
   be covertly recorded at the gym or even during sex.
   While Meta's glasses have a flashing white light on their frames to
   notify people they're being recorded, some users have been hiding or
   disabling the light by hiring people to drill into their eyewear so
   they can record in stealth mode.
   The backlash has prompted Meta to update its glasses to address privacy
   concerns, and some places have banned them, adding to the angst
   surrounding technology that's rapidly evolving. It's too early to tell
   whether the criticism will dent sales of smart glasses, said Jitesh
   Ubrani, a director at the market research company IDC.
   "A headline cycle like this is exactly the kind of thing that could
   slow momentum with mainstream buyers, even if early adopters don't
   blink," he said.
   Artificial intelligence seems to be popping up everywhere, fueling the
   advancement of hardware beyond the smartphone but also debate about its
   use.
   "We're at a very sensitive time for the tech industry in terms of
   trying to really preserve that positive consumer sentiment that's
   taking a bit of a hit due to AI, and it's absolutely applicable to
   smart glasses," said Jacob Bourne, a technology analyst at eMarketer.
   With tech giants such as Apple, Google, Samsung and Snap working on or
   planning to release high-tech eyewear, they too will have to navigate
   privacy concerns surrounding smart glasses. But more than two-thirds of
   the smart glasses being sold were made by Meta.
   Gaby Luisa was standing outside a dance club in Arizona earlier this
   summer when a man wearing glasses threw out a pickup line.
   "Did I just run into my future wife?" he asked.
   She politely let him know she wasn't interested and moved on with her
   evening.
   She was shocked to find out later that their interaction was recorded
   and posted
   on YouTube without her knowledge or permission, using smart glasses
   that, she said, looked like Meta's glasses.
   "It's really weird to monetize off of people, and they're not even
   aware that they're being recorded," she said in an interview.
   Meta sells smart glasses online and at major retailers like
   LensCrafters and Best Buy. Prices range from roughly $224 to $800
   depending on the version. The company has been opening new Meta Lab
   stores in Los Angeles and other cities, and has has teamed up with
   Ray-Ban, Oakley and well-known celebrities such as Kylie Jenner and
   Jennie from the popular K-pop group Blackpink to sell them. "
   "Meta made up approximately 69% of the smart glasses market in the
   first quarter of this year, according to IDC. That quarter, the global
   market value of certain types of smart glasses more than tripled from a
   year earlier.
   Concern about the glasses has exploded as more videos of interactions
   with people who don't know they're being recorded go viral on social
   media.
   On Instagram, some videos depict people getting approached in malls and
   grocery stores and on college campuses and sidewalks. While the videos
   are portrayed as jokes, the people filmed don't appear to know they're
   being recorded and sometimes seem uncomfortable, telling the strangers
   to leave them alone or stop harassing them."
   The outcry has spread beyond social media, with comedian Jimmy Kimmel
   calling the Meta devices "pervert glasses" on national television and
   singer Lorde telling concertgoers that smart glasses are "not sexy."
   "A spokesperson for Meta said people use its AI glasses because they're
   "genuinely helpful" for tasks such as listening to music, live
   translation or hands-free calls. Meta last month updated the software
   in its smart glasses so cameras get disabled if they've been tampered
   with. Meta plans to strengthen these protections as the glasses become
   more capable.
   "The people who use them and those around them need to trust them.
   That's why we built privacy into our AI glasses from the ground up,"
   the spokesperson said in a statement. "
   Instagram, which is owned by Meta, has been disabling accounts and
   taking down some of these pickup or prank videos for violating the
   platform's rules against harassment and bullying.
   "In April, the American Civil Liberties Union and more than 70
   organizations sent a letter to Meta urging the company to commit to not
   releasing any facial recognition features in smart glasses and
   elsewhere, noting it poses a "serious threat to privacy and civil
   liberties."
   A spokesperson said that "no final decision has been made" and that
   Meta will approach the rollout of any new feature thoughtfully and
   transparently.
   Smart glasses have faced public backlash before.
   More than a decade ago, early adopters of Google Glass encountered
   criticism if they used the $1,500 pair of smart glasses in socially
   unacceptable ways, such as secretly recording people and staring off
   into space while they browsed websites. Their nickname: Glassholes.
   Snap, which unveiled more powerful $2,195 augmented-reality glasses
   this year, sold video-recording glasses in bright yellow vending
   machines in 2016, but the product flopped.
   The revolt brewing against smart glasses has made some users more wary
   about where they're wearing the gadget and potential awkward
   encounters.
   Ben Cook, a New York creator who posts about watches on TikTok, uses
   his Meta smart glasses to listen to music on runs and take hands-free
   calls. Family and friends, though, have asked if his "spy glasses" are
   recording.
   "I don't wear them to social events because I don't really want to get
   into that conversation," he said. "I'm not using it to record anybody."
   "During a high-profile social media addiction trial in February at the
   Los Angeles County Superior Court, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl warned people
   in the courtroom to take off any smart glasses, raising concerns that
   the jury could be identified. Use of recording devices, including
   phones, isn't generally allowed in courtrooms.
   Last year, the University of San Francisco issued a safety advisory
   about a man wearing Meta Ray-Ban sunglasses who was approaching women
   with "unwanted comments and inappropriate dating questions." The man
   might have been trying to post pickup videos on social media platforms,
   the notice said.
   Businesses are making their own calls about smart glasses. The 5 Point
   Cafe in Seattle, which banned Google Glass in the past, has banned Meta
   glasses from its diner and dive bar.
   "Leave your Meta-SpyBan Display at home, they are officially
   Ray-Ban-ned from all of our restaurants. We serve privacy, not side-eye
   surveillance," a 2025 Instagram post from the business states. The
   restaurant also doesn't allow people to talk on their phones inside."
   "Meanwhile, people are finding new ways to figure out whether others
   nearby are wearing smart glasses.
   Yves Jeanrenaud created an app to alert people if smart glasses could
   be nearby after learning about people being recorded without their
   knowledge. Released in February, the app has roughly 110,000 downloads
   on Android, with most of the users in the United States and Canada, he
   said. Users who have downloaded his app include a strip club owner, a
   Buddhist monk and parents.
   "It's a social problem that we encounter," Jeanrenaud said. "That we
   don't value privacy, that we feel entitled to use others for our
   entertainment or our private gain, and technology amplifies that."
   Jeanrenaud, who lives in Germany, has used his app, Nearby Glasses, and
   received an alert about smart glasses on a train, though he couldn't
   figure out who was wearing them."


From cdrobles693 at gmail.com  Sat Aug 15 18:52:29 2026
From: cdrobles693 at gmail.com (Chela Robles)
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 18:52:29 -0700
Subject: [Nfbc-sj] JOINING THE SAN DIEGO CHAPTER IN RESPONDING TO THE LA
 TIMES ARTICLE REGARDING META GLASSES
In-Reply-To: <202608160025.67G0PnJr010221@nfbcal.org>
References: <202608160025.67G0PnJr010221@nfbcal.org>
Message-ID: <91E65E7F-E37A-4714-90CB-AC2B4E04A014@gmail.com>

I agree Brian with regards to the Meta glasses being an accessibility tool in our everyday access tech arsenal in our tool box to further our independence which is ultimately our right to gain the necessary info we need sighted people like that reporter pretty much in my opinion take for granted. I sure don't wish blindness on them but however, I do wish they can see from our POV., being that we are in the blind community, they're only seeing one side of the coin. Trust me, I always have to explain to some ultra-conservatives in my family that AI isn't all evil. It may hallucinate from time to time and given that some bad people might use it for obvious reasons it?s not always the case, especially among our community, all this to say, while I see their point, their elinimination of seeing the good usage is outweighed and yes we need to fix that. I find the glasses quite useful for me and what I use it for from day to day.
Sincerely,
Chela Robles ? Certified Literary Braille Transcriber
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 15, 2026, at 5:26?PM, Brian Buhrow <buhrow at nfbcal.org> wrote:

?    Hello.  Following up on today's discussion regarding joining the San Diego Chapter in
responding to a Los Angeles Times article regarding the  
growing baklash with respect to Meta Glasses and privacy issues.  

We took a vote and as a chapter we would like to become a co-signer to the letter.


Below are the e-mail messages from Julia, President of the San Diego Chapter, with a copy of
the letter from the chapter first, followed by the original  story. this makes for a very long
e-mail message, so be patient and scroll!  It's all here.

I'm including the e-mail addressfor Julia.  

Sincerely,

Brian Buhrow,Secretary, NFB San Jose/Silicon Valey Chapter.


From: "Julia Cardenas via groups.io" <julia.cardenas03=gmail.com at groups.io>
To: "NFB of California Presidents List Serve" <nfbofca at groups.io>
Cc: "Jerrod Harrison" <jerrodharrison at gmail.com>
Subject: [nfbofca] Request for Chapter Support: Response to LA Times Article on SMartglasses
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:09:01 -0700

  Dear Fellow Chapter Leaders,
  I am reaching out to see whether your chapter would be interested in
  joining the San Diego Chapter in responding to a recent Los Angeles
  Times article concerning growing public anxiety about Meta's AI smart
  glasses and their use in public spaces.
  Los Angeles Times article: "Fear and backlash build over smart glasses
  and privacy"
  Read the Los Angeles Times article
  ([1]https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-08-07/pervert-glasses-b
  acklash-against-metas-smart-glasses-grows?utm_source=chatgpt.com) 
  The article raises legitimate privacy issues and the potential misuse
  of recording technology, which we certainly recognize. However, we are
  troubled by the broader implications of coverage that focuses heavily
  on those issues without adequately addressing the significant
  accessibility benefits that smart glasses are providing for blind
  people. As these devices become increasingly useful for reading menus
  and signs, identifying objects, obtaining information about our
  surroundings, and navigating independently; growing public stigma or
  blanket bans could create significant barriers for blind people who
  rely on them.
  We believe a response is warranted--not to minimize legitimate privacy
  issues but to encourage a more balanced conversation that recognizes
  both privacy and accessibility. In particular, we believe businesses
  that are considering blanket prohibitions on smart glasses should
  reconsider how those policies could affect blind customers who use the
  devices as accessibility aids.
  The San Diego Chapter has prepared the draft email below, which we
  intend to send to the Times reporter, Queenie Wong. We would be pleased
  to have other California chapters join us in signing the email if they
  share these views.
  If your chapter is interested in signing on, please let me know. We
  welcome any suggestions you may have for strengthening the email.
  Additionally, if the reporter follows up, we'd welcome any members of
  your chapter to share their personal experiences with smart glasses.
  I believe there is value in presenting a coordinated voice on this
  issue. The public conversation surrounding smart glasses is developing
  quickly, and it is important that the perspectives of blind people who
  use this technology not be left out of it.
  Thank you for considering this and I look forward to hearing from you.
  We will plan to move forward with sending Ms. Wong our response on
  Monday.
  Best regards,
  Jerrod Harrison
  Vice President
  National Federation of the Blind of California, San Diego

  *********


  A Call for a Fuller Conversation Regarding Smart Glasses, Privacy, and
  Accessibility


  Dear Ms. Wong:
  I am writing on behalf of the San Diego Chapter of the National
  Federation of the Blind of California regarding your August 7 article,
  "Fear and backlash build over smart glasses and privacy." We appreciate
  the legitimate privacy concerns your reporting raises. No one should be
  secretly recorded, harassed, or exploited without their knowledge or
  consent, and the misuse of recording technology deserves serious
  scrutiny.
  At the same time, we are concerned that the article's emphasis on the
  abusive use of smart glasses, coupled with its discussion of businesses
  banning them, does not sufficiently address another important dimension
  of this technology: accessibility.
  For many blind people, smart glasses are not novelty gadgets or tools
  for surreptitiously recording strangers. They are rapidly becoming a
  powerful accessibility aid that provides information about the world
  around them. A blind person can use them to read a menu, identify an
  object, read signage, obtain information about their surroundings, and
  navigate unfamiliar environments. In many respects, the camera and
  artificial intelligence built into these devices can function as an
  additional sensory interface, helping a blind person access information
  that sighted people obtain simply by looking.
  The benefits are not merely theoretical. KTLA recently reported that
  the Braille Institute in Los Angeles is teaching blind people to use
  smart glasses and their built-in artificial intelligence to make daily
  life easier and more independent. Among other benefits, the technology
  can allow blind users to obtain information while keeping their hands
  free for mobility--a particularly important advantage for someone
  navigating with a white cane. This illustrates how smart glasses can
  complement rather than replace established blindness aids and
  techniques.
  For someone who relies on this technology, a blanket prohibition on
  smart glasses in public establishments could lead to being denied
  access to the same information that sighted customers take for granted.
  That is not merely an inconvenience; it can directly affect a person's
  ability to participate independently in ordinary public life.

  This is why the growing stigma surrounding these devices concerns us.
  We should absolutely have a public conversation about privacy but that
  conversation must distinguish between abusive conduct and legitimate
  use--including disability-related uses. Otherwise, well-intentioned
  efforts to protect privacy may inadvertently create new barriers for
  people with disabilities.
  The businesses discussed in your article that have prohibited smart
  glasses raise an especially important question: Would those same
  businesses prohibit a blind customer from using smart glasses to read a
  menu, identify a restroom, chat with  friends, notify staff, navigate
  the establishment, or otherwise obtain information necessary to use
  their services? If the answer is no, how will they ensure that policies
  concerning smart glasses do not become barriers to equal access for
  blind customers?
  The significance of this issue extends well beyond a small group of
  technology enthusiasts. In June, Meta announced that more than 130,000
  legally blind American veterans would be eligible to receive Ray-Ban
  Meta smart glasses at no cost, with training provided in partnership
  with the Blinded Veterans Association and other organizations serving
  people with vision loss. Whatever one's views of Meta or its products,
  the scale of this initiative underscores the growing recognition that
  AI-enabled smart glasses can serve as an important accessibility
  function.
  The San Diego Chapter of the National Federation of the Blind of
  California includes blind people who use smart glasses as accessibility
  tools. They can provide a firsthand perspective on both the
  extraordinary benefits of this technology as well as the challenges
  that occur when those benefits are overshadowed by concerns of misuse.
  We hope the Times will consider expanding its coverage to include the
  voices of blind people who utilize this emerging technology. Privacy
  and accessibility need not be competing values. A responsible
  conversation about smart glasses should make room for both--and should
  recognize that a device that can be misused by one person may
  simultaneously provide life-changing independence to another.
  Sincerely,
  Julia Cardenas
  President
  National Federation of the Blind of California, San Diego Chapter


  Jerrod Harrison
  Vice President
  National Federation of the Blind of California, San Diego



  Sincerely,

  Julia Cardenas (she/her)

  President, NFBC San Diego Chapter

  Secretary, National Federation of the Blind of California Affiliate

  [2]Julia.cardenas03 at gmail.com

  619.884.3930


  1. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2026-08-07/pervert-glasses-backlash-against-metas-smart-glasses-grows?utm_source=chatgpt.com%29



From: "Julia Cardenas via groups.io" <julia.cardenas03=gmail.com at groups.io>
Subject: Re: [nfbofca] Request for Chapter Support: Response to LA Times Article on SMartglasses
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2026 07:32:49 -0700

  Thanks Tim for your response. My VP was bothered by the article. I
  understand your reasoning.

    On Aug 14, 2026, at 10:45PM, nfbdbpresident via groups.io
    <nfbdbpresident=mamines.org at groups.io> wrote:

  ?

  Hello, I respectfully don't think this article has anything to do with
  blindness and or the Federation. And that someone can enlighten me and
  show me in the article where there is the concern this article has
  nothing to do with us and on the surface of it I don't see the state
  affiliate or the national office paying any concern to this article

  Now if this article says something that directly says that this is a
  problem for blind people a.k.a. something that looks like it's
  something that smacks of discrimination and our public hostility
  towards the line etc. then certainly when you jump in and and write the
  record and inform the public but at this time I see nothing to do here
  I hope this helps

  On Aug 14, 2026, at 23:47, Julia Cardenas via groups.io
  <julia.cardenas03=gmail.com at groups.io> wrote:

  Dear Fellow Chapter Leaders,

  As a follow-up to my previous email, it was pointed out that some
  people may not be able to access the Los Angeles Times article through
  the link we originally provided. I have therefore included the article
  below for anyone who would like to review it.

  There was also a suggestion that this response might be more effective
  coming from the state affiliate or the national organization. We
  certainly agree that this is an issue that merits consideration at
  those levels. Our initial thought was that, because this particular
  article was published by a Southern California newspaper, a response
  from locally based NFB organizations would be a useful first step in
  letting the reporter know that blind people in the region are paying
  attention to this issue and have a perspective that should be included.

  At the same time, we believe this issue extends well beyond this
  particular article. Other news and media organizations, including The
  Guardian, Forbes, NBC News, and even Jimmy Kimmel, have recently
  produced coverage focusing on similar concerns about smart glasses. We
  believe this broader trend merits a response from the blindness
  community, and that this initial effort could serve as a starting point
  for broader advocacy by the state affiliate and potentially the
  national organization.

  Thank you again for the thoughtful suggestions, and I welcome any
  additional thoughts about how we can most effectively move this issue
  forward.

  Best regards,

  Julia C?rdenas

  President

  National Federation of the Blind of California, San Diego
  Chapter public from Meta`s product.

    On Aug 14, 2026, at 4:22PM, Julia Cardenas
    via [1]groups.io<[2]julia.cardenas03=gmail.com at groups.io> wrote:

  ?
  Hello all,
  Please find below the text for the article regarding the smart glasses.
  Thanks David for letting me know that the link does not direct you to
  the article.
  "Fear and backlash build over smart glasses and privacy"
  Meta's AI smart glasses face mounting backlash, with viral pickup and
  prank videos secretly filming women and strangers in gyms, clubs,
  campuses and even bedrooms without consent.
  Privacy fears are driving bans from Seattle cafes to courtrooms and
  universities, while Meta moves to add safeguards as civil liberties
  groups demand limits on facial recognition and data use.
  Meta wants its smart glasses to be a big hit, but the high-tech specs
  have also turned into a liability, as some are calling the gadget
  "pervert glasses."
  The social media giant dominates the market for smart glasses, which
  allow people to capture photos and videos, listen to music, take phone
  calls and ask questions to an artificial intelligence assistant.
  Some people are using the glasses -- which look like a pair of regular
  spectacles -- to record people without their knowledge and publish the
  videos on social media.
  The users secretly videotape and share what happens when they try to
  pick up women. Now, a growing number of people are worried they could
  be covertly recorded at the gym or even during sex.
  While Meta's glasses have a flashing white light on their frames to
  notify people they're being recorded, some users have been hiding or
  disabling the light by hiring people to drill into their eyewear so
  they can record in stealth mode.
  The backlash has prompted Meta to update its glasses to address privacy
  concerns, and some places have banned them, adding to the angst
  surrounding technology that's rapidly evolving. It's too early to tell
  whether the criticism will dent sales of smart glasses, said Jitesh
  Ubrani, a director at the market research company IDC.
  "A headline cycle like this is exactly the kind of thing that could
  slow momentum with mainstream buyers, even if early adopters don't
  blink," he said.
  Artificial intelligence seems to be popping up everywhere, fueling the
  advancement of hardware beyond the smartphone but also debate about its
  use.
  "We're at a very sensitive time for the tech industry in terms of
  trying to really preserve that positive consumer sentiment that's
  taking a bit of a hit due to AI, and it's absolutely applicable to
  smart glasses," said Jacob Bourne, a technology analyst at eMarketer.
  With tech giants such as Apple, Google, Samsung and Snap working on or
  planning to release high-tech eyewear, they too will have to navigate
  privacy concerns surrounding smart glasses. But more than two-thirds of
  the smart glasses being sold were made by Meta.
  Gaby Luisa was standing outside a dance club in Arizona earlier this
  summer when a man wearing glasses threw out a pickup line.
  "Did I just run into my future wife?" he asked.
  She politely let him know she wasn't interested and moved on with her
  evening.
  She was shocked to find out later that their interaction was recorded
  and posted
  on YouTube without her knowledge or permission, using smart glasses
  that, she said, looked like Meta's glasses.
  "It's really weird to monetize off of people, and they're not even
  aware that they're being recorded," she said in an interview.
  Meta sells smart glasses online and at major retailers like
  LensCrafters and Best Buy. Prices range from roughly $224 to $800
  depending on the version. The company has been opening new Meta Lab
  stores in Los Angeles and other cities, and has has teamed up with
  Ray-Ban, Oakley and well-known celebrities such as Kylie Jenner and
  Jennie from the popular K-pop group Blackpink to sell them. "
  "Meta made up approximately 69% of the smart glasses market in the
  first quarter of this year, according to IDC. That quarter, the global
  market value of certain types of smart glasses more than tripled from a
  year earlier.
  Concern about the glasses has exploded as more videos of interactions
  with people who don't know they're being recorded go viral on social
  media.
  On Instagram, some videos depict people getting approached in malls and
  grocery stores and on college campuses and sidewalks. While the videos
  are portrayed as jokes, the people filmed don't appear to know they're
  being recorded and sometimes seem uncomfortable, telling the strangers
  to leave them alone or stop harassing them."
  The outcry has spread beyond social media, with comedian Jimmy Kimmel
  calling the Meta devices "pervert glasses" on national television and
  singer Lorde telling concertgoers that smart glasses are "not sexy."
  "A spokesperson for Meta said people use its AI glasses because they're
  "genuinely helpful" for tasks such as listening to music, live
  translation or hands-free calls. Meta last month updated the software
  in its smart glasses so cameras get disabled if they've been tampered
  with. Meta plans to strengthen these protections as the glasses become
  more capable.
  "The people who use them and those around them need to trust them.
  That's why we built privacy into our AI glasses from the ground up,"
  the spokesperson said in a statement. "
  Instagram, which is owned by Meta, has been disabling accounts and
  taking down some of these pickup or prank videos for violating the
  platform's rules against harassment and bullying.
  "In April, the American Civil Liberties Union and more than 70
  organizations sent a letter to Meta urging the company to commit to not
  releasing any facial recognition features in smart glasses and
  elsewhere, noting it poses a "serious threat to privacy and civil
  liberties."
  A spokesperson said that "no final decision has been made" and that
  Meta will approach the rollout of any new feature thoughtfully and
  transparently.
  Smart glasses have faced public backlash before.
  More than a decade ago, early adopters of Google Glass encountered
  criticism if they used the $1,500 pair of smart glasses in socially
  unacceptable ways, such as secretly recording people and staring off
  into space while they browsed websites. Their nickname: Glassholes.
  Snap, which unveiled more powerful $2,195 augmented-reality glasses
  this year, sold video-recording glasses in bright yellow vending
  machines in 2016, but the product flopped.
  The revolt brewing against smart glasses has made some users more wary
  about where they're wearing the gadget and potential awkward
  encounters.
  Ben Cook, a New York creator who posts about watches on TikTok, uses
  his Meta smart glasses to listen to music on runs and take hands-free
  calls. Family and friends, though, have asked if his "spy glasses" are
  recording.
  "I don't wear them to social events because I don't really want to get
  into that conversation," he said. "I'm not using it to record anybody."
  "During a high-profile social media addiction trial in February at the
  Los Angeles County Superior Court, Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl warned people
  in the courtroom to take off any smart glasses, raising concerns that
  the jury could be identified. Use of recording devices, including
  phones, isn't generally allowed in courtrooms.
  Last year, the University of San Francisco issued a safety advisory
  about a man wearing Meta Ray-Ban sunglasses who was approaching women
  with "unwanted comments and inappropriate dating questions." The man
  might have been trying to post pickup videos on social media platforms,
  the notice said.
  Businesses are making their own calls about smart glasses. The 5 Point
  Cafe in Seattle, which banned Google Glass in the past, has banned Meta
  glasses from its diner and dive bar.
  "Leave your Meta-SpyBan Display at home, they are officially
  Ray-Ban-ned from all of our restaurants. We serve privacy, not side-eye
  surveillance," a 2025 Instagram post from the business states. The
  restaurant also doesn't allow people to talk on their phones inside."
  "Meanwhile, people are finding new ways to figure out whether others
  nearby are wearing smart glasses.
  Yves Jeanrenaud created an app to alert people if smart glasses could
  be nearby after learning about people being recorded without their
  knowledge. Released in February, the app has roughly 110,000 downloads
  on Android, with most of the users in the United States and Canada, he
  said. Users who have downloaded his app include a strip club owner, a
  Buddhist monk and parents.
  "It's a social problem that we encounter," Jeanrenaud said. "That we
  don't value privacy, that we feel entitled to use others for our
  entertainment or our private gain, and technology amplifies that."
  Jeanrenaud, who lives in Germany, has used his app, Nearby Glasses, and
  received an alert about smart glasses on a train, though he couldn't
  figure out who was wearing them."

_______________________________________________
Nfbc-sj mailing list
Nfbc-sj at nfbcal.org
https://nfbcal.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/nfbc-sj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbcal.org/pipermail/nfbc-sj/attachments/20260815/9b2e767e/attachment-0001.htm>