[Nfbc-sj] JOINING THE SAN DIEGO CHAPTER IN RESPONDING TO THE LA TIMES ARTICLE REGARDING META GLASSES
Brian Buhrow
buhrow at nfbcal.org
Sat Aug 15 17:25:49 PDT 2026
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 Cárdenas
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."
More information about the Nfbc-sj
mailing list