Written by Laetitia L. Thompson, Digital Access, Training and Inclusion Coordinator at Centre for Accessibility Australia.
My colleague Glenn, Junior Digital Accessibility Analyst, is blind and wears sunglasses regularly, both outside and indoors, because glare can be a problem for him. Not long ago, someone asked him whether the glasses he was wearing were Meta smart glasses. They weren’t, and the question wasn’t aggressive, but the person did suggest that wearing Meta glasses could become a problem because of concerns about people being recorded without knowing it.
Nothing really came of the interaction, but Glenn told me the fact the question was asked at all stuck with him.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons people are uncomfortable with smart glasses. Nobody wants to find out they’ve been recorded without their knowledge, and Meta doesn’t exactly have the best reputation when it comes to how it handles people’s data. Some of the language being used around the glasses, though, has gone much further than criticism of the company. The term “pervert glasses”, for example, has started being used to describe them.
Glenn had the opportunity to try an early pair of Meta glasses. At the time, he didn’t find them much more useful than his phone. The features and battery life were limited, but he can see the potential for people who are blind or have low vision as the technology improves.
Being able to ask a pair of glasses to read text, identify something or describe what is in front of you could be genuinely useful. Some of these things can already be done with phone apps or specialist assistive technology such as OrCam, but specialist technology can be expensive.
Meta glasses are comparatively affordable because they are a mainstream product. They weren’t specifically made for people with disability, but some of the features have turned out to be useful for accessibility.
Glenn pointed out an odd situation this creates in Australia. When a product is considered mainstream, it can become harder to have it funded through the NDIS as assistive technology. So, something can be too mainstream to easily qualify as disability equipment while at the same time becoming socially unacceptable enough that a person with disability might be questioned for wearing it.
My colleague Christopher, Senior Digital Accessibility Analyst, raised a similar concern about the stigma developing around the glasses. He hadn’t heard the term “pervert glasses” before reading a recent Guardian article about the backlash against smart glasses and what it could mean for people with disability. He wondered whether language like that could end up shaming people out of wearing them.
I think there is a difference between saying that secretly recording someone is wrong and assuming someone wearing a particular device is doing something wrong.
You also can’t tell by looking at somebody why they’re wearing smart glasses. Someone might be recording. They might also be trying to read a sign, recognise an object or use voice controls because interacting with a phone is difficult for them. People with disability shouldn’t have to explain themselves to everyone around them just to avoid being viewed with suspicion.
Nicholas, Senior Trainer and Video Production Lead, is much more sceptical about the technology itself, and I think there are good reasons for that too.
He worries that the general public reaction to camera glasses is becoming so negative that people with disability who find them useful could end up dealing with that negativity themselves. That’s probably going to become more of an issue as cheaper versions appear. Kmart, for example, recently started selling camera glasses for less than $100, which wasn’t exactly a popular decision.
Nicholas also raised the question that seems to come up with almost every new piece of AI hardware. Couldn’t this just be an app?
And in a lot of cases, yeah.
Much of what Meta glasses can do can already be done through a smartphone in one way or another. There is also much less stigma around somebody holding up their phone than there currently is around someone wearing glasses with cameras built into them.
The main difference is that the glasses are hands-free, and that’s where I think the “couldn’t you just use your phone?” argument starts to fall down a bit when disability is involved. As an amputee – though not blind – I personally can relate.
For someone who has difficulty holding or physically interacting with a phone, being able to use a device through voice commands could be much more than a convenience.
Of course, hands-free doesn’t mean they’re going to work for everyone. Nicholas pointed out that someone whose speech isn’t easily understood by voice recognition could have trouble using the glasses. Having to speak commands aloud also means anyone standing nearby can potentially hear what you’re asking.
There’s also a bigger question about whether any of this technology is reliable enough to become something people depend on.
Nicholas is pretty sceptical about AI generally and whether the current level of hype and investment can last. We’ve already seen AI products arrive with huge promises and then struggle or disappear. The Rabbit R1 is an obvious example, as are some of the other dedicated AI devices that were supposed to change how we use technology. For someone actually relying on the glasses, though, that’s a pretty big gamble.
What happens if a feature that’s free now ends up behind a subscription in a couple of years? What happens if the company stops supporting it? Or if the online service the glasses depend on disappears?
That’s one thing if you bought them as a gadget. It’s another if they’ve become something you actually depend on.
Nicholas also acknowledged that his view comes from the perspective of someone whose life isn’t really changed by whether this technology exists. I think that’s worth keeping in mind. Those of us who don’t need a particular accessibility feature can have opinions about it, but we probably shouldn’t be the only ones deciding whether it’s useful.
Of course, all of this still leaves us with Meta.
Jordan, Digital Accessibility Analyst, is more concerned about what happens to the information collected by the glasses once it reaches Meta. That’s something I worry about as well, particularly when AI is involved and we don’t always know exactly where that information is going or how it is being used.
I have the privilege of being able to “make a stand” against Meta and simply not buy them. That’s an easier decision when I’m not relying on the glasses to get through my day.
People with disability shouldn’t have to defend Meta just because a Meta product happens to be useful to them.
Jordan also questioned the calls for blanket bans. They might sound like a simple solution, but things get messy pretty quickly once you start thinking about what that would look like in practice.
You could make an exception for people with disability, but that creates its own problems. Would someone have to prove they have a disability before being allowed to wear their glasses somewhere? Who decides whether their reason for using them is good enough? What about people whose disability isn’t obvious?
It would be pretty uncomfortable if the solution involved people with disability having to explain personal information about themselves to staff every time they entered a venue.
The focus on smart glasses also feels a bit strange when you look at what we’ve already accepted as normal.
Jordan pointed out that we’re already surrounded by devices capable of recording us and collecting information. Phones have cameras and microphones. Cars increasingly collect huge amounts of data about drivers and passengers. There are doorbell cameras, dashcams and CCTV cameras everywhere. My personal FBI agent (just let me have this, I know it’s 2026) is probably being forced to sit through yet another Gilmore Girls critique Reel.
That doesn’t mean smart glasses don’t create their own problems, because absolutely, they do. The fact that a camera is sitting on someone’s face and it might not be immediately obvious whether it is recording is different from someone obviously pointing a phone at you.
But we generally don’t assume somebody with a phone in their hand is secretly recording us just because they could be.
I can’t completely dismiss the other side of this either.
I’m a woman, and the idea that someone could be discreetly recording me isn’t something I can pretend doesn’t bother me. Women already have enough reasons to wonder where a photo or video might end up, and cameras that are quite literally sitting on someone’s face add another layer to that.
So, as a woman with disability, what’s my answer to all of this? Honestly, a tired shrug and an “I don’t know, dude.”
I don’t want people with disability treated like creeps for wearing something that might make their lives easier. But I also don’t want to tell women, or anyone else, that they should just get over the possibility of being recorded without knowing it.
I wish I had a better answer for that, but I don’t.
Does all of this make you feel tired? Cuz me too.
I don’t think people who are uncomfortable with smart glasses are ableist. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to be wary of Meta, AI and technology that makes discreet recording easier. I don’t think anyone is deliberately trying to make things harder for people with disability here. But that doesn’t mean that can’t be the end result.
A rule might look fair on paper, but that doesn’t mean it works out that way for everyone. If I have to take off a pair of smart glasses, I’ve probably lost a convenient gadget. If Glenn eventually comes to rely on them, taking them off could mean losing access to something he uses to navigate his day.
At the same time, accessibility doesn’t mean we should ignore the problems with the technology. People with disability deserve something that’s reliable and affordable, and they should be able to trust that something they come to depend on won’t suddenly disappear or end up behind an expensive subscription.
Maybe Meta glasses won’t be the answer. They could disappear along with plenty of other overhyped AI products, or they could turn out to be genuinely useful. Who knows at this point.
But if we’re going to have this conversation, people with disability need to be part of it. They’re the ones who could end up living with whatever rules we come up with.
People shouldn’t be secretly recording other people, and Meta should be much clearer about what happens to the information these glasses collect. I’m sceptical about a lot of the promises being made about AI too.
I just don’t think that suspicion should automatically extend to the person wearing the glasses. Glenn wasn’t even wearing Meta glasses when someone questioned him about them, and I think that says a lot on its own.