The Light Was Only Ever Notice for People Who Could See It

Kelly Schulz, who is blind, wrote this month that smart glasses didn't invent the privacy problem. Cameras have occupied phones and doorbells for decades, as well as cars and novelty objects. Glasses change how little choreography recording requires and how hard the act is for nearby people to read.

Schulz has never reliably known whether a camera was pointed at her. The visual cue treated elsewhere in this debate as a safeguard was unavailable to her from the outset. The light protected sighted bystanders. Smart glasses removed enough of its remaining friction for sighted people to encounter a gap that blind people already knew.

Proposals for brighter indicators and physical covers depend on visual legibility. People who cannot see the signal receive no notice from either.

An LED is designed to be visible; a cover has to be seen to register. Both improve an old cue for the population that could already use it. Any proposal that stops at optical signalling excludes some of the people it claims to protect.

The same camera Schulz worries may record her can describe a room in real time. It can identify objects and read text aloud. A broad hardware restriction meant to close the privacy gap could also take away those functions.

Notice therefore needs to work through more than one sense. A tone or spoken announcement could reduce reliance on sight, though neither is a complete substitute. Sound gets lost in traffic and disrupts a quiet room; a haptic signal may reach only the wearer. Accessibility testing has to involve the people expected to rely on each cue.

Policy needs the same precision. A school, employer or venue can restrict recording in a particular setting without classifying all assistive eyewear as ordinary consumer equipment. The rule should name the activity being limited, provide an accommodation process and stop relying on what the frames look like.