Smart glasses face criticism. But what do people with sight loss think?
Meta's Ray-Ban model smart glasses (images: Meta.com)
Smart glasses are attracting criticism for what they can record. An allegation reported by Boston police illustrates the risks of camera-equipped eyewear: in an account published on 18 August 2026, police said witnesses had reported a registered sex offender using camera sunglasses to record children at Boston Common Frog Pond, including a family trying to change their children behind towels. The alleged incident occurred on 14 August; police arrested the suspect on a warrant four days later.
Yet camera-equipped glasses can also give people access to information they would otherwise struggle to read. In a BBC report published on 7 October, Darren Paskell, who is visually impaired and works for Guide Dogs, described using smart glasses to read his post and identify jars in his kitchen. He would like to use them more in public, but worries about restrictions on their use.
His experience brings another consequence of the backlash into view. The BBC reports restrictions at some venues, while the Royal National Institute of Blind People warns that bans could leave people with sight loss feeling less safe and excluded. Guide Dogs is asking businesses and venues to consider AI wearables as a reasonable adjustment. That is the charity’s request, rather than a finding that every use must be permitted.
For Carin Hoorn, director of the Dutch Oogvereniging (Eye Association), an organisation representing people with visual impairments, both uses belong in the debate. The risks warrant safeguards, but the capacity to interpret visual information can also make AI smart glasses useful assistive technology for blind and partially sighted people.
Everyday independence
"We hear that people use the glasses for very practical things in everyday life," says Hoorn. "Think of reading street signs, house numbers, menus, product information and instructions for use. The glasses can also describe what is in front of someone or help recognise a product or object."
Another advantage users mention is that they need to ask others for help less often, she adds. "For example, while shopping, someone can request information about products or let someone see remotely through the glasses’ camera.
We have followed an online user group of people with visual impairments. This wasn't scientific research, and the participants are not representative of all people with visual impairments. However, it does paint a good picture of which smart glasses applications users find interesting. What particularly stands out is that the glasses are mainly used for reading, recognising things and obtaining information about the immediate surroundings."
According to Hoorn, it is precisely in all sorts of small, everyday tasks that smart glasses can make a difference. "Reading a street sign, finding a house number, looking at a menu, knowing which product you are holding or reading what the instructions say.
When out and about, the glasses can also supplement a cane or guide dog. If a guide dog stops, someone can, for example, ask what is in front of them. That is additional information, not a replacement for orientation itself, because the glasses can make mistakes and sometimes lag behind what you encounter.
There are also situations in which someone can see remotely through the glasses’ camera. For example, while shopping, a family member or volunteer can help find a product through the glasses. These may be small things, but it is precisely those everyday tasks that largely determine how much you can do independently."
Smart glasses can potentially work for both partially sighted people and people who are completely blind, Hoorn stresses. "It varies from person to person and also depends on what someone can do with their remaining sight. For someone who can still see, the glasses can, for example, supplement information that is difficult to perceive visually. For someone who is completely blind, functions such as reading text aloud and describing the surroundings can play a greater role.
I would therefore not really say that the glasses are suitable for one group but not the other. Needs vary from person to person. The way someone uses the glasses also varies.
It is important, however, that smart glasses are not a replacement for a cane or guide dog. They are a supplement. It is precisely the combination of different aids that can help someone manage more independently."
Hoorn emphasises, however, that the technology is not yet error-free. "Users tell us, for example, that the AI identifies an object incorrectly or confuses left and right. You therefore need to know when you can trust the information from the glasses and when you need to check it.
There are also practical limitations, such as battery life, the cost of the glasses and any apps or mobile data. Not all functions are equally accessible either. One example: the sound from the glasses comes from small speakers in the arms and cannot be sent directly to a hearing aid or cochlear implant. For people who have both sight and hearing impairments, this makes the glasses barely usable in a busy environment.
And there are, of course, privacy risks, which we also recognise and acknowledge. A camera can film others, and AI can analyse images or sound. Clear limits need to be set on that. At the same time, it is important to consider users’ own privacy too. Users want to know where images and other data end up, which parties process them and whether data are stored or forwarded."
Editor’s note: Audio compatibility is specific to the glasses, hearing device, phone and software. A May 2025 review by Helen Keller National Center specialist Scott Davert documented problems routing Ray-Ban Meta audio to hearing aids and cochlear implant processors on iOS. This supports the concern Hoorn raises, but should not be read as a specification applying to every smart-glasses model or software version.
A smartphone can, of course, already do many smart things in support of visually impaired people. "The difference is mainly in how you use the technology. Glasses sit on your head and leave your hands free," Hoorn explains. "You do not first have to take out your phone, point the camera and look at the screen. You can request information while out and about using your cane or, for example, doing your shopping.
In this way, the glasses can supplement existing aids. It is not so much a question of which aid is better. It is about people being able to combine different aids, depending on the situation."
Privacy and access
Smart glasses (such as Meta’s Ray-Ban models, pictured at the top of this page) create major privacy concerns because they blend discreet hardware with AI capabilities.
The Dutch Eye Association believes the privacy concerns are justified. "People should not be filmed, recognised or analysed without their knowledge," Hoorn emphasises. "But we must also avoid making an entire technology unavailable to people who use it as an aid. For us, it is therefore important to distinguish between different functions and applications.
Glasses that help a user read a menu are different from glasses that someone uses to recognise faces in public spaces. The greater the privacy risk, the stricter the requirements should be. If a particular application cannot be used responsibly, a ban may be appropriate.
Manufacturers and providers must also take responsibility. Privacy must be incorporated from the design stage, for example, by collecting as little data as possible, processing data locally where possible, not storing anything by default and clearly informing users about what happens to their data.
And importantly, people with visual impairments should not constantly have to justify their need for this technology. If rules are needed because of privacy risks, they should target the risky use.
This is now a very concrete issue. The Dutch House of Representatives has asked for an investigation into how camera-equipped glasses can be banned further, with an exception for necessary medical use. We believe that exception should cover use as an aid. For the people we represent, smart glasses are not a medical treatment but an everyday aid, and nobody should have to show a declaration at the door."
Editor’s note: The adopted parliamentary motion, proposed on 29 September 2026, asks the government to pursue further restrictions and work with the Dutch Data Protection Authority on legal options, taking necessary medical use into account. It requests those options in the first quarter of 2027. The motion does not itself introduce a new ban or define an exemption for assistive use.
Making the technology more useful
There still are various barriers to the use of smart glasses for the visually impaired, Hoorn explains.
"The costs can be considerable, especially if you also need apps or other services. In addition, it is not a given that an aid will be reimbursed through one fixed scheme. That depends, among other things, on the purpose for which someone needs the aid, for example healthcare, work, education or participation in society.
The software side is important too. Not all functions work equally well in Dutch, and users sometimes encounter problems with apps, connections or other accessibility features. Some users also need guidance to become familiar with the technology’s possibilities and limitations.
If we want people who benefit from this technology to be able to use it in practice, we therefore need to look beyond simply purchasing the glasses. Availability, affordability, accessibility, support and data protection all play a role."
In terms of improvements, Hoorn believes there are three important points.
"First, the technology needs to become more reliable. People need to be able to trust that the information they receive is as accurate as possible and that it is clear when the AI is uncertain.
Second, accessibility and privacy must be incorporated from the design stage. Think of good support for Dutch, connections with aids and hearing solutions, clear settings and data processing that protects privacy as much as possible.
Third, people with visual impairments need to be much more involved in development and testing. Not only when a product is finished, but from the beginning. They can indicate very specifically which applications really make a difference in everyday life and where the technology falls short. And I would add one more point: manufacturers should not only ask what is technically possible, but also what people actually need. The technology must fit users’ everyday lives.
Finally, there is something that is mentioned less often. The functions that make a difference for our target group usually come from small developers who focus specifically on people with visual impairments. They work for a small market and need time to improve their products. It is precisely that further development that is put at risk if the debate results in a ban or prolonged uncertainty about one. Anyone who does not know whether their product will still be allowed on the market in a year’s time will not continue investing.
That would mean the technology remains stuck at its current level, with the limitations we see today. Yet those improvements are precisely what is needed to make the glasses a reliable aid."
Carin Hoorn is director of the Oogvereniging (Eye Association Netherlands), which represents people who are blind or partially sighted, have an eye condition or are deafblind. The organisation provides information, advice and support, and campaigns for better eye care, accessibility and inclusion. For more information, consult their website here.
Liked this article? You can support our independent journalism via our page on Buy Me a Coffee. It helps keep MoveTheNeedle.news focused on depth, not clicks.