top of page
Library - Portrait.png
Search

When Privacy Rules Become Accessibility Barriers

A security guard wearing a black uniform and gloves performs a physical pat-down on a man with his arms raised, standing in a modern, well-lit hallway with a conference room in the background.

Just as I’m getting excited about what smart glasses could mean for low-vision independence, the privacy police are starting to reach for the rule book.


An Australian university recently attracted attention after concerns about camera-equipped smart glasses led to restrictions around their use. On the surface, it is easy to understand why. Nobody wants to discover that the person sitting opposite them has quietly been filming the room. Privacy, consent and covert recording are legitimate concerns.


But this is also where a fairly simple privacy debate starts becoming much more complicated. The same device that can be used to record someone without their knowledge can also help a person read a sign, identify a doorway, understand what is on a presentation screen or navigate an unfamiliar building independently.


And smart glasses are only the beginning.


The camera is not necessarily the point


For many people with disability, the value of a camera-equipped device is not the photograph it can take. It is what software can do with the information the camera sees.


A person with low vision might use smart glasses to read room numbers, recognise products, describe an unfamiliar environment or identify obstacles. Someone with a cognitive disability might use them to capture information they cannot process quickly enough in the moment. A person who is hard of hearing may increasingly rely on technology that turns spoken information into text.


The device may look like a camera. Functionally, it can be an interface to the world.


That distinction matters because policies written around the presence of a camera can accidentally regulate the assistive function rather than the behaviour causing the concern.


This goes well beyond universities


It would be easy to treat this as a university problem involving students, lecture theatres and assessment rules. It is not.


The same issue is heading towards workplaces, conference centres, stadiums, entertainment venues, exhibitions, airports, hotels and almost every other public or corporate environment.


Imagine arriving at a corporate office wearing smart glasses that help you find the reception desk, read signage and locate the meeting room. The organisation has a blanket rule banning camera-enabled devices beyond reception. Technically neat. Experientially, rather less so.


Or imagine an event venue prohibiting all wearable cameras without considering that some visitors are using those devices to understand signage, menus, seat numbers or their surroundings.


The security policy may have been written with covert recording in mind. The visitor experiences it as the confiscation of an accessibility tool.


Recording and transcription complicate things further


The discussion also cannot stop at cameras. AI is making audio capture, transcription, summarisation and information retrieval increasingly useful accessibility tools.


Consider a neurodivergent student in a lecture. Processing a presenter’s speech, reading slides, deciding what matters and simultaneously taking useful notes can create significant cognitive load. Taking a photograph of the presentation screen and recording the lecture may allow them to concentrate on understanding the material in the room, then use transcription and AI tools later to review it in a form that works better for them.


The same approach can help someone who is hard of hearing. A recording can become an accurate written transcript that can be searched, reviewed and revisited rather than relying entirely on what could be heard in real time.


And this is not limited to education. Think about staff training, conferences, town halls, client meetings, workshops and professional development sessions.


For some people, recording information is not about creating a permanent record of everyone else in the room. It is about being able to access the information at all.


The danger of the blanket ban


Blanket policies are attractive because they are easy to communicate. No cameras. No recording. No smart glasses. Problem solved.


Except the problem has not necessarily been solved. It may simply have been exchanged for another one.


A rule intended to protect privacy can create a new barrier for a person with disability. A security control can remove independence. A policy designed to make people feel comfortable can make somebody else dependent on another person to perform tasks that technology had allowed them to do themselves.


That does not mean privacy concerns should be ignored. It means the policy needs to be more sophisticated than the technology it is trying to regulate.


Regulate the behaviour, not simply the device


A better starting point is to separate the behaviour organisations are concerned about from the technology capable of performing it.


Covertly photographing people is a behaviour. Recording confidential meetings without permission is a behaviour. Uploading sensitive information to an unapproved AI service is a behaviour. Retaining recordings longer than necessary is a behaviour.


Wearing glasses containing a camera is not, by itself, any of those things.


This is where organisations need to start asking more precise questions. Is the device capturing or merely processing information? Is information stored? Where is it stored? Is it transmitted externally? Is a recording indicator visible? Can assistive processing occur without retaining the underlying image or audio? What happens to the data afterwards?


Those questions are harder than putting a red line through a picture of a pair of glasses. Unfortunately, they are also the questions that matter.


Accessibility needs a seat at the policy table


Technology policies are often developed by security, privacy, legal and IT teams. All have legitimate interests to protect. Accessibility and user experience need to be part of that conversation as well.


Otherwise, organisations risk discovering the accessibility consequences of a policy only when someone asks for an exception.


That is backwards. Accessibility should be considered while the rule is being designed, not bolted on afterwards through an exemption process that requires a person with disability to explain why they need to be treated differently.


The better question is not simply, ‘How do we stop people recording?’ It is, ‘How do we protect privacy and confidential information while still allowing people to use technology that helps them participate independently?’


This is going to get harder, not easier


Smart glasses will become smaller, more capable and more ordinary. AI assistants will increasingly see, hear and interpret the environments around us. Phones, earbuds, glasses and other wearables will blur the distinction between consumer technology and assistive technology.


Trying to maintain a simple list of permitted and prohibited devices will become increasingly difficult.


Organisations that start thinking about this now have an opportunity to develop policies around purpose, behaviour, data handling and context rather than chasing each new device as it appears.


Because the accessibility question is not whether everybody should be allowed to record everything.


It is whether, in trying to stop inappropriate recording, we accidentally stop people seeing, hearing, understanding and participating.


That would be quite a blind spot.


References

bottom of page