This paper critically examines the governance of smart glasses in K-12 science education, using science classrooms as a case through which policy design challenges become visible. We position these wearable technologies not only as tools of pedagogical innovation but as governance challenges requiring regulatory attention. The vendors of smart glasses claim that their devices enhance real-time visualisation, support hands-free inquiry, and personalise activity. Yet, despite increased consumer availability and promotion by vendors, smart glasses are inconsistently specified in Australian school policy, unlike other high-stakes sectors such as transportation where wearable device categories are explicitly regulated. Drawing on a comparative analysis of policy associated with Australia’s K-12 mobile phones and the 2023 Victorian Road Rule Amendments “New Driver Distraction Road Rules”, this study proposes that science education requires similar anticipatory governance. Whereas the road safety framework classifies wearable technologies as potential sources of cognitive distraction and provides a stratified risk profile, device-specific restrictions, and enforcement mechanisms, we illustrate a stark contrast to the comparable provisions analysed in educational policy. This analysis identifies governance-relevant risk categories for staff, students, and schools that are not consistently addressed in the education policy texts examined, and that are difficult to standardise through discretionary, school-level interpretation alone. As such, this paper contributes to global conversations on educational justice, digital governance, and the ethical integration of emerging technologies in education.
How useful are smart glasses in improving accessibility in higher education?
Smart glasses have the potential to support learning for disabled students, but this technology also comes with significant privacy concerns. Helen Nicholson-Benn looks at how to balance functional benefits with data security and safeguarding
Childhood and Education #20: Phones and Screens
We have a respite, so I thought I’d tackle various thoughts on children, phones and screens.
Restaurants, pubs and theatres ban Meta’s ‘spy glasses’ over privacy fears
Meta says safeguards are in place to prevent surreptitious filming, but some UK venues now prohibit them from being worn at all
This App Warns You if Someone Is Wearing Smart Glasses Nearby
The creator of Nearby Glasses made the app after reading 404 Media's coverage of how people are using Meta's Ray-Bans smartglasses to film people without their knowledge or consent. “I consider it to be a tiny part of resistance against surveillance tech.”
For Meta’s Smart Glasses, Access Is An Afterthought
Tech companies are using accessibility as a smoke screen to obfuscate the risks of AI wearables, writes Ariana Aboulafia.
Smart glasses controversy sidelines the benefits for disabled people | Letter
Letters: Guardian readers reflect on the ableism rife in the debate about Ray-Ban Meta eyewear, despite the life-changing difference they can make
Smart glasses controversy sidelines the benefits for disabled people | Letter
Letters: Guardian readers reflect on the ableism rife in the debate about Ray-Ban Meta eyewear, despite the life-changing difference they can make
Smart Glasses in Education - Artificial intelligence
Why look at smart glasses now? Smart glasses have been commercially available in some form for over a decade. More recently, they have returned to popular conversation, driven largely by Meta and its growing range of glasses. The lack of widespread adoption has been attributed to the high cost and limited capabilities of earlier models, […]
#cybersafety #ageverification #privacy #minors #ai | Parry Aftab
Internet Age-Verification Causing More Risks than It’s Worth This is not a new issue. Regulators and policymakers have raised it for the last 28 years as the way the keep kids safer online. They compare it to having to flash an ID to purchase regulated content or items (porn, cigarettes, alcohol, restricted medications, age-restricted movies, amusement rides, etc.) But verification online is very different and vastly riskier than flashing an ID in real life. For one, it’s collecting personally-identifiable information about our kids. For two, it puts that information in the too-often untrustworthy digital hands of tech companies. For three, while porn, alcohol and regulated drugs may be a clear-cut case for restricting access to adults, access to the Internet is very different. Yet, regulations begun in the UK and adopted globally have begun a weighted cybersafety approach that, in my humble opinion, prefers excluding young people from digital technology over teaching the cybersafety and digital life skills. That, in my 32 years of work in the fields of cybersafety and protection of minors online, was and remains a mistake. One of my best known quotes, repeated in Congressional and state legislative testimony and in the media is: “The greatest single risk our children face online is being denied access. We have solutions for everything else.” (my testimony before the FTC) Some proponents of age-verification have opted to denying them access unless they give up confirmable personally-identifiable info, such as selfies, feeding AI with PII, and govt or school credentials. I argue that this gives social networks, game providers and digital app operators a wealth of PII to be used for profiling, marketing and collecting far too much. With their privacy at stake, too often incompetent, malicious and greedy producers and mega-tech industry players, can’t and shouldn’t be trusted with the personal info of our most vulnerable - our kids. And AI will now be tasked with collecting everything it can find about our kids to be able to “age-verify.” (It’s ability to age-verify is less reliable with youth as their data-sets are more limited.) I served on a task force appointed by 49 state attorneys general, charged to research and weigh-in on this issue. We concluded that age-verification wasn’t feasible. While this task force was formed many years ago, with the exception of a fortified AI, not much as changed. Our children’s privacy remains, or should remain, paramount. We have robust filtering and blocking technologies. The adult industry has adopted an age-gated model. And parents can restrict access using device-specific tools. And, many well-intentioned age-verification laws were adopted too quickly for thoughtful discourse. Or by governments more prone to censorship/content restrictions. I fear in our quest to protect our kids we have thrown our babies out with the bath water. #cybersafety #ageverification #privacy #minors #AI
Second Version of Google Glass as a Wearable Socio-Affective Aid: Positive School Desirability, High Usability, and Theoretical Framework in a Sample of Children with Autism
Background Computerized smartglasses are being developed as an assistive technology for daily activities in children and adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). While smartglasses may be able to help with educational and behavioral needs, their usability and acceptability in children with ASD is largely unknown. There have been reports of negative social perceptions surrounding smartglasses use in mainstream populations, a concern given that assistive technologies may already carry their own stigma. Children with ASD may also have a range of additional behavioral, developmental, and social challenges when asked to use this emerging technology in school and home settings. Objective The usability and acceptability of Glass Enterprise Edition (Glass), the successor to Google Glass smartglasses, were explored in children with ASD and their caregivers. Methods Eight children with ASD and their caregivers were recruited to attend a demonstration session with Glass smartglasses the week they were publicly released. The children had a wide range of ability, including limited speech to speaking, and represented a full range of school ages (6 to 17 years). Children and caregivers were interviewed about their experience of using the smartglasses and whether they would use them at school and home. Results All 8 children succeeded in using Glass and did not feel stressed (8/8, 100%) or experience any overwhelming sensory or emotional issues during the session (8/8, 100%). All 8 children (8/8, 100%) endorsed that they would be willing to wear and use the device in both home and school settings. Caregivers felt the experience was fun for the children (8/8, 100%), and most caregivers felt the experience was better than they had expected (6/8, 75%). Conclusions A wide age and ability range of children with ASD used Glass immediately after it was released and found it to be usable and acceptable. Despite concerns about potential stigma or social acceptability, all of the children were prepared to use the technology in both home and school settings. Encouragingly, most caregivers noted a very positive response. There were no behavioral, developmental, or social- or stigma-related concerns during or after the session. Smartglasses may be a useful future technology for children with ASD and are readily accepted for use by children with ASD and their caregivers.
Think Twice Before Buying or Using Meta’s Ray-Bans
Over the last decade or so, the tech industry has tried, and mostly failed, to make “smart glasses”—tech-infused glasses with cameras, AI, maps, displays, and more—a thing. But in the past year,
Smartphone Bans, Student Outcomes and Mental Health
How smartphone usage affects well-being and learning among children and adolescents is a concern for schools, parents, and policymakers. Combining detailed admi
Meta’s Ray-Ban Smart Glasses Used To Instantly Dox Strangers In Public, Thanks To AI And Facial Recognition
Harvard students hack together a system to gather intel on strangers to build their trust, then share steps for the public to protect themselves from such technology.
The Backlash Is So Strong That People With “Pervert Glasses” Are Afraid to Use Them in Public
Meta's camera-equipped "AI Glasses" are so divisive that some adopters are reportedly leaving their expensive smart glasses at home.
Appropriate Measures — Real Life
Changing the tech we use is not enough to mitigate the environmental and social harm of mass technology
Opinion | These A.I. Policies Will Hurt Our Business. We Should Do Them Anyway.
The risks posed by A.I. are too great to forgo any regulation, even for those who stand to gain tremendously from the technology’s rise.
