[NFBC-Info] Congratulations on the Veto of SB 1130

Sun Oct 4 20:31:10 UTC 2026

Dear Monica. I respectfully disagree with your position here's the main reason why. When dealing with the elected officials that has always been my experience that you wanna keep issues simple and to the point. Confusing the governor about our concerns I think would have resulted in potential non-action by the governor. I think it is very important for us to keep things as clear and and if the case demands it simple.

By insisting on data privacy at the same time would have confused the governor and might also confuse elected officials. Because they don't understand our issues. Without proper education. Period

I think our state ability president struck the right note in his letter. Meaning staying on message. Did it very important that we do stay on message. Period this is true whether it's in Sacramento or whether it's in Washington DC or whether it's talking to the President of the United States. I think that if we want to get into these issues it would be better discussed at our state affiliate convention in March

You mentioned I think that would be the appropriate place to have this discussion. Period I also don't believe that company such as tuck and be my eyes and the other companies that help us gain access to information necessarily go out in harvest our data. Intentionally. So I think for the purposes of this discussion it might be best to yes call the victory that it is legislative victories are not easy to obtain they take time they take patients and they take due diligence. Period so yes it is a victory but a small one we continue to need to educate the public on our broader concerns. I understand your concerns of the relates to the legislation and the people that brought legislation. But all legislation hats to encompass all Californians including those of us who are blind and death blind. I hope this helps

Please note that the text of my comments have been dictated to the computer. And so there may be errors but I hope that this message is understandable overall.

Respectfully

Maurice                                 A. Mines.                                                                 

President National Federation of the Blind                                                                                                                               of California deaf blind division.

Amateur radio call sign, kd0iko.

 voicemail to text number, 661-491-4341.

Email address,maurice.mines at mamines.org.

State affiliate website, www.nfbcal.org/chapters and divisions/

                                                                                                            Ƒƒœ®                       

> On Oct 4, 2026, at 07:12, Monica Wegner via NFBC-Info <nfbc-info at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure the veto of SB 1130 is the victory it's being described as.
> NFBC had a legitimate concern with the bill. The assistive-technology exemption covered hearing and communication devices but apparently did not cover vision-related technology. That could have created real problems for blind people using smart glasses or similar tools. The letter also stated support for the bill's privacy goals.
> What bothers me is that our advocacy seems to have stopped there. We focused on making sure blind people could keep using the technology, but not on what companies are allowed to do with the data that gets collected when we use it. Blind people are frequently held out as among the clearest beneficiaries of AI-enabled glasses and visual interpretation services. That gives us a particular obligation to insist that accessibility not become a rationale for surveillance.
> A blind person may choose to use a camera to get information about the surrounding environment. That does not mean the company providing the service should automatically be entitled to keep the recording, use it to train an AI system, share it, or retain information about other people who happened to be captured.
> Our consent to use an assistive service is also not consent from everyone around us. A camera can capture other people's faces and voices, conversations, documents, medical information, financial information, or what is happening inside someone's home or workplace. Those people did not consent to a company's data practices simply because they were near someone using an accessibility service, and that was the rationale from proponents of the bill. Among others, restaurant workers did not want to be recorded by You tube food influencers monetizing their content without the worker’s consent. I am sympathetic to that view.
> I would have preferred advocacy that said both things at once: blind people need to be protected from criminal liability for using legitimate assistive technology, and companies need meaningful limits on what they can do with the resulting data.
> I am also uncomfortable with NFBC describing the veto as a collective victory when, as far as I know, the membership was not asked to discuss these broader issues. The Governor's veto message focused on the bill's definitions and its overlap with existing law. It did not say the bill had to be vetoed because of disability access.
> In opposing the bill, we ended up on the same side as an industry coalition made up of companies whose data practices are exactly what I think we should be questioning. If we are going to be invoked as a reason these technologies need special protection, we should also be among the strongest voices demanding that those protections extend to privacy.
> 
> Monica
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NFBC-Info <nfbc-info-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of president--- via NFBC-Info
> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2026 9:52
> To: NFB of California List <nfbc-info at nfbnet.org>
> Cc: president at nfbcal.org
> Subject: [NFBC-Info] Congratulations on the Veto of SB 1130
> 
> Dear Federation Friends,
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pleased to share a small victory in our state legislative work.  We succeeded in stopping a well-intended and overly restrictive law that would have impacted our use of wearable devices like AI-powered smart glasses and services like Aira and Be My Eyes.  We commend the Office of the Governor for vetoing S.B. 1130.  This is our collective action at work.  The content of our letter is pasted below:
> 
> Tim Elder, President 
> 
> National Federation of the Blind of California 
> 
> president@ nfbcal. org 
> 
> 4226 Castanos Street Fremont, CA 94536 ( 916) 382- 0372 
> 
> September 23, 2026 
> 
> The Honorable Gavin Newsom Governor of California 1021 O Street, Suite 9000 Sacramento, CA 95814 
> 
> Re: Request for Veto of Senate Bill 1130 ( Reyes) - Wearable Recording Devices 
> 
> Dear Governor Newsom: 
> 
> The National Federation of the Blind of California (" NFBC") is the statewide affiliate of the nation's transformative membership and advocacy organization
> 
> of blind people. I write on behalf of NFBC to respectfully ask that you veto Senate Bill 1130 ( Reyes) with the intention for the author to explicitly
> 
> include an exception for glasses used for visual interpretation by blind and
> low- vision Californians. To be clear, we share the bill's underlying goal
> 
> of protecting Californians from being secretly recorded by wearable devices, and we do not oppose that aim. A veto now will give the author the opportunity
> 
> to amend the bill so that it accomplishes its purpose without penalizing disability access. 
> 
> We also appreciate the disability- related exemptions the bill already has in subdivisions 
> 
> ( e) 
> 
> and ( g), and we do not take that protection lightly. We would propose some clarifying edits to subsection ( e) in order to fully protect blind and low
> 
> vision Californians. These edits ( underlined) would read: 
> 
> "( e) This section does not apply to the use of hearing aids, wearables used for visual interpretation, augmentative and alternative communication devices,
> 
> and similar devices by a person with impaired hearing, impaired vision, or any communication disorder when the hearing aid or device is used for the purpose
> 
> of overcoming the impairment or disorder to permit the hearing of sounds ordinarily audible to the human ear or to support interpretation of visual surroundings,
> 
> or communication with the person." 
> 
> For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to veto SB 1130 and to invite the author to return with amended protections afforded under subsection ( e)
> 
> along the lines described above. We would welcome the opportunity to work with your office and with Senator Reyes to get this language right. Thank you
> 
> for your consideration and for your 
> 
> continued commitment to the independence and equal participation of blind Californians. 
> 
> Sincerely, 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Elder President National Federation of the Blind of California 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Elder
> 
> President
> 
> National Federation of the Blind of California 
> 
> <mailto:president at nfbcal.org> president at nfbcal.org 
> 
> (916) 382-0372 
> 
> <http://www.nfbcal.org/> http://www.nfbcal.org/
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that blind Californians are holding monthly meetings in your region over Zoom and telephone?  Check out our virtual local chapter and division meetings.  All are welcome to attend.
> 
> <http://www.nfbcal.org/chapters-and-divisions/>
> http://www.nfbcal.org/chapters-and-divisions/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NFBC-Info mailing list
> NFBC-Info at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbc-info_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NFBC-Info:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbc-info_nfbnet.org/monica.wegner%40outlook.com
> _______________________________________________
> NFBC-Info mailing list
> NFBC-Info at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbc-info_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for NFBC-Info:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbc-info_nfbnet.org/maurice.mines%40mamines.org