This line stood out to me, after the op-ed argues about having "gardens" that exist in the "invisible parts" of the city that are only visible to people without iGlasses:
> We are fighting a piece of legislation on the governor’s desk that would change the augmented reality settings of the entire city, making the invisible parts visible again and destroying our gardens in the process.
The legislation sounds like it would make the invisible parts visible again to everyone, even when you're wearing iGlasses. Isn't that what she wants? No, what Mary wants is a space where people wearing iGlasses can't discover her. Making the "invisible parts" visible again would remove the only gardens that she has. She's not fighting for more transparency and freedom, she's fighting for a private space where she can't be observed.
> We are fighting a piece of legislation on the governor’s desk that would change the augmented reality settings of the entire city, making the invisible parts visible again and destroying our gardens in the process.
The legislation sounds like it would make the invisible parts visible again to everyone, even when you're wearing iGlasses. Isn't that what she wants? No, what Mary wants is a space where people wearing iGlasses can't discover her. Making the "invisible parts" visible again would remove the only gardens that she has. She's not fighting for more transparency and freedom, she's fighting for a private space where she can't be observed.
A nice touch that I almost just skimmed past.