Meta Plans To Let Smart Glasses Identify People Through AI-Powered Facial Recognition (nytimes.com)
- Reference: 0180786840
- News link: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/02/13/1336235/meta-plans-to-let-smart-glasses-identify-people-through-ai-powered-facial-recognition
- Source link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/technology/meta-facial-recognition-smart-glasses.html
The feature, internally called "Name Tag," would let wearers [1]identify people and retrieve information about them through Meta's AI assistant, the report added. An internal memo from May acknowledged the feature carries "safety and privacy risks" and noted that political tumult in the United States would distract civil society groups that might otherwise criticize the launch. The company is exploring restrictions that would prevent the glasses from functioning as a universal facial recognition tool, potentially limiting identification to people connected on Meta platforms or those with public accounts.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/technology/meta-facial-recognition-smart-glasses.html
Title Correction: (Score:3)
" Privacy Rapist Meta[stasize] Plans To Let Smart Glasses Identify People Through AI-Powered Facial Recognition "
There FTFY.
Meta Approach (Score:4, Interesting)
Given Meta's style, they'll one day turn on facial recognition for all users leveraging their full database of all tagged imagery they've gathered throughout their history (that they claimed they deleted). Then they'll say oops, my bad, then hide behind their lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, from day one. They even say so in the summary. The limit on only showing people connected to you on Facebook only applies to what you see, not what is recorded in their database.
How a Society Kills Privacy. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Meta plans to add facial recognition technology to its Ray-Ban smart glasses as soon as this year..
For exactly what benefit? Yes Meta. Get specific for me while I walk through your executive hallways wearing your finest feature to face-ID and auto-search the Epstein files.
Kills me it was barely over a decade ago that wearers of smart glasses were known as "glassholes" in public. For privacy reasons. And Google's version at the time didn't have anywhere NEAR this privacy-raping capability.
A new privay-destroying concept reaching the median-intelligence level to garner an "are you insane?" response from the average seasoned citizen, used to take more than a generation. Today, it barely takes a decade for a horrible idea to come 'round again pretending to be better, because people are that stupid and shortsighted.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Meta plans to add facial recognition technology to its Ray-Ban smart glasses as soon as this year..
> For exactly what benefit? Yes Meta. Get specific for me while I walk through your executive hallways wearing your finest feature to face-ID and auto-search the Epstein files.
> Kills me it was barely over a decade ago that wearers of smart glasses were known as "glassholes" in public. For privacy reasons. And Google's version at the time didn't have anywhere NEAR this privacy-raping capability.
> A new privay-destroying concept reaching the median-intelligence level to garner an "are you insane?" response from the average seasoned citizen, used to take more than a generation. Today, it barely takes a decade for a horrible idea to come 'round again pretending to be better, because people are that stupid and shortsighted.
In David Brin's "Earth," privacy is considered an archaic concept, and people are filming and uploading everyday interactions continually simply because the idea of not doing so is linked directly with the "you must have something nefarious to hide" mentality. When I first read it, I thought there was no way it would happen. Now? It seems absolutely inevitable. And the younger generations will feed off of this stuff, because they love to experience things through their screens and cameras.
Re: (Score:2)
> The good times have certainly fostered/festered the modern version of feminism that is rewarded in society for destroying the family unit, resulting in a weak society.
So much of what you said made sense, but this bit about the "modern version of feminism" "destroying the family unit" is where your argument totally lost the plot.
It seems that what you consider to be masculinism wasn't very robust if it collapsed under the weight of the nebulous forces you posit. Let's call it "cardboard masculinity".
On the other hand, what I consider to be "the masculine" is still alive and well. It adapts and thrives, being flexible and fluid or rigid and obstinate as circumstances deman
Re: (Score:2)
Would this not require that you have privacy settings in Facebook set in such a way that allows you to be tagged in uploaded photos?
I have a long-dormant FB account, but the privacy settings have always (since the setting was introduced) been set to not allow people to tag me.
Re: (Score:2)
> I have a long-dormant FB account, but the privacy settings have always (since the setting was introduced) been set to not allow people to tag me.
I do not have a FB account and have never had one. How do I say that I do not want to be tagged ? The only way would be for the default to be no , but FB will no do that.
Re: (Score:2)
> Today, it barely takes a decade for a horrible idea to come 'round again pretending to be better, because people are that stupid and shortsighted.
Although "stupid and shortsighted" has always been in plentiful supply, the sick irony here is that it's been multiplied by the Web. Sites such as Facebook, Twitt-X, and TikTok are the most obvious worst offenders; but even Amazon promotes shortsightedness and instant gratification in a manner which makes people dumber.
For all its good points - both actual and potential - the Web has become a cancer which has metastasized and threatens to kill its host.
Great idea. (Score:2)
No privacy concerns at all there.
Some learn, some don't (Score:2)
It's hilarious that this article is listed right above [1]"Ring Cancels its Partnership With Flock After Surveillance Backlash" [slashdot.org]
[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/02/13/0846202/ring-cancels-its-partnership-with-flock-safety-after-surveillance-backlash
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody earned anything. The business model is still the same:
while(! backlash) {do_something_worse();}
Re: (Score:2)
earned -> learned
Re: (Score:2)
> earned -> learned
I like your typo version better. They acquired money, but mostly they "earned" jack shit.
Will this help people with Alzheimers? (Score:2)
Some people just are poor at remembering a face or putting it together with a name...and some get that way as they age. Could someone who realizes that they are starting to lose it wear the glasses so their problems would not be noticed so easily?
Re: (Score:3)
And would that be 'wrong' if they did? If someone starts using a cane, because they realize they don't have the reflex and balance they once did something anyone objects to?
That is the trouble here as is often the case. This could be a really useful tool. Just having immediate basic intelligence in a lot of settings would be valuable.
Imagine your a middle-manager at multinational. You've traveled from your office in Toronto to headquarters in Atlanta. Would it not be super helpful have this thing tied to t
Re: (Score:2)
> Some people just are poor at remembering a face or putting it together with a name...and some get that way as they age. Could someone who realizes that they are starting to lose it wear the glasses so their problems would not be noticed so easily?
Great! I like that. I'd proposed THOSE people should get a prescription for the advantage of this augmentation to help them live a more normal life. Kind of like ppl get a handicap parking sticker, or some people get prescription narcotics to help them live a functionally "normal" life. Letting anyone have this is chaos. But then, I suppose, because of the world we live in, ppl would abuse the system and claim they have a problem to gain access to this new super power for nefarious purposes.... OR, hey,
May get you arrested in Europe (Score:2)
You will need to get informed consent from anybody you want to apply this to beforehand, in writing. In Germany, if it is not directly visible these are recording devices, even possession may be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
This is also illegal in the state of Illinois, has been since 2008. [1]https://www.ilga.gov/Legislati... [ilga.gov]
Wyze cameras have a friendly faces feature, you can't enable it in Illinois.
They will have to geofence this for certain areas
[1] https://www.ilga.gov/Legislation/publicacts/view/095-0994
Re: (Score:2)
Good. At least some legislators in the US get it.
Panopticon Mobile Unit 273B/Z57 (Score:2)
You are required to stare at a new face every 3 seconds.
Stop staring at torsos!
too easy to do (Score:2)
Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag on this, it is basically unpreventable. Facial recognition can be applied to any video stream or recording from existing surveillance cameras, such as one that's pointed at the entrance to the supermarket where you shop. These rayban glasses are merely a mobile platform for acquiring the video. Packing the recognition tech into such a small package is a demonstration that it can be deployed almost anywhere.
“Face recognition technology on the streets of America p
no privacy, no problem (Score:2)
The problem isn't that there are so many cameras publishing snap-shots of private moments to entertain the whole internet. One problem is, doxxing and facial recognition destroying anonymity. The second one is, a generation of young people objectifying the ordinary lives of strangers to entertain the whole internet.
"identify people and retrieve information" (Score:2)
Really? So Meta is a Stalking tool provider?
Pro or con to facial recognition (Score:1)
I am torn on this. I look forward to being able to greet each of my customers by name. I am horrible with names. There is only 5 of us that work here but there are thousands of customers so they remember us, but we struggle to remember their names. I have even looked into adding it into our security system so could see as they walk up. All that being said, that is the only valid excuse I can think of for using this and I can think of plenty of reasons against it. If it becomes a thing, I will probably accep
No Consent (Score:2)
I use facial recognition on my smartphone for unlocking things. I realize that my facial data might be harvested, but at least it's my choice. The idea that these glasses would be harvesting the faces of everyone that comes into view is simply preposterous.
"Profit" on one side of the scale... (Score:5, Insightful)
> promised to find "the right balance" for the controversial technology
It was good to start the day with a laugh.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder if they'll also add in Fist Recognition, as I suspect their glasses may be experiencing those in the near future...?