News: 0177238229

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

Meta Now Forces AI Data Collection Through Ray-Ban Smart Glasses (theverge.com)

(Thursday May 01, 2025 @11:20AM (msmash) from the newer-name,-old-behavior dept.)


Meta has eliminated key privacy protections for Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses users in a policy update that took effect April 29th. The company now permanently enables Meta AI with camera functionality unless "Hey Meta" voice commands are completely disabled, while simultaneously removing users' ability to [1]opt out of having their voice recordings stored in the cloud.

These recordings are kept for up to a year for Meta's product development, with the company only deleting accidental voice interactions after 90 days. Users can manually delete individual recordings but cannot prevent the initial collection.



[1] https://www.theverge.com/news/658602/meta-ray-ban-privacy-policy-ai-training-voice-recordings



Well who could have seen that coming? (Score:5, Insightful)

by MachineShedFred ( 621896 )

Gee, who could have seen that Meta would alter the deal post-purchase in this way?

Answer: everyone.

Fuck Meta, and Fuck Zuckerberg.

Re: (Score:3)

by Archangel Michael ( 180766 )

"I have altered the deal. Pray I don't alter it further" -Darth Zuck

Re: (Score:1)

by ConstantineXI ( 10114656 )

Imagine Zuckererg and Sundar Pichai not keeping promises. Surprising no one!

Pssst... (Score:5, Insightful)

by RitchCraft ( 6454710 )

Meta and Zuckerberg are not your friends ... pass it on.

I for one am SHOCKED. (Score:3)

by nightflameauto ( 6607976 )

Shocked that this wasn't already turned on the moment the glasses were put out.

Now, I'm of two opinions about this. One? If people actually researched this and purchased these glasses after finding that there was a way to use them without AI data collection turned on, and that was important in their purchasing decision, then they should have the option of returning them for a full refund. However, they also purchased a product wholly owned by a corporation known to continually tie up user privacy in the basement and rape it fast and hard, so they're kinda getting what nearly anyone with a shred of an idea about what Meta is would expect them to get for trusting Meta.

If they're like typical end-users? They didn't care that it wasn't already doing this, and will shrug off that it turned this on on them after the fact with a giant, "Meh." So, uh, Meta peeps getting Meta'ed yet again is kinda a head nod and move on story these days. You climb into bed with a well-known parasite, you can't be surprised when it crawls inside you.

Re: (Score:3)

by jenningsthecat ( 1525947 )

> Shocked that this wasn't already turned on the moment the glasses were put out.

I'm not. They don't want to call attention to this kind of thing at product launch, because it risks having fewer people buy in.

I know it's hard to believe, but there are people smart enough to object to this shit, who are also dumb enough to not make that tiny intuitive leap that this shit is almost certainly going to happen when you buy into cloud-dependent devices.

If the hardware relies on a service, then you're gonna get serviced . The providers don't much care whether you think of yourself as a customer

Re: (Score:2)

by HiThere ( 15173 )

You don't appear to consider the cost to everyone who didn't buy the glasses, but encounters someone wearing them.

I suppose jamming the signal is illegal. Anything else is too late to avoid violation. And these are disguised in comparison to the earlier models (for which the term "glasshole" was coined).

Re: I for one am SHOCKED. (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

"If people actually researched this and purchased these glasses after finding that there was a way to use them without AI data collection turned on, and that was important in their purchasing decision, then they should have the option of returning them for a full refund."

I'm off two options about THAT. If people accept licenses that allow modifying the deal then they deserve what they get. But on the other hand, licenses which allow that should be illegal, or at least the party not changing the license shou

Does it record other people? (Score:5, Interesting)

by RobinH ( 124750 )

I'm not that familiar with this product. Does it also record other people around you? If so, what steps do you have to take to make it legal? Obviously out in public you're probably OK, but in a private residence, or a hotel room, I can see it being a legal problem.

"Forced"? By zucko the droid himself? (Score:2)

by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 )

How so?

Just checked my muzzle in the mirror, no facebook "smart glasses" on it, no way to force me to do anything. Then checked my saved passwords lists - no facebook/instagram/wacap accounts. Apparently I even have a block on the router for facebook shit, built and maintained for free by some good people.

If you don't want it, nobody can force it on you.

Re: (Score:2)

by bugs2squash ( 1132591 )

Thats because the glasses project am image of you not wearing them into your eyes.

some clever defelopers should (Score:2)

by FudRucker ( 866063 )

have a hack or alternative firmwsre for it wiping out all meta spyware making it so it works in a variety of ways for example an audio/video recording software on your smartphone or tablet and on Linux, Mac & windows software and over a Local Area Network

So as the internet fills up with AI slop (Score:3)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 )

It will become impossible to just trawl the internet for free material to train your AI. You get caught in a loop where you are consuming the AI slop and producing more AI slop making your model useless.

This means big companies that control your real data and know the difference between it and AI slop because they control the user interface and can algorithmically tell what a human being is generating real content are going to be the only ones who can have working ai and models.

We need to stop thinking of AI as software and start thinking of it as capital. It's going to be something that gets owned and it's going to be owned by a very very small handful of extremely powerful companies that control the platforms we use to interact with the world digitally.

I don't know what you want to do with that knowledge but I just want people to have it.

Privacy Rapist being Privacy Rapist (Score:2)

by Sebby ( 238625 )

"Who could ask for anything more?"

It's a shame Peter Falk died (Score:2)

by bugs2squash ( 1132591 )

These meta glasses woudl have made a great "alibi" MacGuffin for a Columbo episode.

What is it with tech companies and consent? (Score:2)

by ebunga ( 95613 )

The leaders of these companies are terrible humans, and their workers that follow along are also just as evil. They are at best malicious stalkers.

1984 (Score:1)

by WaterFoodEarthCosmos ( 6661530 )

Find it very ironic a technology that records like this with its CEO born in 1984.

Well...perhaps... (Score:2)

by HiThere ( 15173 )

Have your computer screen cycling through multiple screensavers, and have the glasses rest watching the screen.

It's probably easily filterable, though. Maybe that screensaver that displays random internet image sites. Or could you set it up to watch random steams from Pronhub? (Including, e.g., tubgirl and that site that used to be posted on /. all the time.)

I may have invented it, but Bill made it famous
-- David Bradley, inventor of the Ctrl-Alt-Delete
keystroke, during panel discussion with Bill Gates
at the 20-year celebration for the IBM PC.