Meta Plans To Let Smart Glasses Identify People Through AI-Powered Facial Recognition (nytimes.com) 64
Meta plans to add facial recognition technology to its Ray-Ban smart glasses as soon as this year, New York Times reported Friday, five years after the social giant shut down facial recognition on Facebook and promised to find "the right balance" for the controversial technology.
The feature, internally called "Name Tag," would let wearers 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.
The feature, internally called "Name Tag," would let wearers 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.
"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...?
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly don't get the severity of the pushback against this. I know I'm not the only one that would love if my glasses showed a little name tag on people I see.
The arguments about privacy... I get it, but also that ship has sailed. If every doorbell and traffic camera etc etc etc.. are already doing this, why not use it for your personal betterment as well. IMO, it's like being anti-drone, but only for your average citizen, all while companies and government can do as they like with them. FWIW, I'm no fa
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, it would be useful to some - Probably not useful for everyone. Instant translation of written text would be very helpful to lots of people in Europe with its zoo of languages.
Who modded this down?!? Instant translation of written text would be incredible for anyone visiting a foreign land!
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a word that combines laughable and infuriating?
Because this is both. They fact that MetaZuck has the gall to say openly that they can be trusted to find a "balance" around privacy when their business model is surveillance makes me want to scream. And then when I'm done screaming, to laugh.
The only glimmer of hope is that the downsides of this will probably show up so quickly and they will respond with the usual mealy mouth platitude and lies, that it may finally force some sort of real oversight of
Title Correction: (Score:5, Informative)
"Privacy Rapist Meta[stasize] Plans To Let Smart Glasses Identify People Through AI-Powered Facial Recognition"
There FTFY.
Meta Approach (Score:5, Interesting)
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:3)
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:3, Insightful)
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)
Well Jordan is correct and you're not. So there is that.
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)
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?
The privacy setting is for identifying you in photos uploaded to the public Facebook pages. It's not going to cover using facial recognition to identify you for "strategic partnerships".
You see, the thing about Ring doorbells is their view is limited to where they are mounted on a wall...
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have privacy in public. That's why it's called public.
Back in the day the aforementioned "glassholes" were being admonished with that moniker for walking into a local bar. Sometimes in your life you want at least a little privacy from the fucking planet. The adult drinking public doesn't care to have their habits broadcast wide enough for their insurance policy premiums to update before they even call the fucking Uber for a ride home. Which is absolutely where this Orwellian shit is going.
We haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the 4th Amendment.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to know one of the main developers of Google's facial recognition systems, and way back in the day probably 20 years ago, before "Google Glass" was a thing, someone had the idea of being able to identify random people out in public using Google's tech. The developers shut down that idea quickly. That was just too much for them. Facebook is vastly different than Google was back in the day, so it comes as
Re: (Score:2)
For exactly what benefit?
Names
Face recognition is the one feature I want in a wearable. I have a great memory for faces and a shit memory for names. I can look at a crowded room and spot the three people I know. I couldn't for the life of me tell their names unless they are close friends.
If I could get a tech device telling me just their names, I would be happy. I don't need their FB profile or such. I don't need the names of people I don't know.
That said, I'd rather go without than having Facebook handle that. Nope, you can fuck r
Re: How a Society Kills Privacy. (Score:3)
Ir doesn't matter if you have an FB handle or not. You can be tagged in photos by others anyway. And FB can keep files on you without your knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But I don't have to make it any easier for Zuck, right?
Re: How a Society Kills Privacy. (Score:2)
Of course.
Great idea. (Score:2)
No privacy concerns at all there.
Some learn, some don't (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody earned anything. The business model is still the same:
while(! backlash) {do_something_worse();}
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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. 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
Re: (Score:2)
Good. At least some legislators in the US get it.
fuck you meta (Score:1)
potentially limiting identification to people connected on Meta platforms or those with public accounts.
wouldnt it require scanning and analyzing the faces in order to determine if they have accounts?
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:4, Interesting)
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 poses a uniquely dire threat to the practical anonymity we all rely on,” said Nathan Freed Wessler of the American Civil Liberties Union. “This technology is ripe for abuse.”
And boy, it sure is. A garden variety miscreant will be able to tag and acquire the name, address, phone number, and marital status of all the pretty girls he comes across in the grocery store for future stalking purposes. Potentially vulnerable elderly people can be similarly identified. Wire this into the Flock license plate reader network and the government will have full coverage of your movements, indoors and out.
no privacy, no problem (Score:2)
"identify people and retrieve information" (Score:2)
Pro or con to facial recognition (Score:1)
Facial recognition in private, not public (Score:2)
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 accept it and use it but until then I will oppose it.
IMHO, it's legit to use facial ID on your property and you have a good business case. Unless you're working at an establishment where names aren't needed, like a gay bar or donut shop, for most businesses, like car repair places, you already have their name officially on file. You're trying to give a personalized touch and even have their file ready before they sit down....it's respecting their time.
The concern is these are designed to be worn in public. Imagine your 16yo daughter's friend, who has a
No Consent (Score:2)
Yeah, sure, we're going to get people murdered (Score:2)
But it's totally worth it to meet our KPIs. Stonks.
ray-ban Metas are a godsend for the blind (Score:1)
I'm sure everyone here is concerned about privacy but ray-ban meta's offers huge benefits to blind people. https://www.youtube.com/shorts... [youtube.com]
Facial recognition would be a great addition for them.
A new industry awaits? (Score:3)
However, is it feasible a company could come up with a similar product to be used in makeup, sunscreen lotion, maybe even lightweight see-through textiles (to be worn as a mask) ? Impregnated with micro or nano prisms? I'm just spit-balling here, as I'd rather not be walking around aiming lasers at everyone I see wearing glasses, assuming there might be image sensors in them. Too close to the eyeballs.
This will get banned in corporate environments (Score:2)
Wear (Score:2)
Re: Wear (Score:2)
You may need stroboscopic lights. Saw a bunch of those on public steeets in Thailand in the last week at night. Even non stroboscopic lights consume a lot of power, and you would run out of battery quickly. Not to mention that they are truly annoying to anyone, wearing dumb glasses or not.
A boon for the blind. (Score:1)