Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy AI Media Slashdot.org

Meta's AI Display Glasses Reportedly Share Intimate Videos With Human Moderators (engadget.com) 39

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: Users of Meta's AI smart glasses in Europe may be unknowingly sharing intimate video and sensitive financial information with moderators outside of the bloc, according to a report from Sweden's Svenska Dagbladet released last week. Employees in Kenya doing AI "annotation" told the journalists that they've seen people nude, using the toilet and engaging in sexual activity, along with credit card numbers and other sensitive information.

With Meta's Ray-Ban Display and other glasses with AI capabilities, users can record what they're looking at or get answers to questions via a Meta AI assistant. If a wearer wants to make use of that AI, though, they must agree to Meta's terms of service that allow any data captured to be reviewed by humans. That's because Meta's large language models (LLMs) often require people to annotate visual data so that the AI can understand it and build its training models.

This data can end up in places like Nairobi, Kenya, often moderated by underpaid workers. Such actions are subject to Europe's GDPR rules that require transparency about how personal data is processed, according to a data protection lawyer cited in the report. However, Svenska Dagbladet's reporters said they needed to jump through some hoops to see Meta's privacy policy for its wearable products. That policy states that either humans or automated systems may review sensitive data, and puts the onus on the user to not share sensitive information.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Meta's AI Display Glasses Reportedly Share Intimate Videos With Human Moderators

Comments Filter:
  • by dskoll ( 99328 ) on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @05:12PM (#66021186) Homepage

    Meta is violating privacy??? Whaaaaaaaat?????????

    • When you made a Facebook account and gave them all the data from every minute of your life were you expecting privacy?
    • Re:Hold the phone! (Score:5, Informative)

      by pete6677 ( 681676 ) on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @05:46PM (#66021254)

      Next thing you know, they'll admit that Facebook mobile app listens in to people when they aren't even using Facebook!

    • Re:Hold the phone! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @08:59PM (#66021556) Journal

      Zuck will have to RE-stop moving fast and breaking things. Didn't learn from the Cambridge Analytica lawsuit.

      Send him to Camp Move Slow And Be Nice. They'll force him to touch plants, smell flowers, and talk to real humans. (Let's hope he doesn't mix the verbs up.)

    • There's a reason you don't want any of the stuff you shoot with your cameras to go "to the cloud" automatically.

      If it is there, it is on someone else's screen for the feds and the spies and everyone else to see.

      Enjoy.

      • Actually, any text message or phone call or picture uploaded to any site or website you go to or fax you send all goes through a massive data harvesting facility known as ECHELON... even if it's 'end to end encrypted', the facility decrypts it and scans the contents before re-encrypting it and sending it on its way.
        No government would allow an encryption to be used that they couldn't break... all of them have the master keys

    • Meta is violating privacy??? Whaaaaaaaat?????????

      Whaaaaaaaat???????Aaaaaaap????????

      Nothin. Watchin a game, havin a bud.

    • by Tom ( 822 )

      Shocking, right?

      Almost as shocking as people who bought something, anything, from the Facebook company being oblivious to the fact that the entire company is built on violating their privacy. It is literally what they do for a living.

    • I think that, at this point, it is more mention-worthy if stuff is *not* uploaded to someone else's computer.

  • by alispguru ( 72689 ) <bob DOT bane AT me DOT com> on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @05:21PM (#66021204) Journal

    and "We're not doing that anymore."

    And nothing else will happen...

    • They might pay a "fine" (bribe) to some court system somewhere to get away with it if it gets that far, but nobody will ever end up in jail for as long as the system is corrupt.

  • by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @05:24PM (#66021216)

    Employees in Kenya doing AI "annotation" told the journalists that they've seen people nude, using the toilet and engaging in sexual activity, along with credit card numbers and other sensitive information.

    Kenyan Employees' Inner Dialog: "These people are idiots."

    More seriously, don't these glasses have a easy-to-access / simple-to-use privacy/off/standby button for situations like those? If not, they should.

    • by Local ID10T ( 790134 ) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @06:46PM (#66021364) Homepage

      What? It is prohibited to turn off your telescreen!

      The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

      BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU

      • by Sloppy ( 14984 )

        You asked a brother to watch you, and Meta accepted your offer.

        • by BeaverCleaver ( 673164 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2026 @12:14AM (#66021730)

          You asked a brother to watch you, and Meta accepted your offer.

          Exactly. Orwell was an optimist. When he wrote 1984, he thought that the government would have to force people to submit to surveillance. Instead, people willingly paid money to buy these stupid glasses, and gave up their most intimate details to a private company.

  • telltale stink (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dfghjk ( 711126 )

    "...That's because Meta's large language models (LLMs) often require people to annotate visual data so that the AI can understand it and build its training models..."

    Is that true though? It's not even clear for LLM's generally, visual data tends to require the most annotation but that doesn't mean it's "often". And a lot of annotation required is for driving, is Meta doing that? I'd say this is a corporate lie, and excuse that fits with their desire to do whatever they want.

    Also, an AI doesn't need to "u

  • Anybody who signs up for this kind of service - never mind actually paying for it - deserves any bad consequences. It's a variety of natural selection.

  • by Smonster ( 2884001 ) on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @06:54PM (#66021390)
    Who would have thunk a camera strapped to your face recording everything it sees and sending the video to a server would actually record video and send it to a server. Further more color me surprised that the people mechanical Turking Meta's "AI" are underpaid serfs somewhere in the third world. Who would have guessed any of that? Said no one with more than minimal understanding of how things work.

    If anything is ever shared online, on a private or public network you can be assured that someone, somewhere can look at if they really want to. Bet on it.
  • ... now before I begin, where are my Meta AI Display Glasses...?

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday March 03, 2026 @08:49PM (#66021538)

    Because NO ONE is getting laid with one of those ridiculous things on their faces!

  • I've been wanting a pair of smart glasses since Google Glass was first previewed, so much so that I almost shelled out $1k just to buy one.

    Given that, you'd think I'd be anxiously awaiting Meta's glasses ... but I couldn't care less. Anyone who supports that company gets what they deserve (a terrible product with lots of flaws, that is only good for helping Zuckerberg pay for his next personal city).

  • The big ones just ignore it hoping that the abused user has the burden of proof. And if they once in a blue moon get a fine, that fine is nothing, like 0.000000001% of their monthly income. If I got so low fines for speeding, I would just include that in my monthly expenses and pay the half cent and drive by speeding cameras with a big smile.
  • If anyone is stupid enough to give Facebook money, they deserve whatever they get.
  • by Mof-Tan ( 108800 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2026 @02:52AM (#66021804)

    GDPR is actually great. I didn't like it when I heard about it in the tech media years ago but since then I've read it and worked with it and it is actually a really good law for EU citizens. I would argue even good for all the world's citizens (see this story for instance).

    The main problem with GDPR is only one thing; sloppy implementation but EU member states. It is the local authorities for each EU member state that has jurisdiction and some of them just don't care about the law at all (looking at Ireland and a few others), so tech companies can shop around for the most lenient jurisdiction. Needles to say, Facebook is not compliant based on very clear and straight reading of the law.

  • The fact that they watch you or the fact that some people still thought they would not.
  • "However, Svenska Dagbladet's reporters said they needed to jump through some hoops to see Meta's privacy policy for its wearable products."

    Really? I found it immediately by searching for "Meta's privacy policy for its wearable products". In the article, they say the glasses came with a QR code linking to the privacy policy.

    Zero hoops!

  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Wednesday March 04, 2026 @12:25PM (#66022532)

    This means you have to get written informed consent for the upload from each of them or you will be committing a crime. There is an exception when you do not focus on people, but as soon as you do, you are toast.

    • by JimMcc ( 31079 )

      I'm curious about what constitutes focus on people. How close to a person is a violation? I see lots of YT videos shot in the EU with a lot of people in them. (Not trolling. Genuinely trying to understand.)

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        The exception is for panorama-pictures. The center there is landscapes, buildings, etc. As soon as a person becomes the center (with a video that means more than just panning over them), they need to consent.

        In most cases, the courts will find no significant damage and then there is basically no consequences. But the cloud-upload and tagging may fundamentally change that, especially as this may be seen as "publishing".

Usage: fortune -P [-f] -a [xsz] Q: file [rKe9] -v6[+] file1 ...

Working...