Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Privacy Slashdot.org

Meta Is Warned That Facial Recognition Glasses Will Arm Sexual Predators (wired.com) 90

Posted by BeauHD from the cease-and-desist dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Wired: More than 70 civil liberties, domestic violence, reproductive rights, LGBTQ+, labor, and immigrant advocacy organizations are demanding that Meta abandon plans to deploy face recognition on its Ray-Ban and Oakley smart glasses, warning that the feature -- reportedly known inside the company as "Name Tag" -- would hand stalkers, abusers, and federal agents the ability to silently identify strangers in public. The coalition, which includes the ACLU, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Fight for the Future, Access Now, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, is demanding Meta kill the feature before launch, after internal documents surfaced showing the company hoped to use the current "dynamic political environment" as cover for the rollout, betting that civil society groups would have their resources "focused on other concerns."

Name Tag, as revealed in February by The New York Times, would work through the artificial intelligence assistant built into Meta's smart glasses, allowing wearers to pull up information about people in their field of view. Engineers have reportedly been weighing two versions of the feature: one that would only identify people the wearer is already connected to on a Meta platform, and a broader version that could recognize anyone with a public account on a Meta service such as Instagram. The coalition wants Meta to scrap the feature entirely. In a letter to CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Monday, it argues that face recognition in inconspicuous consumer eyewear "cannot be resolved through product design changes, opt-out mechanisms, or incremental safeguards." Bystanders in public have no meaningful way to consent to being identified, it says.

Meta is also urged to disclose any known instances of its wearables being used in stalking, harassment, or domestic violence cases; disclose any past or ongoing discussions with federal law enforcement agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, about the use of Meta wearables or data from them; and commit to consulting civil society and independent privacy experts before integrating biometric identification into any consumer device. "People should be able to move through their daily lives without fear that stalkers, scammers, abusers, federal agents, and activists across the political spectrum are silently and invisibly verifying their identities and potentially matching their names to a wealth of readily available data about their habits, hobbies, relationships, health, and behaviors," write the groups, which also include Common Cause, Jane Doe Inc., UltraViolet, the National Organization for Women, the New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Library Freedom Project, and Old Dykes Against Billionaire Tech Bros, among others.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Meta Is Warned That Facial Recognition Glasses Will Arm Sexual Predators More

Meta Is Warned That Facial Recognition Glasses Will Arm Sexual Predators

Comments Filter:
  • > Bystanders in public have no meaningful way to consent to being identified We already can't do that for any existing camera. Why are these any different?
    • Covert and able to be owned by any asshole and used as a marketing point. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it should.

    • Re: we can't prevent identification in public alre (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @04:12PM (#66092256)

      Cameras that available now for normal citizens don't get VIP access to a large social media network and automatically try to identify everyone?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by taustin ( 171655 )

        Upload a random photo to Facebook and see how many people it tags for you.

        That barn door has been wide open for a long time.

        • Re: we can't prevent identification in public alre (Score:5, Interesting)

          by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @04:59PM (#66092348)

          That doesn't meet the smell test.

          You can elect to be on Facebook. FACEbook.

          Or you can elect to never go there.

          On the street, you must travel, or your are jailed in your location, enslaving you. Actual freedom means walking down the street, going into a store, driving, biking, whatever.

          Liberty dictates you have freedom of movement and association. It doesn't mean you can look up any random individual and drill through who/what they are. In public and private places, the Fifth Amendment applies, also unreasonable search and seizure, no matter who does it, government or not.

          The Meta glasses are an onerous extension of cloud-based profile lookups and matching. Identity and privacy are dignity. Meta glasses remove that privacy, and any remaining shred of dignity.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by taustin ( 171655 )

            You can elect to be on Facebook.

            No, you really can't. [vox.com]

            Note that article is eight years old.

            Nothing new here at all.

          • You need to go back to school. The Bill of Rights are restrictions upon the federal government which were later extended, in a number of discrete instances, under the 14th Amendment to state and local governments. They in no way apply to private entities.

            Your assumption that you have some right to privacy conflicts with the most basic of rights, that of property. You have no right to my property. If I wish to make detailed notes about your comings and goings in my notebook you have no right to dictate w

            • Property rights are ephemeral, but tangible assets do indeed exist.

              As regards your sense of right to association, free speech, and more, there is a long battle we can fight.

              My stance is you assert certain privacy invasions; I believe that human dignity has as a component, anonymity. Is dignity in us Constitution? Law school could help you understand where dignity, liberty, and freedom reign, and what parts of the Bill of Rights apply, and how.

              I continue my stance that racing to the cloud to identify me on t

              • You are absolutely feel free to argue what you think the law *should* say. But the Bill of Rights, including the fourth amendment (which is what you meant, not the fifth), definitely does not restrict what private citizens and corporations can do. It only restricts the government. And, as TomWinTejas said, it didn't even restrict the states or local governments, only the federal government, until the 14th amendment modified the meaning.

                When it comes to search and seizure there is a different concept th

          • Can you tell me where I can find a right to not being recognized in public?

            • By a human, from memory, or by a random human, who may or may not be tied to "the government"?

              Which one is Big Brother?

              Choose your answer carefully.

              • By anyone, at all, in any way.

                Oh, and then tell me how society could possibly function under such a constraint. I'm already trying to figure out how a cop would be able to identify a suspect from a description, composite, or photo/video if the suspect could then invoke a right to not have been recognized.

                Then there's the more fundamental problem of, "Oh, isn't that my old friend from school? I wonder if I'm allowed to know."

                • For all history we have functioned without this.

                  We have a right of association, and not to incriminate ourselves, for roughly 228 years in the USA, depending on how you want to cite case law on the Bill of Rights.

                  We still have those rights.

                  Is that your old friend from HS? GO ask

                  You sit behind pseudoanonyimity with your sabeede "screen name" account on website where you can be outed.

                  In theory, this requires a warrant, and probable cause, among other tests. Maybe that person from HS doesn't want to be identif

                  • Functioned without what, recognizing people? I assure you, that predates written history. Animals do it. There can be no right to not be recognized, it would be tantamount to asserting a right to determine what I perceive.

                    Love,
                    Matt

        • In your example a human must be taking and uploading an individually a photo they liked. This is very different from an always-on camera streaming to the cloud and tagging people automatically as they move in the city, from all possible angles and places if multiple users walk the street with such accessories.

        • It only tags my friends ...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SirSlud ( 67381 )

      “We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,” according to the document from Meta’s Reality Labs, which works on hardware including smart glasses."

      Because existing cameras don't automatically identify people in public when you point them at them? I mean, Meta clearly understands how it's different - they're trying to toe the line between hoping certain groups wi

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Can't do that in any way, technological or otherwise. It is the very definition of being in public.

      "Meta is also urged to disclose any known instances of its wearables being used in stalking..."

      In order for them to do that they would have to engage in stalking themselves.

      "People should be able to move through their daily lives without fear that stalkers, scammers, abusers, federal agents, and activists across the political spectrum are silently and invisibly verifying their identities and potentially match

      • That's basically the same as the drug companies saying "don't take this medication if you're allergic to it"... that releases them from liability.
        "It wasn't our intention that our product be used this way, and such a use is illegal by our ToS"... and, that releases them from any sign of guilt.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Perhaps you mean "consent to being recorded". To identify someone, you have to take that information, match it to a record in a database and return linked records.

      Just make it illegal to posses such records in the first place (particularly related to children). Zuckerberg in prison would be a great achievement.

      • There's really nothing that can be done about the technology in public, but these will run into the same problem that guns do even in states that allow carry with or without permit. At some point a person will want to enter a private establishment and they will be subject to the policy of the owners. Many businesses already explicitly forbid anyone from recording on the premises so anyone wearing these glasses would need to check them at the door.

        Meta should really just invert the concerns of these group

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by PPH ( 736903 )

          The glasses aren't the problem as much as the facial recognition going on behind them. The public/private distinction is valid in that a camera can be banned in a private setting but not so much public. However once the camera is permitted, nobody knows what might be going on behind it. Me, swinging my Canon EOS around is going to be a lot more obvious than someone wearing "glasses". But it's the stalking that really creeps people out. And the facial recognition that supports it. And that's more effective i

          • I don't understand why I'd need/want a pair of glasses with all this crap built-in... my regular glasses are delicate (read: needed) enough as is, I don't want to have to charge them every night like a cellphone.
            Is their only purpose to video hotties at the bar without them knowing (also called "creeping"... see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] )?

    • It's different because they can use your data against you, odds are you are in their system you gave them your data. At the time you didn't think your pictures you gave facebook could be used for strangers to identify you. Now it's different. Most other systems you have to consent to give them your picture, and many of these systems you can opt out of. But the biggest problem is the government can use these systems to locate you without your consent.

    • Existing cameras are not actively identifying you (Score:5, Informative)

      by drnb ( 2434720 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @04:35PM (#66092314)

      > Bystanders in public have no meaningful way to consent to being identified We already can't do that for any existing camera. Why are these any different?

      Because nearly all the existing cameras are just recording events in case something bad happens. Outside of a few edge cases, like Las Vegas casinos, these cameras are NOT trying to actively identify you.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by doug141 ( 863552 )

        Major retailers use face ID to track shoplifters over many visits. Retailers don't call police until the amount taken hits felony level. The police are on YouTube videos shaking down mis-identified (by AI) shoplifting suspects, and, despite the innocent shoppers having multiple forms of ID showing they are not the serial shoplifter, the police (in the videos that gain YouTube notoriety) assume computers are never wrong and arrest the innocent person despite the exonerating evidence.

    • There is no right to anonymity in public.

      We can already see people and identify them using our eyes and brains. Using a computer does not qualitatively change this paradigm. It only expands it quantitatively. This is not a significant and meaningful expansion in the eyes of the law.

      It is not illegal to recognize people you see in public, therefore it is not illegal to recognize people you see in public using a computer.

    • Because existing cameras do not report it to the big brother.
      Ooops, what a stupid question.

      What is going on if one has such a tech rolled out?

      It is not really only about where a person is spotted: but the conclusion where it right now can't be. For example: not at home.

      As soon as such glasses are hackable, you can set up a person of interest as a world wide target. Not necessarily to haunt it, but to burgle his/her house, or what ever you can when you know where the person is. Abduct the kids, fuck the spou

  • ya, that carries real weight against revenue and government contracts...

  • What about spy cameras? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They can be smaller than those glasses. Where's the outrage about those?

  • Even if they kill this in the consumer version, you know they will still have a fully-enabled version for "select partners*. Look forward to government goons wearing these soon.

  • "Old Dykes Against Billionaire Tech Bros" (Score:5, Funny)

    by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Monday April 13, 2026 @04:20PM (#66092276) Homepage
    I salute the naming committee from that group. Well done.

    • A quick Googling reveals that the closest thing they have to a public-facing web page is... an Instagram group. Seems a bit hypocritical unless the entire thing is just satire. It's hard to tell these days.

  • Just effing great.

  • If you outlaw guns...only outlaws will have guns. (swap guns with tech you care about)

    Blocking Meta simply leaves the market open for someone less scrupulous. (Yes, they exist.)

    Innovation should be examined, understood, integrated, not 'blocked.'

    Of course, there's also the concept that 'locks are simply there to keep honest people honest.'

    • Blocking Meta simply leaves the market open for someone less scrupulous. (Yes, they exist.)

      And what less scrupulous non-governmental entity is it that has a database of photos of millions of known individuals to compare against?

      • Blocking Meta simply leaves the market open for someone less scrupulous. (Yes, they exist.)

        And what less scrupulous non-governmental entity is it that has a database of photos of millions of known individuals to compare against?

        I believe the word you were looking for is BILLIONs. Facebook is world-wide.

    • Guns are simple and can be built or smuggled by motivated individuals. Huge facial datasets, on the other hand, can probably be regulated fairly easy without vicious/unmanageable black markets popping up.

      • Who would regulate the data that "feeds the hand"?
        Without black markets popping up for the facial data that links to whatever hardware? You wish!
        If any of us had your real name, a few minutes online would give any of us your real address, we might even get the VIN _and_ plates of your car, and in rare cases, your SSN.
        And... that's just what's online and available to us without your picture... if my "smart glasses" get your pic and match it to your Facebook or whatever, you could lose your identity in one b

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by eepok ( 545733 )

      If you outlaw guns...only outlaws will have guns. (swap guns with tech you care about)

      Ya.. and there are many, many fewer guns in the hands of even outlaws. You only have to look at literally every other nation that has done it.

      Blocking Meta simply leaves the market open for someone less scrupulous. (Yes, they exist.)

      They're not trying to "block Meta". They're trying to block the tech.

      Innovation should be examined, understood, integrated, not 'blocked.'

      Well, until it harms YOU, of course. At that point, it's the government failing to protect its people, right?

      Of course, there's also the concept that 'locks are simply there to keep honest people honest.'

      That's not true, either. There's plenty of evidence of this with all the doorbell cameras out there catching randos going to front doors and car doors simply checking to see if they're locked.

  • In other worse "We know it's bad, so we'll try to sneak it in because... money"

  • If you stalker needs face recognition to identify you; are they stalking you at all? That one does not even really make sense.

    Law enforcement too already has cameras all over the darn place. I kinda don't see the threat there either, at least not beyond the one that already is present. We post wanted posters for a reason, precisely because we want to deny know criminals and suspects privacy in public.

    There are lot of reasons to be concerned about Meta putting face recognition on these things, but honestl

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      If you stalker needs face recognition to identify you; are they stalking you at all? That one does not even really make sense.

      The theory is that people will see someone they find attractive and use this to figure out who they are so that they can stalk them. And yeah, that could plausibly happen, in theory.

      In practice, Facebook doesn't know where I am right now, and facial recognition on a worldwide database is likely to produce hundreds of hits for every person, and that's assuming the person even has a Facebook account.

      Also, in practice, the feature has almost no real-world utility. If you don't already know who a person is, y

    • If you stalker needs face recognition to identify you; are they stalking you at all? That one does not even really make sense.

      I would imagine it's a "one step up the chain" problem. Basically, if facial recognition is utilized to the fullest, without your own consent, Meta will have the option of tagging spottings for you by address, by map, by street, by landmarks, or whatever. So, if someone is stalking you, they don't even necessarily need to own a pair of the glasses. They can just check to see where you've been tagged recently and head out to find you.

      Think they're beyond that type of thing? Think about how many photos you've

  • Stop making hammers.

  • Disappointing that privacy issues need to be sensationalized to get people to care.

    Adding facial recognition to Glasshole's capabilities that relies on some Aunt or coworker tagging them a Facebook post a decade ago is creepy enough without needing to think of what sexual predators will do with it.

  • The early panicky days of COVID may be over, but face masks suddenly look like a pretty good idea again.

    • A temporary fix, if that (probably not even). They will identify you by your size and the way you move - China does this for their CTV networks. Heck, given that it's only identifying Meta users who already agreed to be spied on 24/7 in exchange for free IM and social media, adding location proximity detection (one of Meta apps transmitting) will make it almost full proof, even if you walk around with a bag on your head. It's not that hard to figure out who is who on a video if you know you only have 5 iden

  • Tired of Meta identifying you 40 times a day everywhere you go?

    We have the solution.

    The head to toe, face covering, unisex burka!

    They only come in the same gray color, so you'll mix in and remain unidentifiable.

    Another genius solution from the past!

  • Wait until every camera around you is used to track the eyeballs of every person in a store and everywhere.

    There will be AI watching what you are currently looking at, looking at that booty? Ai will know who, and how often you look, there will be lists that will measure this.
    It will go under the disguise of crime prevention, and also what goods customers want and desire.

    Looking at that booty or that box of Cereal? That observation goes somewhere.

    Someone suspects you of something? They can look at the statis

  • How often has someone's name slipped your memory because you have not seen them in a long time or seeing them in a new context throws off your memory. Maybe you could buy them if you pass a 'nice person' test- Oh wait that is social credit score, darn we just can't have nice things!
  • So don’t have a public account. You can’t control what other people do. But you can control what you do. Also, this is lame. Is it not enough nearly everyone has a camera in their pocket. How is society better when the majority of people are a being constantly recorded? I’m definitely glad I came of age before this nonsense. My stupid years are mostly anonymous and in the memories of the few. More and more people will be defined for extended periods by something they thought was funny whe
  • Meta is rolling out a culture shattering product for the involuntary porn actress and revenge porn industry! The monetary upside for Meta is huge!
  • The glasses can be creepy, but rudeness and lack of consideration for other people are the real issue. No need to go all "stalker" on us.
  • If the summary is correct, the glasses only identify people with Meta accounts. All those people already voluntarily gave up their privacy, in was in the EULA when they signed up for their free account (and likely modified later, with option to cancel the account if you don't agree).

  • At minimum, this should be opt-in (by people being viewed) - they get to choose their name-tag name and the default/unspecified name-tag should be [Don't creep on me]

    • At least for now, getting a Meta account is 100% opt-in (by people who choose to create a Meta account). I am not sure if there in an opt-out option (erase my account) as I never opted-in in the first place.

  • stalkers, abusers, and federal agents

    One of these is not like the others. I mean, not REALLY like them. That is, not EXACTLY like them. Well... oh, never mind.

  • What if people were able to see who out there in the crowd has been convicted of being a sexual predator?
    • Next it will be LGBTQ+, then Political part affiliation, pay scale, if their partner is a person of colour, etc etc etc

      No thanks, this is abuse marketed asa a feature.
  • Knife manufacturer is warned that knives will arm sexual predators.

  • If they will allow me to personally identify ICE agents, police, and government employees.

  • It doesn't matter if it's Google, Meta, or Apple, it will happen. And the government will LOVE IT. Because it doesn't matter how good the techbro lawyer are. The government will gain access to the data. It would save many many billions in surveillance. It would place the burden of law enforcement on the techbros and they'll pay the price gladly for access to the personal data.

    And if the heads up thing isn't good enough, expect everyone to start wearing cute hairclips, headphones, etc... that do the same thi

Slashdot Top Deals

1 Sagan = Billions & Billions

Close