Meta's ships facial recognition on smart glasses

Post by supermdguy » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 9:11 PM UTC

Bender wrote: post #39

Do these emit something unique that could be detected so that loud klaxon could let everyone know there is a glasshole approaching? Some unique bluetooth identifier perhaps?

Post by wizzwizz4 » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 9:13 PM UTC

flir wrote: post #31

kstrauser wrote: post #9

I'm in the position to make security policies at work, and one of them is that no smart glasses are allowed in the office. We will not be having workers aiming Facebook glasses at our screens showing confidential information. And along those lines, I can think of damn few scenarios where I'd be OK with someone using face recognition against me. Restaurants? It's not Facebook's business to know where I like to eat, pr…

The tech's there. The genie can't be put back in the bottle, and it will only get cheaper and more invasive. Only question we have any control over is... do we want everyone to have it, or only govs and corps? There's a second-amendment-like argument here, imo, that is very hard to push back on - because at least this stuff doesn't kill people. I want every cop to be surrounded by five or six recording devices that t…

Post by riffraff » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 9:19 PM UTC

majiy wrote: post #95

RobotToaster wrote: post #29

I wish something like this existed that was completely offline. I'm face blind (prosopagnosia) so being able to feed an offline database photos of friends so it can recognise them would be great. Accessibility shouldn't require giving up privacy.

Literally my thoughts. That would be so helpful, but I will not give any data-hungy company access to people around me. I recently heard the best way to explain faceblindness: Apples. Can you tell apples apart? Yes, sure, if you put two apples next to each other, they look similar, but there are differences. But could you recognize that specific apple among 50 similar ones? If an apple addressed you on the street, co…

Post by michaelt » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 9:22 PM UTC

ninininino wrote: post #19

KaiserPro wrote: post #6

Former Facebook wanker, who worked in research. 1) we were always told and legal always pushed back hard on anything face detecting.(ie haar cascade "this is a face" let alone actual this is dave/sally) 2) the FTC would audit us to make sure we weren't doing that kind of stuff 3) all of the research prototypes had inbuilt/inline face removers up until 2024(I left after that so I don't know when/if that changed) 3.1)…

Pure speculation, probably they finally figured out the correct legal ToS and privacy policy and everything else that made them feel confident + some regulatory/lawmaker discussions reached a certain point that they finally decided they could do it? Does that add up?

Post by Gooblebrai » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 9:22 PM UTC

john_strinlai wrote: post #60

Gooblebrai wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have an instant summary in front of you you reminding you of someone's birthday, the names of their kids "How much outsourcing of your mind do you want to give to technology?" "Yes" If you really can't remember all the details of people that you want to remember, you can always write those details on your phone or trusty Rolodex after you meet them and then check them out before you meet them again if you must.

> If you really can't remember all the details of people that you want to remember, you can always write those details on your phone or trusty Rolodex after you meet them and then check them out before you meet them again if you must. i do not see any practical difference between the hypothetical device the parent proposes and this, except that your suggestion is more cumbersome. you're just "outsourcing your mind" t…