{"id":1884624,"date":"2026-04-14T16:35:22","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T13:35:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/?p=1884624"},"modified":"2026-04-14T16:35:22","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T13:35:22","slug":"meta-thinks-its-smart-glasses-could-stalk-people-in-a-thoughtful-way","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/?p=1884624","title":{"rendered":"Meta Thinks Its Smart Glasses Could Stalk People in a \u2018Thoughtful\u2019 Way"},"content":{"rendered":"

[analyse_image type=”featured” src=”https:\/\/gizmodo.com\/app\/uploads\/2025\/09\/ray-ban-meta-gen-1-09-1200×675.jpg”]<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Smart glasses are pissing people off in a lot of ways right now, but arguably the most incendiary issue is Meta\u2019s potential plan to add facial recognition to its Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses. If you caught wind of that possibility and thought to yourself, \u201cSounds bad,\u201d you need not fear; Meta seems to think that if it were\u00a0<\/em>to dabble in facial recognition, it could do so in a \u201cthoughtful\u201d way.<\/p>\n

In a statement made to Wired, a Meta spokesperson didn\u2019t rule out the possibility of using facial recognition in its Ray-Ban-branded smart glasses, but stated that if it did, it would do so responsibly. Here\u2019s the full comment:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cOur competitors offer this type of facial recognition product, we do not. If we were to release such a feature, we would take a very thoughtful approach before rolling anything out.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

See Ray-Ban Meta at Amazon<\/p>\n

That\u2019s obviously not much to work off of, but it says a couple of things. One is that Meta doesn\u2019t seem to be ruling out facial recognition, which is a major statement, especially because there are quite a few companies that take a more privacy-forward approach to smart glasses. Some of them, like Even Realities, don\u2019t even put cameras or speakers in their smart glasses, which is a philosophical choice. That\u2019s all to say that, if Meta wanted to, it could easily say \u201cno\u201d to facial recognition right now.<\/p>\n

It also says that Meta is seemingly aware that the issue is a fraught one, and it definitely should<\/em> know that by now. The comment made to Wired was given in the context of several civil rights groups, including the ACLU and Fight for the Future, making their feelings on Meta\u2019s potential plans to add facial recognition to its smart glasses known. To no one\u2019s surprise, none of those 70-ish civil rights groups is a big fan. Here\u2019s an excerpt from an open letter to Meta:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cFacial recognition technology built into inconspicuous consumer eyewear represents a serious threat to privacy and civil liberties for every member of our society, and particularly for historically marginalized and vulnerable groups, including domestic violence survivors, targets of stalkers and sexual harassers, religious minorities, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and women and children, among others.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

While Meta\u2019s potential plans to add facial recognition to its smart glasses haven\u2019t been confirmed, they\u2019ve already created a lot of waves. Last month, congressional lawmakers also penned an open letter to Meta asking it to elaborate on the potential use of facial recognition in its smart glasses. Despite those pleas, Meta has been mostly silent.<\/p>\n

For context, the New York Times was the first to detail internal plans, which Meta said \u201cwill 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,\u201d according to the report.<\/p>\n

Whether those will ever see the light of day is anyone\u2019s guess, but if Meta\u2019s recent comments are anything to go on, then it\u2019s filed under \u201cdefinitely maybe\u201d for now.<\/p>\n

See Ray-Ban Meta at Amazon<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/article>\n

\n

Smart glasses are pissing people off in a lot of ways right now, but arguably the most incendiary issue is Meta\u2019s potential plan to add facial recognition to its Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses. If you caught wind of that possibility and thought to yourself, \u201cSounds bad,\u201d you need not fear; Meta seems to think that if it were\u00a0<\/em>to dabble in facial recognition, it could do so in a \u201cthoughtful\u201d way.<\/p>\n

In a statement made to Wired, a Meta spokesperson didn\u2019t rule out the possibility of using facial recognition in its Ray-Ban-branded smart glasses, but stated that if it did, it would do so responsibly. Here\u2019s the full comment:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cOur competitors offer this type of facial recognition product, we do not. If we were to release such a feature, we would take a very thoughtful approach before rolling anything out.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

See Ray-Ban Meta at Amazon<\/p>\n

That\u2019s obviously not much to work off of, but it says a couple of things. One is that Meta doesn\u2019t seem to be ruling out facial recognition, which is a major statement, especially because there are quite a few companies that take a more privacy-forward approach to smart glasses. Some of them, like Even Realities, don\u2019t even put cameras or speakers in their smart glasses, which is a philosophical choice. That\u2019s all to say that, if Meta wanted to, it could easily say \u201cno\u201d to facial recognition right now.<\/p>\n

It also says that Meta is seemingly aware that the issue is a fraught one, and it definitely should<\/em> know that by now. The comment made to Wired was given in the context of several civil rights groups, including the ACLU and Fight for the Future, making their feelings on Meta\u2019s potential plans to add facial recognition to its smart glasses known. To no one\u2019s surprise, none of those 70-ish civil rights groups is a big fan. Here\u2019s an excerpt from an open letter to Meta:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cFacial recognition technology built into inconspicuous consumer eyewear represents a serious threat to privacy and civil liberties for every member of our society, and particularly for historically marginalized and vulnerable groups, including domestic violence survivors, targets of stalkers and sexual harassers, religious minorities, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and women and children, among others.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

While Meta\u2019s potential plans to add facial recognition to its smart glasses haven\u2019t been confirmed, they\u2019ve already created a lot of waves. Last month, congressional lawmakers also penned an open letter to Meta asking it to elaborate on the potential use of facial recognition in its smart glasses. Despite those pleas, Meta has been mostly silent.<\/p>\n

For context, the New York Times was the first to detail internal plans, which Meta said \u201cwill 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,\u201d according to the report.<\/p>\n

Whether those will ever see the light of day is anyone\u2019s guess, but if Meta\u2019s recent comments are anything to go on, then it\u2019s filed under \u201cdefinitely maybe\u201d for now.<\/p>\n

See Ray-Ban Meta at Amazon<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

[analyse_source url=”https:\/\/gizmodo.com\/meta-thinks-its-smart-glasses-could-stalk-people-in-a-thoughtful-way-2000746222″]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[analyse_image type=”featured” src=”https:\/\/gizmodo.com\/app\/uploads\/2025\/09\/ray-ban-meta-gen-1-09-1200×675.jpg”] Smart glasses are pissing people off in a lot of ways right now, but arguably the most incendiary issue is Meta\u2019s potential plan to add facial recognition to its Ray-Ban Meta AI glasses. If you caught wind of that possibility and thought to yourself, \u201cSounds bad,\u201d you need not fear; Meta seems […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[226,53],"class_list":["post-1884624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","tag-crawlmanager","tag-gizmodo-com"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1884624","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1884624"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1884624\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1884624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1884624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/analyse.optim.biz\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1884624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}