Meta Executives Denounce Wired Report on Unreleased Smart-Glasses Faceprints as $1.4 Billion Texas Case Looms
Updated
Updated · Futurism · Jun 8
Meta Executives Denounce Wired Report on Unreleased Smart-Glasses Faceprints as $1.4 Billion Texas Case Looms
3 articles · Updated · Futurism · Jun 8
Summary
Andy Stone and CTO Andrew Bosworth blasted Wired’s report as “dishonest” and “misleading” after journalists found code for an unreleased Meta smart-glasses feature called NameTag.
NameTag would turn faces seen through the glasses into biometric signatures and compare them with faceprints stored on a user’s phone; Meta said the tool is exploratory, not enabled for consumers, and not tied to a central face database.
Wired’s findings revived concerns because the feature has surfaced before: the New York Times reported in February that Meta was discussing adding NameTag, and an internal memo said launch timing should avoid concentrated civil-society backlash.
Privacy opposition has already hardened, with 75 groups signing an ACLU-led April letter calling the feature a red line, while critics say Meta is building the capacity for distributed facial-recognition surveillance.
The dispute lands against Meta’s broader biometric track record, including a $1.4 billion Texas settlement in 2025 and its 2021 shutdown of Facebook’s automatic face-tagging feature.
If Meta promises transparency, why was its facial recognition code hidden in an app used by 50 million people?
Facial recognition is a 'red line,' but what happens when AI can identify you by your walk or voice?
2026 Meta NameTag Controversy: The Battle Over Facial Recognition, Privacy, and Biometric Law in Smart Glasses
Overview
In early June 2026, reports revealed that Meta had embedded unreleased facial recognition technology, called 'NameTag,' in its smart glasses. This discovery sparked immediate and intense criticism from privacy advocates and government officials, who saw it as a clear case of corporate overreach into personal data. Although Meta responded by removing the controversial code, the action failed to calm the growing outrage. Privacy and civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, argued that simply deleting the code did not address the original decision to include it, highlighting the urgent need for stronger legal protections for consumer privacy.