← Back to context

Comment by blakesterz

17 hours ago

  Meta aims to introduce facial recognition to its smart glasses while its biggest critics are distracted, according to a report from The New York Times. In an internal document reviewed by The Times, Meta says it will launch the feature “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.”


https://www.theverge.com/tech/878725/meta-facial-recognition...

I never understand why a company would put something like this in writing.

I worked at a midsize financial company before and whenever there was something even approaching a legal or ethical grey area, we'd pick up the phone and say come to my office to talk, and then you'd close the door.

We weren't doing anything nearly as nefarious as Meta, yet everyone was always aware that email and phone conversations were recorded and archived.

  • When you have no fear about repercussions of being caught. Case in point, nothing will happen about this.

    • Surely though there is some type of survival instinct still awake and alive in the hearts and minds of men and women. We are a very aggressive species. Surely something would awaken and tell you "you should be quiet now" and "your next and only words should be lawyer". Surely...

      1 reply →

    • Exactly, people are distracted by nothing being done about the Epstein files, a genocide being committed out in the open for 2+ years, fascist private army running around abducting DoorDash drivers and shooting people in the head. It's a great time for anyone wanting to do a society-level bad thing.

  • Maybe, just maybe, Meta bosses aren't even aware that what they're doing is nefarious. Just business as usual.

    Now, one wonders what constitutes "nefarious" or a grey zone worth hiding in their minds.

  • Same reason project 2025 was put in writing. When you have large organizations you need to distribute communication. It's really just about cooperation and logistics

  • >We weren't doing anything nearly as nefarious

    But still nefarious. Thats kinda messed up, to be honest.

  • >I never understand why a company would put something like this in writing.

    Do you believe these companies and individuals will ever see consequences for putting this in writing? I don't think they will, and I assume they believe the same based on their actions. Why waste time being "moral" when you don't lose anything for being immoral and stand to gain something if your gamble wins?

    I mean, there's a whole philosophical outlook about being a good person and some people just want to do without needing enforcement, but those people also dont tend to become one of the largest corporations on the planet.

They better invest in frame designs too cause as soon as they're recognizable they're gonna get slapped off faces real quick

  • The long term goal might indeed be unrecognizable designs. Perhaps augmented reality contact lens. It will take a long time but people tend to slowly get used to giving more and more of their privacy away. Mojo Vision made a prototype of this. It's more the display but you can imagine the camera being somewhere else and streaming to the lens in an unobstructed way.

  • Are there any less obviously aggressive tactics we can use? Wear something that is blinding to the cameras, or something else to obfuscate?

    • Slapping a pair of glasses that are recording you, processing your face, sending biometrics and images back to one of the worst privacy offenders on the planet off of the face of someone who is willingly doing all that without asking your permission is a perfectly appropriate reaction. Put your shoulder into it.

      I'd rather we normalize that than adversarial fashion.. but that's probably what you were looking for.

      44 replies →

    • Take out your phone, hold it up, and record them back. Get others to do it too for extra comical effect.

      Honestly I’d love to hear from someone who actually owns one of these things how doing this is any different than using the glasses.

      3 replies →

    • I've always wanted to sew very bright IR LEDs into a hat that would blind a camera. Your face would naturally be shadowed by the bill of the hat as that's its intended purpose. The IR would hopefully make the camera want to adjust shutter speed and gain/ISO while assuming a fixed aperture lens.

      7 replies →

    • > Are there any less obviously aggressive tactics we can use?

      If you are in the US, and hopefully in a state that is open to blocking this sort of thing, be very vocal and persistent with your state reps about the issue. Get others to join. I am curious if this will be legal within the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act or a couple other states with similar laws

    • Email corporate security and the chief privacy officer with logs of who is wearing spy glasses. Remind them Facebook controls where that data is stored and who has access to it. Ask how to respond to auditors inquiring about it leave off, "in the future audits".

      - Or -

      Walk around with a vlogger camera that has a large microphone. If anyone takes issue, say "I'm the 5th person here walking around recording everyone today. The others are using a spy camera in their glasses."

      - Or -

      Borrow a pair of them when in public at a restaurant and loudly say, "Oh my god! These AI smart glasses really do remove everyone's clothing, even on the children!" be ready to run.

      _________________

      Only do these things if you typically rock the boat regardless. i.e. often try and fail to get fired or arrested.

  • I'm not the kind of person to wear those, but if I was and someone tried to slap them off me I might feel really threatened if you catch my drift. And since I won't be able to see too well, it will take some extra effort... Was that remaining movement the next punch, or death throes? Can't see too well, better safe than sorry!

I really cannot comprehend how someone can work for a company like that and maintain possession of a soul. I feel like the older I’m getting, the further away I am from understanding.

  • Gen Z doesn’t seem to carry the millennial “making the world a better place” sensibility. They are all hustle culture, all the time. While I appreciate a lot of their culture this is the aspect that makes me nervous about the future.

  • The soulless kids who used to go into finance joined tech and are inspired by the current crop of tech billionaires in the way that their predecessors were inspired by Gordon Gecko.

    • > The soulless kids who used to go into finance joined tech and are inspired by the current crop of tech billionaires in the way that their predecessors were inspired by Gordon Gecko.

      Yep. Once a couple of nerds got rich, it's what that segment pointed their money finders at. Advertising / marketing went with them.

      It was a much nicer place for everyone when it was just the nerds who "had love for the game" :(

  • I'm 37, single, no family or extended family b/c of an...interesting...childhood.

    Every day I understand more and more that I have something really priceless and rare, complete luxury of choice, and 99% of people don't. (as with all things, it has its downside: nothing matters!)

    I refused to get "stuck" in my hometown, which motivated me from college dropout to FAANG. Once I got there, it was novel to me that even rich people get "stuck" due to inability to imagine losing status, and also responsiblities that come with obvious, healthy, lifestyle choices (i.e. marriage and kids)

    • Of course they have a choice, just like you do. You're making excuses for them that they don't need. They're actively choosing the "work at Meta and maintain lifestyle" rather than "don't work at Meta and maybe slightly change lifestyle". Every day, they make that choice.

      Take all the people who get and got laid off. Their life goes on.

      > responsiblities that come with obvious, healthy, lifestyle choices (i.e. marriage and kids)

      99.9999% of people in the world who are married with kids, don't work at Meta.

      6 replies →

  • > how someone can work for a company like that and maintain possession of a soul

    I mean, they don’t. There isn’t a single decent person who has ever worked at Meta, and that started long before this nonsense. The entire company is about the social destruction of its users. Everything anyone there works on drives towards that goal.

The lack of self awareness is pretty fascinating.

  • The individuals making these decisions are 100% aware of what they are doing. Driving for and implementing stuff like this is for profits, bonuses, and internal recognition.

    • Suck has made his mind up about which side he’s on with his money. I recall a time when people on the Forbes list were quietly political.

  • What do you mean? They're fully aware this would be received poorly by "certain groups" and are applying all that highly-praised brain power to getting around that undesirable issue to keep their RSUs growing.

I'm curious how the engineers justify this. I'm generally interested.

Please don't respond with how you think people justify, I want to hear the actual reasons. I'm tired of speculative responses to questions like these.

Please do share if you've had to deal with similar situations too. And feel free to respond with green accounts.

I legitimately want to understand why this happens. Not why from management, why from engineers.

  • Probably a mix of naivety, ignorance, and apathy.

    Most people are just trying to get through their day and not worry about ethical questions.

    I'd say that's terrible, but I'm not confident I'd be a better person if my livelihood depended on doing that sort of work, though I hope I'd be better.

That shouldn't be too difficult with the current US administration. Maybe another reason Bezos and Trump get along so well

Why is it always this accusatory “while you were distracted”-style rhetoric?

Who has been distracted from Facebook’s shenanigans? Who are they talking about? Is it me? Because I can tell you I have certainly not been distracted on that front. Am I supposed to feel guilty? Am I supposed to hold somebody accountable who should’ve been paying attention?

I do actually understand why it’s done, but I just find it very grating and if your goal is to actually raise awareness, shaming people is generally not the way to go about it.

Also the classic “we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time” thing

  • This is Meta claiming in their internal communications that they plan on doing it while people are distracted with other concerns.

    It isn't really "rhetoric", they're talking like they believe this actually happens, this is strategy.

    And I tend to agree with them that things like attention and political capital are ultimately finite resources.

    I've found that the "we can do two things" and "we can walk and chew bubblegum" line of argument to be simplistic and just wrong (and pretty incredibly patronizing). I think the world works exactly the way Meta thinks that it does here.

    It might blow up and turn into a Streisand effect, but more often than not this kind of strategy works.

    Much like how people think they can multitask and talk on the phone and drive at the same time and every scientific measure of it shows that they really can't.

    • If I were Meta's lawyer I would advise them to definitely put into writing how they are fully conscious that this is wrong.

    • > I've found that the "we can do two things" and "we can walk and chew bubblegum" line of argument to be simplistic and just wrong

      It's painfully obvious to me society cannot do two things at once. You focus on one shared goal as a culture or everything falls apart very rapidly - as we are seeing today. It's why a common external "enemy" (e.g competitor, nation state, culture, whatever) has historically been so important.

      The shared goal can be complex in nature, which requires many disciplines to come together to achieve it via a series of many parallel activities that might look like they are all doing something random, but it's all in the service of that singular shared goal.

      This holds true from my experience at the national level all the way down to small organizations.

  • > Who has been distracted from Facebook’s shenanigans? Who are they talking about? Is it me? Because I can tell you I have certainly not been distracted on that front.

    On September 11th 2001 a UK government department's press chief told their subordinates it was a "good day to bury bad news".

    The idea is pretty simple - you might be obligated to announce something that you know will be poorly received, like poor train performance figures, but you can decide the exact day you announce it, like on a day when thousands have died in a terror attack. What would otherwise be front-page news is relegated to a few paragraphs on page 14.

    Facebook proposes a similar strategy: Get the feature ready to go, wait until there's some much bigger news story, and deploy it that day.

  • The facebook execs literally plotted to relaunch their unpopular product while people were distracted by other bad news.

    > “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.

  • American society has a finite aggregate supply of attention. Politicians and megacorporations often exploit this fact. This Verge article is a leak that verifies that Meta is actively and brazenly continuing to exploit it.

    Is that a good enough explanation to reduce your feelings of being personally targeted?

  • interesting (respectfully!) take that the "while you were distracted" rhetoric is coming from investigative journalists/commenters - i read this more as Meta's admission that they're betting on critics being distracted than an admonition by outside observers. it's probably easier to sneak up on a person to rob them when it's foggy; that's not victim blaming.

  • I usually hate this kind of click bait, but I think in this case it's warranted, since their explicit policy was to do this "while they are distracted". Verbatim.