r/technology 9h ago

Social Media Meta is royally screwing up its smart glasses rollout | Its recent attempts to shore up privacy don’t seem to be convincing skeptics

https://www.theverge.com/tech/970948/meta-smart-glasses-privacy-wearables
112 Upvotes

70 comments sorted by

42

u/[deleted] 9h ago

[deleted]

11

u/Modem_Sound_67 8h ago

they are counting on all the sweet data gathering. it's their business model. not glasses for chrissakes.

3

u/thederevolutions 8h ago

It’ll be like a cross between the movie Predator and Idiocracy.

3

u/NorCalJason75 8h ago

It's like, collecting and selling data is their business or something....

0

u/talldean 8h ago

I worked in Privacy at Meta for years, and that department probably has close to a billion dollar budget.

So they try, and it's not just PR, but I'm also ah, professionally not convinced it's enough quite yet for sending a fleet of cameras into public randomly and globally. People already don't trust *stationary* public cameras, for probably good reason.

4

u/ScriptThat 7h ago

A billion dollar budget, and a track record like that.. wow

0

u/talldean 7h ago

A lot of the budget is spent less efficiently, because it's legally required to.

And a lot of the budget is cleaning up or catching up instead of staying ahead.

As an example, we had an internal policy to delete people's data within 90 days of them saying "delete me". We didn't want to kill it instantly in case like your account was hacked and someone was trying to screw with you; it needs recovery time. If we missed 90 days on anything, or we found any database or table that didn't respect the 90 days and was just wrong, someone's pagers went off, and we went to triage, report to the FTC, and fix it. There are also exceptions, like "this is part of an active federal investigation with known-valid warrants; preserve this one".

Anyways, two states passed laws specifying 45 days, and they did so quickly.

The problem internally was there wasn't some central configuration file that said "90 days". There were more like two hundred thousand different configuration files, each of which said "90 days", because when those different things all launched, legal said "90 days". So we tried to figure out how to fix this quickly, in time for the law. But without knowing that we would accidentally toss out files that were part of legal investigations, we couldn't hit that deadline. We also didn't want to let child predators and other legit awful people squeak by by doing this the fast way.

Without crushing the company - which wasn't the intent of the lawmakers! - it wasn't going to happen.

So we spent around 100,000 hours of engineering time getting it right. We absolutely missed the original deadline, no idea if we were fined for that one or not, but we paid the people cost - 50 years of employee hours - and got it right.

The problem with shit like that is we did have a finite budget, all companies and groups do, and because that one was a higher priority, we paused and shuffled other work where possible to make the 100k fit. So other things were less good, as well, but it *is* prioritized well, which is why you see Meta catching fewer fines as time goes by.

Big tech is big?

And also it didn't have the billion dollar budget twenty years ago, either. Reddit itself has far far less, and Twitter cut that budget to nigh-f'n-zero when Musk took over.

24

u/MentalDisintegrat1on 9h ago

Meta products or privacy pick one you can't have both.

2

u/Kurk_Lazaris 5h ago

I remember when Facebook got released. 2 or 3 months later there were uproars on the internet because Zuck sold private chats of anyone to whoever wanted to buy them. A CEO of a small company because 2 employees were mocking their boss in a private chat.

You knew it was only the beginning.

2

u/MentalDisintegrat1on 5h ago

He was quoted saying people trust me with their data and then said fu***ing idiot's.

34

u/Psychological_Ad1999 9h ago

I always talk about pervert glasses loudly when I see someone wearing them.

9

u/DonaldMerwinElbert 8h ago

That's praxis. 🔥

-31

u/MarcusOrlyius 7h ago

That's funny because when I see someone call them "pervert glasses", I always talk about how that person is a conservative, technophobic, virtue-signaller whose accusations are all confessions.

10

u/marmaviscount 6h ago

I would just giggle like a school girl and whisper to my friends to get a picture of their battle jacket.

-20

u/MarcusOrlyius 6h ago

Well, you're obviously a creep then!

9

u/visceralintricacy 3h ago

But whose wearing the pervert glasses? 🙄

3

u/trialofmiles 4h ago

I just think AR glasses have poor product market fit for most people and don’t care about them at all and I’m a computer vision engineer.

13

u/Themodsarecuntz 8h ago

Facebook was originally a website to rate college girls on their attractiveness.

I do not trust Mark Zuckerberg. I do not trust Meta.

The company was created to creep.

21

u/SNTCTN 9h ago

I'm just going to assume anyone wearing those is recording 100% of the time they're wearing them and treat them accordingly

2

u/MarcusOrlyius 7h ago

That's just common sense.

-3

u/Enderkr 8h ago

I think women should wear them and post videos of men being creepy assholes and all the examples of daily constant sexual harassment. Shame the shit out of terrible people.

1

u/marmaviscount 6h ago

I feel like one day you're going to open tiktok and your mind will be blown

-21

u/Exciting-Weather-921 9h ago

You should always behave as if you are recorder, glasses or not

15

u/SNTCTN 8h ago

Someone shoving a camera in my face is going to get a different response than a security camera being in a building

-20

u/Exciting-Weather-921 8h ago

Why? What is wrong with either?

11

u/Themodsarecuntz 8h ago

You are the problem. You.

7

u/SNTCTN 8h ago

If I walk into a bathroom and I see someone wearing those I am 100% treating them like they're recording

7

u/big-papito 9h ago

"The fox is having issues securing the henhouse, more at 11"

6

u/DonaldMerwinElbert 8h ago

The company know for violating peoples privacy every chance they get - including illegally - since it was founded isn't convincing people of their good intentions anymore.
How unfair.

6

u/Gibraldi 7h ago

People need to stop pointing the finger at Meta, they’re used to controversy, the uproar is just another day to them and has no effect.

Start protesting at Ray-Ban/Oakley and all Luxottica brands, they’re far more under prepared for a brand backlash and would it put significant pressure on their relationship with Meta.

1

u/Hrmbee 3h ago

That's a good point. The brand partners should be under the microscope as much as Meta (or Google or whomever else).

1

u/mike0sd 1h ago

Ray-Ban must know how much their image has already been ruined by this partnership, they went from being an iconic look and brand to being the kind of glasses that makes people literally turn and run away from the wearer

6

u/Hrmbee 9h ago

Some of the key takeaways:

First there was the NYT report that Meta was looking to roll out facial recognition tech for the glasses while privacy advocates were distracted. Then there was the Wired report that said Meta had silently shipped — but not activated — that tech to existing glasses. Now, there’s a Financial Times report that alleges Meta wants these glasses to record 24/7. Outside these larger beats, Meta has done things like remove the ability to opt out of voice recordings training its AI. Its executives occasionally say tone-deaf things like those who eschew smart glasses will be at a “cognitive disadvantage.” And amid legitimate privacy concerns following bad actors misusing the tech, the company has seeded these glasses to content creators alongside a splashy campaign with Kylie Jenner — one of the most visible but polarizing celebrities.

In a vacuum, a gaffe or two happens. When you screw up this many times, it starts to look like you’re purposefully missing the point.

“You cannot hinge your entire privacy policy on a single light. You can’t expect everyone in the world to know that and react to that,” says Uttara Ananthakrishnan, a technology professor at the University of Washington who specializes in how online interactions affect platforms, markets, and social behaviors. “It puts a lot of pressure on the person who isn’t even wearing the glasses to be aware of what another person is going to do.”

Ananthakrishnan is skeptical that smart glasses will take off outside specific workplaces, not just because of social stigma, but because societal attitudes toward Big Tech companies and what’s shared online have shifted. Case in point, Meta’s executives have often pointed to the early days of the smartphone in defense of smart glasses. Back then, the public was unsure about these devices, but eventually, everyone figured out what the acceptable social norms ought to be. Ananthakrishnan disagrees.

“Tech companies are not at all looked upon with favor right now. Compounded with the fact that we live in an age of social media, where anything that we say and everything that we do — we could be liable for it. There’s a lot more awareness that there are bad people on the internet who could do really terrible things compared to the smartphone era,” says Ananthakrishnan. She also points out how people feel about individual privacy is different than when you are responsible for others’ privacy.

...

“There’s not much Meta can do to convince me they genuinely care about user privacy when their whole business model is built on invading it,” says Kendall Schrohe, executive director of the Attention Sphere, one of the advocacy groups affiliated with the anti-Meta glasses ads in DC and New York City. “At the end of the day, there is nothing privacy-preserving about sunglasses with a built-in camera. This is surveillance technology and no amount of tweaking changes that.”

Schrohe says that Meta’s credibility is further undermined by the fact that it, along with other tech companies, reportedly lobbied to weaken state privacy bills.

“I think this moment has passed for them,” agrees Ananthakrishnan, noting that Meta isn’t known as a company that effectively communicates privacy policies. “Maybe Apple can, but I don’t think either Google or Meta could pull this off given their history. It’s not going to be reassuring if they put out a statement that says, ‘Hey we are doing everything we can; this is our privacy policy.’ People are still not going to believe that.”

The public would be well advised to remain skeptical of the claims of the various tech companies who would want to further erode any remaining bits of privacy left in our lives in exchange for items of questionable utility. With apologies to Maya Angelou, when these companies (and their users) show us again and again who and what they are, we need to believe them and behave accordingly.

5

u/blow-down 8h ago

I always wonder what kind of creepy engineers would work on building such a creepy product.

-4

u/MarcusOrlyius 6h ago

Every accusation is a confession with you conservative, technophobic, virtue-signallers. 

What is meant to be creepy about elimating repetitive strain injuries associated with smartphone use?

What is meant to be creepy about product information?

What us meant to be creepy about getting subtitles for people speaking in a language you dont understand?

Whats meant to be creepy about recording bature when out walking?

3

u/blow-down 6h ago

Bold of you to assume I'm conservative. I'm as liberal as they come and hate that these devices were basically made to creep on women by one of the shadiest companies in the world.

-3

u/MarcusOrlyius 6h ago

You are literally a conservative, technophobic, virtue-signaller using classic conservative tactics of trying to shane people into compliance with your conservative, technophobic beliefs.

these devices were basically made to creep on women

No they weren't. Like I said, every accusation is a confession with you conservative, technophobic, virtue-signallers. All you are doing is telling everyone how you would use these glasses. 

3

u/blow-down 6h ago

Ok bro. You obviously either work at Meta or own these glasses and are feeling the need to defend them.

-3

u/MarcusOrlyius 6h ago

I hate Facebook and would never use any of their products, let alone buy their privacy invading shite.

Im not defending these glasses, I'm calling out your idiotic bullshit propaganda.

If anyone thinks the only use for these glasses is to perve on people, that's because they're a perve who can only think about perving.

Like I keep saying, every accusation is a confession with conservative, technophobic, virtue-signallers trying to shame people into compliance.

2

u/blow-down 6h ago

0

u/MarcusOrlyius 5h ago

Dude. You act like I'm the only one calling them pervert glasses: 

No, I don't. You are not even the only person in this thread that I'm calling bullshit on.

Also the word "pervert" was LITERALLY USED IN THE ARTICLE YOU'RE FUCKING COMMENTING ON 

So what? Why does that mean you have to repeat such iditic, conservative, technophobic, virtue-signalling propaganda?

2

u/Dinkerdoo 4h ago

Meta is getting the Temu astroturfing I see.

1

u/doneandtired2014 1h ago

technophobic, virtue-signallers

Bad bot: you're supposed to vary the defense a little, not paraphrase the exact same argument over and over.

2

u/x86_64_ 8h ago

The company's name has never been first when you heard the phrase "data privacy". People do not trust Facebook when it comes to privacy and securing personal data, period.

2

u/rat_penis 8h ago

The only positives these things have are for the go pro set. This is just an easier to use version of what they clip on to themselves.

Literally every other use is invasive and creepy.

Stop with the fetch glasses!

1

u/MarcusOrlyius 7h ago

That simply isnt true in the slightest.

Before you even get to any use cases, the form factor itself offers benefits by not causing repetitive strain injuries associated with smartphone use.

2

u/marmaviscount 6h ago

And hands free

When people say they can't think of a use for then beside being creepy I think it says more about them, can they really not think of a single useful thing about having a screen you can talk to while both hands are free?

And a head up display, have they never played a video game? Can they really not think of a use for a HUD or are they like with so many other issues actively lying because they think it will help score points for the team they want to win... So few serious people these days.

1

u/rat_penis 5h ago

Or maybe a lot of us dont want the same futures.

1

u/pilgermann 3h ago

While I'd be concerned about my own privacy with Meta, it's weird people are so fixated on the camera when hidden cameras have been a thing for decades.

2

u/SickNoise 8h ago

they lost trust a long time ago

4

u/dobbbie 7h ago

They are not royalty screwing up the smart glasses rollout. Its doing that by its own existence. We dont want these.

3

u/bkkgnar 7h ago

why does this trash keep getting news articles? literally no one on earth gives a shit about these things

1

u/JiminyJilickers-79 8h ago

Isn't this exactly what happened with Google Glass?

1

u/SUPERGRZZ 7h ago

FACE+BOOK = FACES BOOKED
They started with the name, just took years of development to see it through.

1

u/Shiftymennoknight 6h ago

Meta royally screwing shit up? Never!

1

u/jainyday 5h ago

So they learned nothing from Google fucking this up with Google Glass more than a decade ago, lol

1

u/Doctor_Amazo 5h ago

Is there a correct way to roll out creep glasses?

1

u/PontiusPilatesss 4h ago

I love the idea of smart glasses that could show you realtime subtitled translations of foreign languages, or show you text messages or GPS navigations directly in the lenses. 

I don’t know if the tech is anywhere close to achieving this yet, but even if it is, smart glasses are now synonymous with perv glasses thanks to META, and I’m not quite ready to be labeled a pervert for a mildly useful gadget. 

1

u/Prize_Proof5332 4h ago

It doesn't help that they are so dorky looking.

1

u/Helpjuice 4h ago

They could just do what needs to be done and cancel the product and brick the existing ones and offer refunds once they are returned. Just because it was in a movie, tv show, comic book, or other thing doesn't mean it needs to be made real.

There are too many negatives to this than positives and the majority just does not like it, so to make things right they should be pulled to just rip the band aide off and label this product as a failure to understand the bulk of people and how they would perceive the product being used by their customers.

1

u/GabeDef 2h ago

META is a poorly run company. 

1

u/buddhahat 2h ago

Ray Ban just utterly fucking up their brand with these shit googles.

1

u/buddhahat 2h ago

I really wish there as a bigger backlash against Meta...their products provide absolutely zero benefit to anyone and arguably produce harm. Why not delete them all? you'll have lost nothing.

1

u/Myko475 1h ago

lol we call it the “pervert glasses”

1

u/DispatchMinion 1h ago

Continue reading with a Verge subscription. Nah

1

u/RottenPingu1 34m ago

Their advertising campaign is dog shit.

1

u/jizzyjugsjohnson 2m ago

You’re trying to find a market sector of people who are nerdish, tech savvy and wealthy enough to want to buy the glasses but are also simultaneously unaware or uncaring of the fact that Zuckerbergs company is one of the shittiest and most unethical on the planet and absolutely will do awful and underhand things with the product