Meta's Smart Glasses Face-ID Plans Contradict Earlier Denials

Compiled by the editorial desk with reference to public statements, interviews, and investigative reports.

Meta executives have publicly detailed a facial recognition feature for their smart glasses, weeks after denying that such a tool existed. The feature, internally called NameTag, would identify people the wearer has met before, according to comments made by Meta's chief technology officer, Andrew Bosworth, in a recent interview.

The revelation comes after a Wired investigation in June reported that Meta had quietly added code for the unreleased feature to its AI-powered glasses. The code, which was not accessible to consumers, was designed to create unique biometric signatures, or faceprints, of people encountered by glasses wearers and compare them against faceprints stored on the user's phone.

Meta's initial response was sharp. Andy Stone, the company's vice president of communications, called Wired's reporting "intellectually dishonest" and "advocacy-driven click bait" on X, and insisted that the feature did not exist. Bosworth echoed that sentiment, describing the report as "incredibly misleading" and "absolutely dishonest."

However, in an interview with The Atlantic CEO Nick Thompson, Bosworth discussed NameTag in detail, describing how it would work. He said the feature would be "encrypted locally to your device" and would catalog people the wearer has "met in person, with your glasses on, who introduced themselves." The data would only be available to the wearer while wearing the glasses, he added, and would not be stored in a central database.

"This is a person you've met before. Here's their name. They're right in front of you," Bosworth said. He emphasized that the feature is not about creating a "central face database" that scans everyone constantly, but rather a personal tool to help with what Meta calls the "cocktail party problem" — the awkwardness of forgetting someone's name at a social gathering.

Bosworth also mentioned potential benefits for blind or low-vision users, saying that NameTag could help them feel more comfortable in social situations. He acknowledged that the feature is likely illegal in states like Illinois and Texas, and stressed that it "has to be done in a way that people feel comfortable."

The contradiction between Meta's earlier denials and Bosworth's detailed description has drawn criticism. When journalist Sam Biddle of The Intercept pointed out the inconsistency, Stone responded, "We have said for months we're exploring such features, even as nothing has shipped to consumers."

Meta's position appears to be that an unreleased feature, even one with code already embedded in products, does not technically exist until it is available to consumers. The company reportedly removed the NameTag code from its products after the Wired investigation was published.

The controversy adds to ongoing scrutiny of Meta's smart glasses, which have faced criticism over privacy concerns. The company is also fighting a lawsuit over allegations that it collected recordings from smart glasses wearers and shared them with human data labelers, despite promising that recordings would be stored only on the device.

Meta's website for the glasses still reads, "Designed for privacy, controlled by you."