Do Meta Glasses Spy On You?

The speaker discusses smart glasses, highlighting their utility for capturing point-of-view photos and videos without disrupting immersion, unlike traditional phones. Despite acknowledging some view them as a gimmick, the speaker finds them a favorite piece of daily tech, citing features like transition lenses and good audio. However, recent concerns about privacy and public perception have led to less frequent use, especially in public settings like school pickup, due to potential "weird looks" or questions. The speaker then explores alternative smart glasses, mentioning no-name options and the “Even Reality G2s.” These, costing $758 plus a $100 sunglass attachment, are found to be uncomfortable due to weight and clamping force. Their functionality is limited primarily to notifications, with other features like a teleprompter and to-do manager proving unreliable or not syncing with preferred apps. A significant drawback is the lack of integrated audio, requiring separate earbuds, and the absence of a camera, though this is less of a concern for the speaker. Ultimately, the Even Reality G2s are deemed not to justify their existence. The HTC Vibe Eagles are mentioned as a promising alternative with a focus on privacy, but their limited availability outside Asia prevents the speaker from trying them. This leaves the speaker "stuck with the product I love from the company I'm not sure I should really trust," referring to Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses. Privacy concerns are then delved into, particularly regarding Meta's handling of user data. A direct quote from Meta's terms of service reveals that interactions with AI, including conversations and messages, may be reviewed by automated or manual means. While Meta's VP of augmented reality, Alex Hammel, clarified that photos and videos are not accessed under normal circumstances, he confirmed that Meta AI interactions could be reviewed by humans. The speaker contrasts the intentional nature of typing prompts into AI services like ChatGPT with the potential for accidental triggers when using smart glasses with microphones. A past incident involving a Meta contractor, Sama, where workers reviewed footage from Ray-Ban Meta Glasses for AI training, is highlighted. This review allegedly included private lives and identifying information that was not always properly blurred, leading Meta to cease working with Sama. The industry standard of human review for AI training is acknowledged, but the speaker argues that the blurred line between intentional and accidental data capture with glasses makes this practice more problematic. While Meta has stopped working with Sama, the practice of human review persists. The speaker suggests a solution: not using Meta AI, but notes that even disabling the "hey meta" wake word doesn't fully prevent accidental triggers. A "proper AI kill switch" is desired, similar to Firefox's feature, alongside a physical camera shutter. The speaker emphasizes that the success of smart glasses hinges on trust, stating that if people don't trust them, they will fail. Competition from other companies like Even, HTC, and potentially Samsung with Google, is seen as crucial for pushing Meta to improve privacy. The speaker advocates for the highest privacy standards for wearables worn all day, demanding a true opt-out for Meta AI and assurances that no human views captured content when AI is not in use. The analogy is drawn to Google's pervasive data collection, arguing that smart glasses, with their ability to see the physical world, represent an even higher stake in the privacy conversation. Earning trust, the speaker concludes, is paramount for Meta's billions-dollar investment in smart glasses to succeed.