Does a software feature exist if its code has been deployed to millions of devices but remains inactive? This question lies at the heart of a recent controversy surrounding **Meta** and its **NameTag** face-recognition system. ### The 'Non-Existent' Feature On June 4, WIRED reported that **Meta** had included substantial, albeit inactive, code for **NameTag** in the **Meta AI** app, which has seen tens of millions of downloads. In response, **Andy Stone**, **Meta**'s Vice President of Communications, asserted that the feature 'doesn't exist,' making it impossible for them to explain its functionality. The **NameTag** code was subsequently removed from the **Meta AI** app the following day. WIRED's analysis indicated that **NameTag** code was present in the app as early as January, with core components appearing by May. An independent researcher, **Buchodi**, reviewed the code at WIRED's request and successfully used the **NameTag** system to recognize a photograph, challenging **Meta**'s claims of its non-existence. ### Executive Contradictions Further complicating **Meta**'s stance, **Andrew “Boz” Bosworth**, **Meta**'s CTO, described **NameTag** in detail on the *The Most Interesting Thing in AI* podcast on July 8. He explained that **NameTag** would identify individuals a user had previously met and saved, providing their name while wearing the glasses. In response to inquiries about this apparent contradiction, **Meta** spokesperson **Ryan Daniels** emphasized the conditional nature of Bosworth's statements, highlighting the word “would” to suggest it remains an exploratory concept rather than a deployed feature. Daniels clarified that **NameTag** is distinct from connecting glasses to a central database of people, a capability **Meta** claims not to be building. ### Legal Implications and Biometric Privacy Laws The debate over **NameTag**'s existence and functionality carries significant legal weight, particularly concerning biometric privacy laws such as Illinois's **Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA)** and Texas's **Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI)**. These laws mandate explicit consent for the collection and use of biometric data. **Meta**'s strategy of processing face data and storing 'faceprints' on users' devices rather than a central server may be an attempt to navigate these legal complexities. This on-device approach has seen mixed rulings in various courts. While some judges have allowed lawsuits to proceed, arguing that companies can 'possess' data stored on user devices, others have dismissed cases when the company never accessed or received the biometric data generated by its software. Crucially, the legal distinction often hinges on who controls the data, whether the feature is optional, and if the company has any means to access the data. **Meta** has declined to answer questions regarding **NameTag**'s opt-in status, how faceprints are retained, or whether data ever leaves the user's device, particularly given its licensing of third-party face-recognition software. ### The Lingering Questions Despite **Meta**'s insistence on the feature's non-existence, the facts remain: a functional face-recognition system was designed, built, and deployed in code to millions of phones. While not user-accessible, its presence and the detailed discussions by executives indicate serious consideration for its future enablement. The company's refusal to clarify specifics, especially concerning data control and third-party software involvement, leaves IT security professionals and privacy-conscious users with more questions than answers about the true nature and potential deployment of **NameTag**.