### Meta Scraps Covert Face Recognition After WIRED Exposé In a swift and unannounced move, **Meta** has stripped its **Meta AI** companion app for smart glasses of an unreleased face-recognition system, mere hours after an investigative report by **WIRED** brought the covert technology to light. The feature, internally known as **NameTag**, was designed to process biometric data captured by the glasses, sparking immediate privacy alarms. The latest version of the **Meta AI** app, released shortly after **WIRED**'s exposé, no longer contains the code libraries explicitly named for face recognition that were present in the previous version. ### The Unveiling of NameTag **WIRED**'s report detailed how **Meta** had integrated substantial components of the **NameTag** system into the **Meta AI** app. Although never publicly activated, the system was engineered to convert faces captured by smart glasses into unique biometric signatures, or "faceprints," for comparison against a local database. Furthermore, faces not immediately recognized were reportedly cropped, indexed, and stored on the user's device for future processing. The existence of **NameTag** first emerged in February, when **The New York Times**, citing internal **Meta** documents, reported on the company's plans to develop and potentially launch face recognition for its smart glasses. Internal memos reportedly suggested a launch during a "dynamic political environment" when privacy advocates might be preoccupied. **WIRED**'s subsequent investigation revealed that much of **NameTag**'s machinery was already embedded in the **Meta AI** app, downloaded by millions, as early as January, even as **Meta** maintained that no final decision had been made. ### Meta's Initial Denial Following **WIRED**'s initial report, **Meta** executives publicly dismissed the findings. **Andy Stone**, **Meta**'s vice president of communications, stated the company "couldn't answer questions about how the system would work because 'the feature does not exist.'" Similarly, **Andrew Bosworth**, **Meta**'s chief technology officer, labeled the reporting "incredibly misleading" and "absolutely dishonest." Prior to publishing its report, **WIRED** had posed ten questions to **Meta**, including inquiries about the existence of a face profile database, data retention policies for unrecognized individuals, and potential data transmission to **Meta**'s servers. **Meta** declined to answer these questions, nor did it address criticisms from privacy advocates concerning the potential for misuse by stalkers or abusers, or whether users would have opt-in/opt-out options. ### The Code Vanishes The newly released version of **Meta AI** has systematically removed nearly all traces of the feature **Meta** had claimed did not exist. This includes the core face-recognition software, the code responsible for the **NameTag** recognition process, and the "Person recognized" alert that would have appeared upon identification. Crucially, the update also eliminated the folder designated for storing cropped images and biometric signatures of unrecognized faces. **Meta** has yet to comment on the reasons for the code's removal, whether these changes were pre-planned, or if the company still intends to pursue the **NameTag** system in the future. A few fragments, such as an internal debug menu label and a dormant link for opening a recognized person's profile, remain as echoes of the now-absent system. ### Lingering Questions and Calls for Stronger Privacy Laws **Kade Crockford**, director of the technology for liberty program at the **American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts (ACLU)**, emphasized that the removal does not negate the original decision to embed the code. Crockford views this incident as further evidence that consumer privacy requires more robust legal protections than currently provided by Congress. They highlighted the recent unanimous passage of a consumer privacy bill by the **Massachusetts** House of Representatives, which includes strong enforcement provisions, and urged other states to adopt similar legislation, particularly with a private right of action for aggrieved users. "**Meta**’s sneaky tactics in slipping the face-recognition code into its smart glasses show exactly why data privacy bills need the teeth of strong enforcement," Crockford stated. "Companies like **Meta** prioritize their bottom line, so lawmakers need to speak in the only language its C-suite understands."