Social media giant Meta has removed substantially all of the code for an unreleased facial recognition system from the companion app for its Ray-Ban smart glasses, just one day after WIRED reported that the technology had been quietly embedded in the application. The decision to strip the code came after an investigation revealed that the Meta AI app, which has been downloaded more than 50 million times, contained the software components necessary to power a system internally called NameTag.
The removed code included libraries explicitly built for face detection and recognition, as well as the modules that would process captured faces into unique biometric signatures—commonly called faceprints—and compare them against a database of stored faceprints on the user’s device. When faces could not be identified, the app would crop, index, and store the images locally for potential future matching. The latest version of the app, released after the story broke, no longer contains any of these components. Meta’s vice president of communications, Andy Stone, told WIRED on Monday that the feature was purely an internal exploration and that no final decision had been made on whether to deploy it to users.
The NameTag system first came to public light in February, when The New York Times reported, based on internal Meta documents, that the company was developing face recognition for its smart glasses and considering a launch as early as that year. One internal memo reportedly suggested releasing the feature during a “dynamic political environment,” when privacy and civil liberties advocates would be preoccupied. WIRED’s subsequent investigation found that much of NameTag’s machinery had been present inside the Meta AI app since at least January 2025, even as Meta publicly maintained that no final decision about face recognition had been made.
Meta’s Response and Denials
Following WIRED’s report, Stone initially dismissed the findings, telling the publication that the company could not answer specific questions because “the feature does not exist.” Meta’s chief technology officer, Andrew Bosworth, went further, characterizing the reporting as “incredibly misleading” and “absolutely dishonest.” Meta declined to answer a series of ten questions that WIRED posed before the story was published, including whether it had already created the database of face profiles that NameTag would use, how long the app retains photographs and biometric data of unrecognized people stored on a user’s device, and whether that data would ever be transmitted back to Meta’s servers.
Additionally, Meta did not respond to questions about whether NameTag was being built specifically for blind or low-vision users, and did not address criticism from privacy advocates who warned that the system could enable stalkers or abusers to identify strangers in public. The company also remained silent on whether users would be given the opportunity to opt in or opt out of the technology.
With the removal of the code, the app no longer contains the face recognition software itself, the processes that executed the NameTag recognition workflow, or the alert that would have notified the user when a person in view was identified (“Person recognized”). The update also removed a dedicated folder designed to store cropped images and biometric signatures of faces the system could not match. A few residual fragments remain—an internal debug menu label and a dormant link meant to open a recognized person’s profile—but the core functionality is gone.
Privacy Concerns and Legal Gaps
Kade Crockford, director of the technology for liberty program at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, argued that the removal of the code does not undo the decision to ship it in the first place. Crockford called the incident a clear signal that consumer privacy protections need to be substantially stronger than what Congress has been willing to enact. They pointed to the Massachusetts House of Representatives’ recent unanimous passage of a consumer privacy bill that, if enacted as written, would impose strong enforcement provisions, including a private right of action that allows aggrieved users to sue companies that misuse their data. “State lawmakers need to do their job and step up to protect consumer privacy,” Crockford said. “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. Companies like Meta prioritize their bottom line, so lawmakers need to speak in the only language its C-suite understands.”
The incident is the latest in a long history of privacy controversies involving Meta and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. The company has faced multiple scandals over the use of facial recognition technology, including a $650 million class-action settlement in Illinois in 2021 over its now-shuttered face tagging system, which violated the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). That settlement covered claims that Facebook collected and stored biometric data without proper consent. The company later announced it would shut down its facial recognition system entirely in November 2021, citing “growing concerns about the use of this technology.” The return of such capabilities in a new product—embedded in a device that can be used surreptitiously—raises fresh alarms.
Smart glasses with a built-in camera and always-on internet connectivity present particular risks. Wearers can capture images and video of people around them without those individuals knowing. If facial recognition were enabled, a user could instantly identify strangers by matching their faces against a database of previous contacts or even public social media profiles. Privacy advocates have long warned that such a capability could be exploited for stalking, harassment, and unwarranted surveillance. The fact that Meta was reportedly considering launching the feature during a politically turbulent time suggests that the company may have been aware of the potential backlash and sought to minimize attention.
Despite the removal of the code, the company has not committed to not reintroducing it. Stone’s statement that “no final decision has been made on what to do here, if anything” leaves the door open for future iterations. Meanwhile, the remnants of NameTag in the app’s code serve as a reminder of how close the feature came to being deployed on a massive scale. The episode also underscores the broader debate over the ethics of facial recognition technology, especially when deployed in public spaces without explicit consent. Regulators in the European Union have already taken a strict stance, with the GDPR and the proposed AI Act imposing heavy restrictions on biometric identification. In the United States, however, federal legislation remains anemic, leaving consumers at the mercy of corporate self-regulation.
Several other states, including Washington and Texas, have moved to adopt biometric privacy laws similar to Illinois, but nationwide coverage remains a patchwork. Legal experts argue that the NameTag incident may provide the necessary momentum for Congress to finally act. “The specter of millions of people being scanned and identified by a common consumer device is exactly the kind of concrete threat that lawmakers should respond to,” said a law professor specializing in privacy at Georgetown University. “We need clear rules that say you cannot collect or use biometric data without informed consent, and you must have robust security measures to prevent misuse.” The professor spoke on condition of anonymity because they consulted with advocacy groups tracking the issue.
As tech companies continue to blur the lines between the digital and physical worlds, the case of Meta’s NameTag serves as a cautionary tale. It demonstrates how quickly a controversial feature can be built, packaged into an app, and prepared for mass distribution—all while the company publicly denies its existence. The only reason the public knows about it is because journalists and researchers examined the code. Without such scrutiny, the feature could have been switched on silently, affecting millions of users and those around them.
Moving forward, transparency advocates are calling on Meta to publish a clear policy on facial recognition for all its products, including smart glasses. They also want the company to commit to never deploying such technology without first giving users a meaningful choice to opt in. Meta has not responded to these requests. Meanwhile, the remnants of NameTag in the latest version of Meta AI suggest that the company may not have completely abandoned the idea. For now, the face recognition code is gone—but the infrastructure that allowed it to exist remains, ready to be reactivated with the next software update.
Source: Ars Technica News