Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Meta is Probably Training AI on Images Taken by Meta Ray-Bans

Of course, Meta uses the data for training, just like Tesla does. There is no data other than real life data. Meta doesn't talk about it because they want to avoid the “don't be a glasshole” discussions that Google has been subjected to.

But if you wear a camera, you can take photos and videos of the people around you - it's no different than the AVP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stenik
I love Farcebook/Meta. It”s the one company that will never, ever, disappoint you : you can always count on them on making the worst, most evil decisions at any given moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
Not defending Meta here, but I think a reason to not say either way is that if they say “No, we don’t train AI with passive images” the shareholders and the whole AI dude-bros and dudette-gals gang would flip out on money being left on the table, potentially affecting stock prices.

The usual way to go about it: avoid anything Meta where possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuckeee
Well I’m shocked. Shocked to the core.

Meta has answered the question without answering the question. They’re taking all the images and audio - all the time. Simple.
 
Meta is going to get into trouble for this because it looks like they are saying everything that is in the public domain is ours to do with as we please. The problem is not everything is public domain though. You walk into a shop that sells goods to the public but it is still a private business though. Public transport all have conditions of using recordable devices on or in their premises or transport.

When you walk into shop, a business, a public building, you are still agreeing to the terms and conditions of entering the building. Meta's excuse will be that it is the responsibility of the glasses wearer to remove the glasses in places where it specifies that recordings inside the building are not allowed.

I have no doubt there have been people wearing these ray bans where they have been in situations that would cause a breach of the law. For example, catching children and/or adults in the nude, catching them dressing and undressing, catching acts of a sexual nature, whilst all perfectly legal whilst in the privacy of ones own dwelling but as soon as such images gets transmitted to Meta, it immediately becomes illegal due to the various laws on what can and cannot be recorded and electronically transmitted to storage devices.

You have a mother or father wearing the glasses, they are in a such a rush that they forget to take them off whilst getting their young children ready for school (washing them and dressing them meaning their children at some point will appear nude). Another scenario is someone wearing them and forgets to take them off whilst going into the locker room where their are people dressing and undressing, naked bodies on view. These glasses will be recording and sending images to Meta's services. Now here is the problem, as soon as nude images of children are sent to Meta's servers, both the wearer off the glasses and Meta have broken the law. If images of people getting dressed and undressed in a locker room, again the glasses wearer and Meta have broken the law.

Therefore, as I said, these glasses could get the wearers and Meta into heaps of trouble. I have no doubt there will be privacy advocacy groups making claims against Meta.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheOldChevy
I'm surprised you haven't reached out to the <10 people worldwide who have bought and use these glasses to find out what they think of Meta's actions! Let alone re-hashing TechCrunch's scraping-of-the-barrel journalism.

On a serious yet unpopular note, it's totally okay - I get people think they own their data and privacy but there is absolutely nothing wrong with Meta and other companies utilising their data anonymously to train their AI models and it's covered in existing privacy policies. I get you think you own it, but you don't. You sign it away when you use their services for free. Except the bankrupt EU who will no doubt retrospectively change the law and go after the tech companies for breaking their new made up rules so as to subsidise the loss of income from their old cashcow Britain, it'll be business as usual elsewhere.

If you don't want companies using your data, don't use companies services for free. Simple as.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: kevcube and arkitect
There are extensive legal limitations in many countries on filming in public spaces and further limitations on filming in private spaces, not even discussing using the acquired data.
 
kevcube said:
There’s no certainty because this article is pure speculation and a load of nothing. “Meta is possibly developing nuclear bombs! When asked, their response was ‘are you crazy?!’ So if they didn’t deny it…”
Click to expand...
I actually read the story. It’s not speculation it’s reporting an actual conversation…. Nothing about Nuclear bombs, just a specific question and a specific answer, refusing to answer the question.

TechCrunch specifically asked Meta if it was using the images collected by the Meta Glasses to train AI models, and Meta declined to say. "We're not publicly discussing that," Anuj Kumar told TechCrunch.​
 
  • Like
Reactions: tubular, Chuckeee, philosoraptor1 and 1 other person
desslr said:
I'm surprised you haven't reached out to the <10 people worldwide who have bought and use these glasses to find out what they think of Meta's actions! Let alone re-hashing TechCrunch's scraping-of-the-barrel journalism.

On a serious yet unpopular note, it's totally okay - I get people think they own their data and privacy but there is absolutely nothing wrong with Meta and other companies utilising their data anonymously to train their AI models and it's covered in existing privacy policies. I get you think you own it, but you don't. You sign it away when you use their services for free. Except the bankrupt EU who will no doubt retrospectively change the law and go after the tech companies for breaking their new made up rules so as to subsidise the loss of income from their old cashcow Britain, it'll be business as usual elsewhere.

If you don't want companies using your data, don't use companies services for free. Simple as.
Click to expand...
The people in view of the camera have not signed away their privacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gusmula, Chuckeee and arkitect
Using these glasses also poses another ethical and legal question. Will Meta be of the opinion that anything viewed through the glasses which then get's uploaded to Meta's servers then becomes the property of Meta? because remember they did this with Facebook. They did it at the signup stage of creating an account which stipulated that anything uploaded to the users page, be it text, pictures, video's then became the property of Facebook of which they could use as they wish. If you remember there was numerous law suits because images users had put on their Facebook page found itself being used by Facebook in various adverts and also given to it's 'Approved partners' as part of the website cookie policy.

So will it be the same with the glasses, the person will obviously have to have a Meta account so the images/audio/video can be uploaded to Meta's servers. Will this account creation have hidden in it's terms and conditions that anything viewed and then uploaded to the servers then becomes the property of Meta to do with as they wish.
 
JoshuaBru said:
That’s some pretty impressive software. To be able to train an entire AI model off the input of 12 people who bought these dumb glasses.
Click to expand...
As far as I know, no one van buy those. Meta made 1000 or maybe several 1000 pieces, but only for internal use, employees and giving them to 3rd party for testing.
 
Moonjumper said:
The people in view of the camera have not signed away their privacy.
Click to expand...
I cannot think of a single country where they need to. As long as the specific images used are not used as advertising or to generate money off of that specific image AND the image was taken in a public place then there would be no requirement. If however, images were taken in private locations, things would likely change.
 
steve09090 said:
I cannot think of a single country where they need to. As long as the specific images used are not used as advertising or to generate money off of that specific image AND the image was taken in a public place then there would be no requirement. If however, images were taken in private locations, things would likely change.
Click to expand...
We build a system where videos were taken worldwide and you could drive with your spinning bike along those routes.
As soon s those videos are viewable by the public there are lots of different regulations in place.

No problem if those videos were taken in the USA - but definitively a problem if taken e.g. in germany

But nowadays, everyone with a gopro or an Insta360 takes videos all the time. I don‘t see a problem if those videos are used for machine learning - this is what happens with every youtube video at the moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steve09090
frownface said:
If you've ever signed a user agreement before putting on one of these things, you're probably giving express permission to it too.

And that goes for these products from any company, included our beloved fruit inspired one.
Click to expand...
Are you nuts? Apple has absolutely no access to what you’re seeing when you wear the Vision Pro.
 
AndiG said:
Of course, Meta uses the data for training, just like Tesla does. There is no data other than real life data. Meta doesn't talk about it because they want to avoid the “don't be a glasshole” discussions that Google has been subjected to.

But if you wear a camera, you can take photos and videos of the people around you - it's no different than the AVP.
Click to expand...
1: No one is going to walk up to you and talk to you in the streets wearing an AVP, so socially, yes this is different.

2: if a person starts a conversation with you while holding their iPhone up and filming while talking, would you feel awkward? You should do the same with the glasses.
 
GrayFlannel said:
Before anyone looks too far down their nose at Meta…

Click to expand...

Lol "Before anyone looks down their nose at Meta for what they're actually doing now, check out this random YouTuber's thoughts on what Apple may do in the future (but probably won't)!"
 
jarman92 said:
Lol "Before anyone looks down their nose at Meta for what they're actually doing now, check out this random YouTuber's thoughts on what Apple may do in the future (but probably won't)!"
Click to expand...
I actually changed my mind and wasted half an hour listening to this crap, until I reached the last minute, where you will find out what’s actually going on: Pitching his own business(/scam).

Hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back