内容来源：https://lifehacker.com/tech/meta-quietly-added-nametag-faceprint-tech?utm_medium=RSS

内容总结：

Meta悄然为智能眼镜植入人脸识别功能 引发隐私担忧

据《连线》杂志报道，Meta近几个月来一直在其雷朋Meta和奥克利Meta智能眼镜中秘密安装人脸识别功能。这项内部代号为“NameTag”的功能，一旦启用，将利用人工智能识别眼镜摄像头捕捉到的人物，并在识别出熟人时向佩戴者发出提醒，同时将面部特征数据存储在用户的手机上。

“NameTag”工作原理

该软件目前尚未激活，但一旦启用，它将通过Meta的AI应用，将智能眼镜拍摄到的任何人像转化为生物识别面部特征码，并与用户Meta AI手机应用本地存储的面部特征数据库进行比对。若匹配成功，用户将收到通知；若未匹配，该面部特征将被归入“待处理”文件夹。这意味着，佩戴者在公共场合遇到的每一个人，都可能成为陌生人私人数据库中等待被标注姓名的未知目标。

非营利组织电子前沿基金会安全研究员库珀·昆廷表示：“尽管有无数理由反对这么做，但Meta似乎已经具备了将其用户转变为分布式监控机器的能力。”

早有预谋：趁“政治环境动荡”悄然推进

今年二月，《纽约时报》获取的文件显示，Meta正在权衡为其智能眼镜添加人脸识别的“安全与隐私风险”。四月，该公司声称将采取“非常审慎的方法”。然而，该人脸识别软件的第一个组件早在今年一月就已悄然安装，消费者对此毫不知情。更令人担忧的是，据泄露的公司内部备忘录显示，Meta的潜在策略是“在动态的政治环境中推出人脸识别，届时许多可能攻击我们的公民社会团体的资源将集中在其他事务上”。换言之，Meta深知公众对人脸识别的普遍反感，却仍执意推进这项技术。

公众强烈反对：近半数成年人支持全面禁令

今年四月，超过70个组织（包括家庭暴力幸存者权益倡导组织、工人权利组织、身体自主权组织、消费者隐私和公民权利组织以及美国公民自由联盟）联名致信，要求Meta停止其人脸识别计划。他们在公开信中写道：“将人脸识别技术嵌入不易察觉的消费眼镜中，对社会每个成员的隐私和公民自由构成严重威胁，尤其对历史上被边缘化和易受伤害的群体。”根据YouGov的一项调查，近一半的成年人因担心内置摄像头和网络连接问题，支持在公共场所全面禁止智能眼镜。

Meta的“前科”：650万美元和解案后故技重施

尽管消费者普遍反感，Meta（原Facebook）与人脸识别技术却有着长期纠葛。早在2010年，Facebook就在其社交网站上识别并标记人物，但迫于“社会对人脸识别技术的诸多担忧”于2021年撤除了该功能，当然，那笔6.5亿美元（约合人民币47亿元）的集体诉讼和解金可能也是原因之一。2021年，Meta曾考虑为第一代雷朋智能眼镜添加人脸识别，最终因隐私顾虑作罢。

Meta发言人瑞安·丹尼尔斯辩解称：“无论报道多么耸人听闻，事实很简单——我们之前说过正在探索这类功能，你们看到的只是探索的证据。目前没有任何产品面向消费者，也未做出任何最终决定。如果我们决定推出，将会采取审慎且完全透明的方式。我们可以明确一点——我们不会建立中央面部数据库。”然而，Meta正在为构建数百万个由其控制和管理、却分散在用户手机上的私人面部数据库铺设基础。

技术双刃剑：盲人权益倡导者的不同声音

当然，人脸识别技术也并非全无益处。一些盲人权益倡导组织（如非营利机构Vision Aid）认为，人脸识别关乎可及性与社会公平——能够识别他人面孔是视力正常者习以为常的特权，不应因隐私问题而拒绝让盲人享受这一技术，这些问题完全可以通过立法解决。理论上，个人信息保护与盲人（以及那些在社交场合因忘记人名而尴尬的人）的需求并不矛盾。在一个理想世界中，隐私保护指南和法律应与技术同步发展，背叛公众信任的公司将承担真正的后果。但遗憾的是，我们生活在现实世界，我们的隐私往往只能靠措辞强硬的信件来保护，并最终交到Meta这样——刚花6.5亿美元解决一项人脸识别诉讼，就立刻开始构建下一个——的公司手中。

中文翻译：

据《连线》杂志报道，Meta过去几个月一直在其雷朋Meta和奥克利Meta智能眼镜中悄悄安装面部识别功能。该功能内部代号为"NameTag"，启用后将利用人工智能识别雷朋Meta摄像头捕捉到的人像，在认出某人时向佩戴者发出提醒，并将面部数据存储在用户手机上。

Meta的"NameTag"如何运作
该软件尚未启用，但一旦启用，它将利用Meta的AI应用程序，将眼镜拍摄到的人像转化为生物特征面部数据，并与用户Meta AI手机应用本地存储的面部数据库进行比对。如果找到匹配项，用户将收到通知；如果未匹配，该面部数据将被归入"待处理"文件夹。这意味着佩戴者在公共场合遇到的每个人，都可能成为陌生人私人数据库中等待命名的未识别目标。

"这项功能尚未对消费者开放，但似乎已准备就绪，"非营利组织电子前哨基金会威胁实验室的安全研究员兼高级公共利益技术专家库珀·昆廷告诉《连线》杂志。"尽管有无数理由反对这么做，但Meta似乎已经具备了将客户转变为分布式监控机器的能力。"

今年2月，《纽约时报》获得的文件显示，Meta正在权衡为其智能眼镜添加面部识别的"安全与隐私风险"。4月，该公司表示将对此技术采取"非常审慎的方法"。但面部识别软件的首个组件早在1月就已安装，而消费者对此毫不知情（在我看来这似乎并不审慎）。

然而，情况远不止于此。根据泄露给《纽约时报》的公司内部备忘录，Meta的潜在策略是在"一个充满变数的政治环境中推出面部识别功能，届时许多可能针对我们的公民社会团体将把资源集中在其他事务上"。换句话说，Meta非常清楚公众普遍反感面部识别技术，但似乎仍执意推进该技术的开发。

智能眼镜面部识别软件不受欢迎
2026年4月，针对《纽约时报》的报道，包括家庭暴力幸存者维权组织、工人权利组织、身体自主权组织、消费者隐私组织、民权组织以及美国公民自由联盟在内的逾70个组织，要求Meta停止其NameTag面部识别计划。这些组织在公开信中写道："集成于不易察觉的消费级眼镜中的面部识别技术，对我们社会每个成员的隐私和公民自由构成严重威胁，尤其对历史上被边缘化和弱势的群体而言。"

反对智能眼镜面部识别的不仅仅是隐私倡导者。根据YouGov的一项调查，近半数成年人因担心内置摄像头和网络连接功能，支持全面禁止在公共场所使用所有智能眼镜。

Meta与面部识别技术的渊源
尽管这项技术极不受消费者欢迎，但Meta/脸书一直热衷于利用技术捕捉和分类人脸。脸书早在2010年就对其社交媒体平台上的人物进行识别和标记，但公司于2021年撤除了该功能，理由是"社会上对面部识别技术存在诸多担忧"。这或许也与那起6.5亿美元的和解案有关。Meta曾于2021年讨论过为第一代雷朋智能眼镜添加面部识别功能，但当时因隐私顾虑而作罢。

据Meta称，公众不必为其行为担忧。"无论耸人听闻的报道如何，事实很简单：我们之前就说过正在探索这类功能，大家看到的不过是探索过程的证据，"Meta发言人瑞安·丹尼尔斯在一份声明中表示。"目前尚未向消费者推出任何产品，也未就此事做出任何最终决定。如果我们决定推出某项功能，将采取审慎态度并保持完全透明。有一点可以明确——我们不会建立中心化人脸数据库。"然而，Meta正在为建立数百万个由其控制和管理的私人人脸数据库奠定基础。

虽然面部识别软件大规模采用的反乌托邦可能性显而易见，但该技术也有非邪恶的用途。一些盲人权益倡导者（如非营利组织Vision Aid）认为，面部识别关乎无障碍获取和社会公平——能够识别人脸是视力正常者习以为常的特权，不应因可通过立法解决的隐私问题而剥夺盲人获得这一技术的权利。

理论上，个人信息保护与盲人（以及像我这样不愿在鸡尾酒会上因忘记别人名字而尴尬的人）的需求并非不可兼得。在理想世界中，隐私保护指导方针和法律应与技术同步发展，而辜负公众信任的企业将面临切实后果。但遗憾的是，我们生活在现实世界中——我们的隐私往往只能依靠措辞强硬的信件来保护，并交由Meta这家公司掌控——而这家公司刚刚支付了6.5亿美元就一起面部识别诉讼达成和解，随即又立刻着手构建下一个面部识别方案。

英文来源：

According to a report from Wired, Meta has been quietly installing facial recognition in its Ray-Ban Meta and Oakley Meta smart glasses for the last few months. Internally called "NameTag", the feature, if activated, will use AI to identify people captured by Ray-Ban Meta's camera, alert the wearer when it recognizes someone, and store faceprints on users' phones.
How Meta's "NameTag" works
The software has not been switched on, but if it is, it will use Meta's AI app to transform images of anyone photographed with Meta glasses into a biometric faceprint, and check against a database of faceprints stored locally on the user's Meta AI mobile app. If it finds a match, the user will be notified. If it doesn't, the faceprint will be indexed into a folder named "pending." So everyone who the wearer encounters in public could become an unidentified target waiting for a name in a stranger's private databases.
“The feature is not yet exposed to consumers but seems nearly ready to go,” Cooper Quintin, a security researcher and senior public interest technologist with the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Threat Lab told Wired. “Despite the billions of reasons not to, Meta seems to have created the capacity to turn their customers into a distributed surveillance machine.”
Back in February, documents obtained by the New York Times revealed Meta was weighing the “safety and privacy risks" of adding facial recognition to its smart glasses. In April, the company said it was taking a "a very thoughtful approach" to the technology. But the first component of facial recognition software was installed in January, without consumers being aware of it (which seems less than thoughtful to me).
It goes deeper than that, though. According to the company memo leaked to the Times, Meta's potential strategy was to roll out facial recognition "during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns." In other words, Meta is well aware of the general disdain for facial recognition, but seems intent on developing the technology anyway.
The unpopularity of facial recognition software in smart glasses
In April 2026, in response to the New York Times' story, over 70 organizations, including advocates for domestic violence survivors, worker rights, bodily autonomy, consumer privacy, and civil rights, and the ACLU, demanded Meta halt its NameTag facial recognition plans. In an open letter, the coalition wrote: "Facial recognition technology built into inconspicuous consumer eyewear represents a serious threat to privacy and civil liberties for every member of our society, and particularly for historically marginalized and vulnerable groups."
Privacy advocates aren't the only people who hate the idea of facial recognition in smart glasses. According to a YouGov survey, nearly half of all adults are in favor of a total ban on all smart glasses in public places due to concerns over built-in cameras and internet connectivity.
Meta's long history with facial recognition technology
Despite being extremely unpopular with consumers, Meta/Facebook has been in a long-running relationship with the concept of using technology to capture and categorize people's faces. Facebook identified and tagged people on its social media sites as early as 2010, but the company pulled the feature in 2021, citing "many concerns about the place of facial recognition technology in society." The $650 million class-action settlement might have had something to do with it as well. Meta debated adding facial recognition to the first generation of its Ray-Ban smart glasses in 2021, but decided against it at the time, citing privacy concerns.
According to Meta, you don't have to worry about what Meta is doing. "Regardless of any sensational reporting, the facts are simple: We’ve said before we’re exploring these types of features, and what you’re seeing is just evidence of that exploration," Meta spokesperson Ryan Daniels said in statement. "Nothing has shipped to consumers and no final decision has been made on what to do here, if anything. If we do decide to roll something out, we will take a thoughtful approach and do so with full transparency. One decision we can be clear about—we are not building a central face database.” Meta is, however, installing the groundwork for millions of private face databases that it controls and administers.
While the dystopian possibilities of the widespread adoption of facial recognition software are immediately obvious, there are non-nefarious uses for the technology. Some advocates for the blind, like non-profit Vision Aid, argue that facial recognition is a matter of accessibility and social equity—being able to recognize people's faces is a privilege sighted people take for granted, and it shouldn't be denied to the blind over privacy concerns that could be handled through legislation.
Theoretically, the protection of personal information and the needs of blind people (and people like me, who don't like being embarrassed when they forget someone's name at a cocktail party) aren't mutually exclusive. In a perfect world, privacy protection guidelines and laws would be developed alongside technology, and companies that breach the public trust would suffer real consequences. But sadly, we live in the real world, where our privacy is often only protected by strongly worded letters and left in the hands of Meta, a company that paid $650 million to settle a lawsuit over a facial recognition scheme and then immediately started building the next one.