Does software exist if it lives on a million devices but no one can turn it on?
Not at Meta.
The executives have been arguing semantics for weeks about NameTag.
Their face recognition feature for Ray-Ban glasses.
They say it doesn’t exist.
That’s the spin.
WIRED dug into the Meta AI app code in early June.
Found robust face recognition tools hiding inside.
Inactive sure.
There though.
Andy Stone. VP of communications.
Went to X. Typed:
“Wired reports Meta didn’t answer several questions. How could we?
The feature doesn’t exist!”
He removed the code the next day.
The Ghost in the Machine
Code for NameTag was in the app by January.
New York Times reported on it in February.
WIRED confirmed the core components by May.
Did it exist?
Depends on your dictionary.
But researcher Buchodi looked at the code.
Plugged it in.
Recognized a photo of Michel Foucault.
The philosopher famous for writing on surveillance.
If the machine sees the man.
The code works.
Then comes Andrew “Boz” Bosworth. Meta CTO.
Last week he got specific.
Very specific.
On a podcast with Nicholas Thompson.
They talked about NameTag.
Bosworth explained it.
In detail.
“Somebody you met. Introduced themselves. You say remember David.
Here’s their name when you see them. That’s the NameTags feature.”
He even added.
“It’s a thing that. I think would be a great feature。”
Note the conditional.
The “would.”
Ryan Daniels. Meta spokesperson.
Went to email. Bolded the word. Underlined it.
Screamed: NO CONTRADICTION.
“There is no contradiction. Boz says this would be a good feature. We are exploring it. It is not available to consumers today.”
Meta is tight.
Real tight.
With definitions.
Stone called WIRED “intellectually dishonest.”
Bosworth called us “incredibly misleading.”
We stated in the very first sentence that NameTag was unreleased.
We said it again.
And again.
They didn’t answer why that’s dishonest.
The Database Trick
Here’s the real worry.
Bosworth said NameTag won’t use a central database.
Neither Thompson nor WIRED accused them of that.
But the code converts faces to numerical signatures.
Faceprints.
Those faceprints sit on your device.
Populated by Meta’s servers.
Is a cloud server feeding local apps “central”?
Or just millions of small databases connected to a big one?
That’s a legal line.
A very thin one.
Illinois has the BIPA law.
Texas has CUBI.
They want consent.
They want guardrails.
Meta knows the stakes.
2019. They scrapped automatic tagging on Facebook.
Paying a $5 billion FTC fine.
And a $650 million Illinois settlement.
Over face recognition privacy.
Now they’re back.
But hiding the data on the phone.
Does that save them?
A federal judge said in 2021 that Apple “possessed” faceprints in iOS Photos.
Because possession isn’t just holding it in your hand.
It’s control.
The case is still moving. Certified as a class action recently.
Other courts say different things.
An Illinois appellate court ruled Apple didn’t possess Face ID data because it stays on-device.
A judge in 2024 dismissed a case against Samsung.
Because Samsung never “received” the data.
So.
Who controls it?
Is it optional?
Can you kill the feature?
Meta wants us to think keeping the data local makes it safe.
Or at least compliant.
Whether the law agrees?
We’ll see.
The code was there.
It works.
Meta deleted it.
But the idea remains.
Does that make it real?
