行业动态
futurism.com ·
@Maggie Harrison Dupré
Meta因AI眼镜侵犯旁观者隐私面临大规模诉讼
诉讼称Meta的AI眼镜未经同意捕获了数百万旁观者的面部、身体、声音和个人信息，并用于AI系统训练。
AI推荐理由 报道Meta因AI眼镜收集旁观者数据面临诉讼，涉及隐私和伦理，具有新闻价值，但来源为Futurism，可信度一般，且缺乏细节。
65
正文
Jim WATSON / AFP via Getty Images / Futurism
针对Meta的持续集体诉讼指控这家科技巨头就其有争议的Meta AI眼镜的隐私做法进行虚假陈述，该诉讼昨日进行了修订，新增了一类“旁观者”原告，他们声称Meta在未经他们同意的情况下侵犯了他们的隐私。
影响相当大。修订后的广泛诉状称，即使旁观者从未购买AI眼镜本身，新的侵权行为也会发生，这反映了人们对日益普及的AI集成监控技术——从智能眼镜到Flock摄像头——对日常生活意味着什么的日益焦虑。
该诉讼最初于三月份提起，此前两家瑞典报纸的联合调查发现，Meta存储了其Meta AI眼镜捕获的内容，并将其提供给人工审核员用于训练AI模型，据为内容审核外包商和Meta长期合作伙伴Sama工作的肯尼亚举报人称。诉讼指控Meta进行虚假广告，错误地告诉购买者智能眼镜“为隐私而设计”，并且用户“控制您的数据和内容”，尽管通过眼镜AI功能收集的内容最终出现在人工审核员面前，他们表示看到了私密材料。
“在一些视频中，你可以看到有人上厕所或脱衣服，”一位肯尼亚举报人告诉瑞典记者。“我认为他们不知道，因为如果知道，他们就不会录制。”其他承包商描述了观看人们发生性行为以及查看泄露个人身份信息的文件。
除了代表Meta智能眼镜用户外，修订后的诉状还扩大到包括不拥有这些戴在脸上的设备但声称当周围有人使用眼镜的AI功能时，他们在未经“知情同意”的情况下被录制——而这些数据随后可能被用于AI训练，再次未经他们同意。一些旁观者是未成年人。
修订后的诉状称，“没有理性的消费者会期望一个被宣传为保护隐私的产品成为AI训练和系统性监控的渠道”，也没有“任何理性的消费者会理解‘为隐私而设计’或‘由您控制’意味着眼镜AI看到和听到的一切，包括人们最私密的时刻，都可能被海外陌生人查看并用于训练Meta的AI。”
它辩称，“数百万”消费者可能无意中受到影响，并且“任何地方的旁观者都没有任何机会，更不用说实际上同意他们的面部、身体、声音和个人信息被捕获、审查、标记并嵌入Meta的AI系统。”
“Meta向数百万消费者兜售了他们的AI眼镜‘为隐私而设计’的谎言，”Clarkson律师事务所创始管理合伙人兼诉讼联合首席律师Ryan Clarkson在声明中表示。“这份修订后的诉状将眼镜另一侧的人添加到故事中——那些进行亲密性接触的人、被父母洗澡或祖父母换尿布的孩子、淋浴、换衣服和哺乳的人——他们从未同意因为附近有人买了一副眼镜而放弃隐私。”
Meta在给Futurism的声明中表示，“我们不同意这些指控，并将予以反驳。”
“我们的眼镜帮助您免提使用AI来回答有关周围世界的问题，”声明继续说道。“如果您使用Meta AI，我们可能会审查这些数据以帮助改进我们的产品和人们的体验——这与许多其他公司的做法相同。我们采取措施过滤这些数据以帮助删除识别信息并保护人们的隐私。”
今年早些时候，Meta报告称，2025年已售出超过700万副智能眼镜。它也不是唯一一家追逐AI可穿戴设备市场主导地位的科技巨头：谷歌正在与平价眼镜制造商Warby Parker合作开发智能眼镜，据报道苹果正在致力于将摄像头和AI集成到其广受欢迎的AirPods中。
已更新Clarkson律师事务所的声明。
更多关于Meta眼镜：青少年男孩使用Meta眼镜在高中和初中骚扰和欺凌女孩
查看原文（中文正文为 AI 翻译）
Jim WATSON / AFP via Getty Images / Futurism
An ongoing class action lawsuit against Meta, which accuses the tech giant of misrepresenting its privacy practices regarding its controversial Meta AI Glasses, was amended yesterday to include a new class of “bystander” plaintiffs who claim that Meta violated their privacy without their consent.
The implications are considerable. The new violations occurred even if bystanders never purchased the AI-powered glasses themselves, the expansive amended complaint alleges, reflecting rising anxieties around what the increasing ubiquity of AI-integrated surveillance technologies — from smart glasses to Flock cameras — mean for everyday life.
The lawsuit was first filed back in March after a joint investigation by a pair of Swedish newspapers found that Meta had stored content captured by its Meta AI Glasses and funneled it to human reviewers for the purpose of training AI models, according to Kenyan whistleblowers working for the content moderation outsourcer and longtime Meta partner Sama. Meta is accused in the lawsuit of engaging in false advertising, wrongly telling purchasers that the smart glasses are “designed for privacy” and that users are “in control of your data and content,” despite content collected through the glasses’ AI features winding up in front of human reviewers who say they saw intimate material.
“In some videos you can see someone going to the toilet, or getting undressed,” one Kenyan whistleblower told the Swedish journalists. “I don’t think they know, because if they knew they wouldn’t be recording.” Other contractors described watching people have sex and viewing documents revealing personal identifying information.
In addition to representing users of Meta’s smart glasses, the amended complaint has been expanded to include claims from people who don’t own the face-mounted gadgets but say they were recorded without their “informed consent” when someone around them used the spectacles’ AI features — only for that data to possibly then be used for AI training, again without their consent. Some bystanders are minors.
The amended complaint contends that “no reasonable consumer would expect that a product marketed as privacy-protective is a conduit for AI training and systemic surveillance,” nor “would any reasonable consumer understand ‘designed for privacy’ or ‘controlled by you’ to mean that everything the Glasses’ AI sees and hears, including people’s most intimate moments, could be viewed by strangers overseas and used to train Meta’s AI.”
It argues that “millions” of consumers may have unwittingly been impacted, and that “no bystanders anywhere had any opportunity to, much less in fact did, consent to having their faces, bodies, voices, and personal information captured, reviewed, labeled, and embedded into Meta’s AI systems.”
“Meta sold millions of consumers on the lie that their AI glasses were ‘designed for privacy,'” Ryan Clarkson, founder and managing partner of Clarkson Law Firm and co-lead counsel on lawsuit, said in a statement. “This amended complaint adds the human beings on the other side of the glasses to the story — people having intimate sexual encounters, children being bathed by parents, or having their diapers changed by grandparents, people showering, changing clothes, and breastfeeding — who never agreed to surrender their privacy because someone near them bought a pair of glasses.”
Meta told Futurism in a statement that “we disagree with these allegations and will fight them.”
“Our glasses help you use AI hands free to answer questions about the world around you,” the statement continued. “If you use Meta AI, we may review that data to help improve our products and people’s experiences — this works the same way as memany other companies. We take steps to filter this data to help remove identifying information and to protect people’s privacy.”
Earlier this year, Meta reported that it had sold more than seven million pairs of its smart glasses in 2025. It’s also not the only tech giant chasing dominance in the AI wearable market: Google is developing smart glasses with the affordable eyewear maker Warby Parker, and Apple is reportedly working on infusing cameras and AI into its hugely popular AirPods.
Updated with a statement from Clarkson Law Firm.
More on Meta glasses: Teen Boys Are Using Meta Glasses to Harass and Bully Girls at High Schools and Middle Schools