Meta contractor fires 1,100 AI trainers after they revealed Ray-Ban glasses recorded private and intimate footage

Daniel Sims

Posts: 2,464   +74
Staff
Recap: One of the earliest controversies to emerge from the generative AI boom centered on a troubling revelation: much of the infrastructure underpinning these systems was built on the labor of contractors in Kenya earning startlingly low wages. That issue has now collided with a separate set of concerns surrounding Meta's smart glasses, leaving the company in hot water after more than 1,000 contractors lost their jobs.

Meta has quietly ended its relationship with a vendor that helped train its generative AI systems using footage captured through Ray-Ban smart glasses. The contractor, Sama, subsequently announced the termination of 1,108 employees – some of whom alleged they were punished after coming forward about the sensitive nature of the footage they were asked to review.

The story broke in February, when workers at the Nairobi division of California-based outsourcing firm Sama told two Swedish newspapers that their assignments involved labeling footage from smart glasses that appeared to show subjects who had no idea they were being recorded.

The glasses include an AI assistant that requires recording audio and video, some of which becomes AI training data. Human contractors scan and label material that AI struggles with.

Meta states that its terms of service explain these details, and the glasses require explicit user permission to engage AI mode. Nonetheless, Sama employees reported that the glasses recorded banking information, private conversations, people naked in bathrooms, and intimate encounters.

Following the report, Meta cancelled its contract, saying that Sama did not meet its standards. In response, Sama said it never received any indication that its work was substandard. Meanwhile, employees reported being forced to work without performing any tasks amid tightening security as Sama tries to uncover the whistleblowers.

Sama is the same firm that OpenAI contracted to train ChatGPT, leading up to its 2022 debut. To make the chatbot less toxic, Kenya-based workers were paid less than $2 a day to filter distressing content with documented effects on their mental health. That year, Meta and Sama also faced allegations of using misleading job listings amounting to human trafficking, and of laying off workers who attempted to unionize.

The recording capabilities of smart glasses have attracted criticism ever since Google Glass met sharp public resistance years ago. Since Meta revived the category with more discreet hardware, wearers have been documented using the devices inside courtrooms, during police operations, and in classrooms during exams.

Apple is reportedly testing up to four smart glass designs to compete with Meta.

Permalink to story:

 
Meta, One of the worst companies on the planet, and here they are secretely recording everyday people, who dont want to be recorded, then turn around and train Ai, which we dont want, on our intimate interactions, they need to be sued, and this type of technology thrown in the wastebin of history, at least with phones we can see if someone might be recording us, not with these glasses
 
When are we going to put Zuckerberg in jail? I guess not until the current ominshambles administration is also all behind bars where they belong.
 
If your glasses are capable of recording footage, obviously they can record everything within your field of view, and most of it is private.
Why should some contractor "reveal" that, when every non-lobotomized person understands it perfectly well?
 
If your glasses are capable of recording footage, obviously they can record everything within your field of view, and most of it is private.
Why should some contractor "reveal" that, when every non-lobotomized person understands it perfectly well?
Because it is not meant to record unless the user asks. It is recording when they clearly didn't ask. Any non-lobotomized person would see this as a privacy concern.
 
Because it is not meant to record unless the user asks. It is recording when they clearly didn't ask. Any non-lobotomized person would see this as a privacy concern.
How do you know "It is recording when they clearly didn't ask" ? That's nonsensical.
How that company could possibly know? They are just reviewing a footage.
 
How do you know "It is recording when they clearly didn't ask" ? That's nonsensical.
How that company could possibly know? They are just reviewing a footage.
Because...
"Meta states that its terms of service explain these details, and the glasses require explicit user permission to engage AI mode. Nonetheless, Sama employees reported that the glasses recorded banking information, private conversations, people naked in bathrooms, and intimate encounters."
Do you really think they asked it to record this? Do you not wonder why (the whole point of the article) Meta killed the contract when company training the models pointed out that it was recording stuff it shouldn't?
 
No surprise there from Mark, considering he once called Facebook users “dumb ****s” for trusting him with their private information.
 
Because...
"Meta states that its terms of service explain these details, and the glasses require explicit user permission to engage AI mode. Nonetheless, Sama employees reported that the glasses recorded banking information, private conversations, people naked in bathrooms, and intimate encounters."
Do you really think they asked it to record this? Do you not wonder why (the whole point of the article) Meta killed the contract when company training the models pointed out that it was recording stuff it shouldn't?
I asked 'How do you know' - not 'Why do you assume'
If you wear glasses, you just forget them. It's perfectly normal to engage AI mode and just forget about it. It's also perfectly possible users to record these thing (e.g. sexual encounters) intentionally.

But as we are firmly on the speculation territory, here is another speculation: that company started a smear campaign against Meta in an attempt to extort them, knowing Meta was dissatisfied of their low quality work and planning to terminate the contract.
 
Because it is not meant to record unless the user asks. It is recording when they clearly didn't ask.
Did you even read the story? The user must ask to engage AI recording mode. The issue here is Sama employees not getting permission from others they were filming. In a perfect world, yes all corporations should exert perfect control over every subcontractor they use, even hiring private detectives to check up on them, but that's not always practical. The contractor who came last week to replace my swimming pool pump, for instance, had a rather sketchy helper with him ... I probably should have required proof that employee was being paid a fair wage and treated humanely, but guess what? I just took the invoice and wrote a check.

The rest of this 'expose' is the usual clap-trap. Claiming "human trafficking" because of a "misleading job posting" pretty much says it all.
 
When will terms of service cease to be a blank check for unethical behaviour?
We need to end standard form contracts, especially the kind that can be "agreed" to after purchase. That would put an end to the legal shield for many shenanigans.
 
When are we going to put Zuckerberg in jail? I guess not until the current ominshambles administration is also all behind bars where they belong.
When he is found guilty of a crime that warrants jail time.
When will terms of service cease to be a blank check for unethical behaviour?
Once courts stop giving corporations blank checks to do what they want. Which requires the people to stop infighting over petty politics and start holding their government accountable.
 
But as we are firmly on the speculation territory, here is another speculation: that company started a smear campaign against Meta in an attempt to extort them, knowing Meta was dissatisfied of their low quality work and planning to terminate the contract.
Seriously, do you really think that is likely? I don't know how to answer that. I think it's 1000% more likely that Meta paid them a pittance, treated them awfully, then ragged them off the minute they started to realise what Meta were up to. They have so much form in this regard, they are unethical to the core. Zuckerberg started the company unethically and has carried on in that way from that point forward. It runs through their corporate ethos like a stick of rock.
 
The recording capabilities of smart glasses have attracted criticism ever since Google Glass met sharp public resistance years ago.
The thing about Google Glass is that they didn't look like a pair of regular glasses. They looked like spectacles, with a side-mounted aperture attached. Even if a bystander can't tell they were being recorded, they could at least tell which devices had the potential to record them. Once Meta had that functionality built into standard-looking Ray-Ban frames, that signposting disappeared. Now, every single pair of Ran-Ban glasses is suspect.

This is ultimately what's been lost in the noise: attempting to make recording devices disappear has the effect of making them "appear" to be everywhere. If you can't tell what's a camera and what isn't, you will start operating as if you're always under surveillance. "It's not paranoia, if they're actually after you."
 
How do you know "It is recording when they clearly didn't ask" ? That's nonsensical.
How that company could possibly know? They are just reviewing a footage.

Have you ever noticed getting online material about things you were just talking about? It's not coincidence. It happens far, far too frequently to be coincidence. We know they're spying on us and they know we know. They are just making too much money from it to give a crap.
 
Look, it needs to be said: If you are ****ing dumb enough to introduce such invasive garbage into your life, then you deserve what you get. I have zero sympathy for you. Why do you THINK they want to record you 24/7? Do you think it's for YOUR benefit?
Surely there can't be many educated people in the world who don't know about the shady practices such scumbags as Zuckercock et al are using, simply in order to feed their bottom line?? Has the world really been dumbed down to such a level?
Get real people. Disconnect from all your so-called "smart devices".
 
Look, it needs to be said: If you are ****ing dumb enough to introduce such invasive garbage into your life, then you deserve what you get. I have zero sympathy for you. Why do you THINK they want to record you 24/7? Do you think it's for YOUR benefit?
Surely there can't be many educated people in the world who don't know about the shady practices such scumbags as Zuckercock et al are using, simply in order to feed their bottom line?? Has the world really been dumbed down to such a level?
Get real people. Disconnect from all your so-called "smart devices".
Everybody knows how anti-consumer and lawsuit-happy Disney is, yet there are "Disney adults"―sycophantic, overgrown children, mentally stuck in high school―who obsessively buy all of their merchandise despite probably being aware of how scummy Disney's business practices are. It's not a matter of being uneducated, it's degrees of "awareness tolerance".

The question each person has to ask themselves is, "How much 'noticing' is too much?"
 
Seriously, do you really think that is likely? I don't know how to answer that. I think it's 1000% more likely that Meta paid them a pittance, treated them awfully, then ragged them off the minute they started to realise what Meta were up to. They have so much form in this regard, they are unethical to the core. Zuckerberg started the company unethically and has carried on in that way from that point forward. It runs through their corporate ethos like a stick of rock.
Why not?
This company, Sama, is hardly the gold standard in ethics.
I don't believe Meta recorded footage without user permission not because I think Meta is ethical, but because the legal and PR implications, if caught, could be devastating - it's simply not worth the risk.
If they need that type of footage to train AI, they can simply pay people do it - it will cost them a microscopic fraction of the potential losses if caught recording secretly.
 
"Honestly, the scariest part isn't even the footage it's that the people being recorded had absolutely no idea it was happening. Walking past someone in a café or a gym and unknowingly ending up in an AI training dataset? That's unsettling. Hiding this in terms of service nobody reads isn't transparency, it's just legal cover. And the worst part once that data is out, it's gone. You can't undo it. At some point we need to stop treating privacy like a checkbox and start treating it like a right.
 
Did you even read the story? The user must ask to engage AI recording mode. The issue here is Sama employees not getting permission from others they were filming. In a perfect world, yes all corporations should exert perfect control over every subcontractor they use, even hiring private detectives to check up on them, but that's not always practical. The contractor who came last week to replace my swimming pool pump, for instance, had a rather sketchy helper with him ... I probably should have required proof that employee was being paid a fair wage and treated humanely, but guess what? I just took the invoice and wrote a check.

The rest of this 'expose' is the usual clap-trap. Claiming "human trafficking" because of a "misleading job posting" pretty much says it all.
Because...
"Meta states that its terms of service explain these details, and the glasses require explicit user permission to engage AI mode. Nonetheless, Sama employees reported that the glasses recorded banking information, private conversations, people naked in bathrooms, and intimate encounters."
Do you really think they asked it to record this? Do you not wonder why (the whole point of the article) Meta killed the contract when company training the models pointed out that it was recording stuff it shouldn't?
Okay, it’s true that the user gave permission—that part is fine. But what about the person sitting nearby having coffee, or someone just walking on the street? They didn’t give any permission.
The pool pump example might make sense for a normal person, but when you’re a $1.3 trillion company building AI using human footage, saying “we didn’t know” sounds weak. It’s not ignorance—it feels like convenient ignorance.
 
I'm for anything that brings attention to creepy surveillance glasses be it fair or not in the exact situation.

We simply can not allow such products to exists, since there will always be perverts using them be it those wearing them or those accessing the recordings they make. For peoples general right to privacy it is bad enough that there is cameras in phones, computers, cars plus all the non-mobile ones on and in buildings. But surveillance glasses takes it to a whole new level, right now they may only be recording some of the time only this will of course change and then they will be recording all of the time.
 
Back