Meta Quest Pro falls short on biometric protections

Meta has released more details about the lengths they’ve gone to protect users of their new eye tracking HMDs.

The Inspector is Shocked, Shocked that there is gambling in this establishment that he frequents

I’ve worked with eye tracking technology since 2010 (Hololens) and written publicly since 2019. Here are some thoughts after reading all of the available documents on Meta’s eye tracking protections and their rationales.

Meta clearly wants us to believe they’ve gone to great lengths. But despite some very capable advisors working to offer some protections, I am deeply concerned that genuine critics and outside domain experts were not adequately utilized or listened to. Meta apparently took the easy way out in almost all cases. But kudos for the transparency!

Conclusion up front: I would suggest users and policymakers not be appeased with half-measures. I don’t like regulation, but it’s time to classify and protect this and other biometric data as health data. And until then, I don’t consider this headset safe.

Here are some more detailed examples to support that conclusion:

1. User opt-in consent is better than opt-out or no-choice. However, most people won’t understand the risks and will turn on this cool new feature just for its benefits, just like they click through coercive…