I have read the article and I have no clue how the facial recognition is responsible.

Instead of giving snarky comments you could at least acknowledge that the article is utter garbage.

The only link between the thief and the person who was arrested is the NAME.

Edit: and here is better article:

https://googleness.com/unitedstates/student-sues-apple-for-1...

Apple identified (using facial recognition) the same person who stole multiple items across different states and since the thief used a fake name - they associated all crimes with that name.

So in the end the only link was NAME due to the stolen id.

Apple took the stolen ID used by the criminal. Then Apple incorrectly linked the details of that ID (with no photo), with images of the thief.

Following further thefts associated with that ID, the innocent man was accused of all the thefts based on the ID and an INCORRECT photo match to the stolen ID which Apple had created in its facial recognition system, and used as the basis to inform the police of the suspect.

I tried my best not to be snarky. I thought the article was a normal average article.

Edit: I'm not sure the article says facial recognition was responsible, I think that's what the courts will decide. But to me, its clear that facial recognition was involved, based on the article's title and content

I think the point of disagreement regarding the "link" is not that there is none, but that it seemed to be nothing peculiar about facial recognition.

If Apple sent a security camera picture of the robber together with information from the stolen ID to police, and police the same would have happened. So the core issue here is that the validity of the ID was never questioned, not the use of facial recognition. That might just have amplified / accelerated the identification of the wrong person.

The multiple thefts are linked together via facial recognition in the Apple Stores and tied back to the stolen ID.

If, it was just a single theft and the stolen ID was used on that occasion, then I would agree facial recognition would not be relevant.

But it wasn't the facial recognition that led back to the innocent man, it was the fact that the perpetrator used his name and details. It could have been facial recognition, or the same security guard who saw him at all three stores, it doesn't matter.

He was arrested because his name and details were presented at the crimes by the perpetrator. I've read the article and this is what I've taken away from it.

I really can't understand how facial recognition played a critical role in his arrest over his name being used.

We've both read the article. On rereading the article, its not clear if the stolen ID was present at all the crimes. My assumption was that it was not.

I make that assumption, because the person accussed of multiple crimes is suing Apple based on their use of facial recognition. He wouldn't do that if the ID was used in each crime.

Another article confirms my assumption is correct.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48022890

"A detective with the New York Police Department allegedly told Mr Bah that the thief probably used Mr Bah's driving licence as identification during one of the robberies. The detective reportedly said that this may have caused Mr Bah to be charged with thefts committed at Apple Stores in New York, Delaware, New Jersey and Massachusetts, according to court papers."

If it was the same person who made all of the robberies (not Mr. Bah, but the person who stole his identity) then the facial recognition worked flawlessly.

Unfortunately "Stolen ID Blamed for False Arrest" doesn't make for a good story.

It may not even have been facial recognition by computer. The facial recognition may well have been done by a human looking at security camera footage after the facts.

That would be consistent with “Apple said on Tuesday it doesn’t use facial recognition in its stores”.

On the other hand, “Security Industry Specialists Inc., a security firm that’s also named as a defendant, declined to comment on the suit” could mean that Apple hires a third party for its store security, and that firm could use facial recognition.

I suppose the point I'm making is that the facial recognition system correctly identified the individual responsible for the crimes. Mr. Bah was not mistaken as the perpetrator by the system. The only reason he's involved is because his identity was stolen. If only one store was robbed and no facial recognition was involved the outcome would have been the same. So he was tied to the other crimes because of the facial recognition, but the only reason he was tied to any at all was, again, because of his stolen identity.

I was going to ask if - You - actually read the article, like really read it, or just skim it?

Thanks for answering that question.

Yes, I really read it. Do you have a different understanding/interpretation of the article?

The article linked may well be longer, but it certainly isn't "better" by any definition. It starts by claiming that Apple, not the suspect, filed the suit, and seems to state later on that the arrested man was killed by police. I say "seems to state" because the grammar and vocabulary are so very odd throughout the article that I suspect it is the output of some text generation algorithm trying to recycle the story from a different source.

this article is really terrible actually. They have at the bottom of the article where they stole the text from before adding so many errors.

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/04/23/52...

Not the person you're asking, but FWIW, I regularly read the comments before deciding whether to read the article. In many cases, the top comment is some expert in the field in question who explains why the article is a waste of time.

I can understand that. But, do you debate specific points in the article based on the views you formed by NOT reading it?

I get that some comments can be interesting without reading the article. But someone discussing and finding fault with an article they haven't read (properly?) ... that's the bit that just baffles me.

Reading the article seems like a reasonable minimal entry requirement, IF someone wants to discuss the content itself.

This sounds like some grade A projection. His interpretation is sensible and follows from the article. Stop gas lighting.