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?