Yes because no one has ever worked with a partner to commit crimes to try and get away with it. By your logic, as soon as Bah was proven innocent in the Boston case, he would be free to walk in to any Apple Store in the world and take whatever he wanted, charging him again with theft is wrong on Apple's part after all right?
Apple (or more like SIS) provided evidence to the police, its the responsibility of the police to verify that evidence and determine whether its worthy of arresting a suspect or not. Apple doesn't have the power to arrest anyone.
Meanwhile, note from the actual legal filing:
"The warrant that police had included a photo of a suspect that did not resemble Mr. Bah, but police nevertheless executed it."
This one line alone completely exonerates Apple and SIS. If they provided the police with evidence that included a photo, a photo which obviously did not match the person the police arrested, that is the fault of the POLICE, not Apple.
Further, the lawsuit alleges that Apple/SIS used facial recognition software in its security cameras based on zero evidence. It also tries to tie this supposed facial recognition software to the software in the iPhone, even though there is no evidence that the facial recognition software was used in the first place, nor that its even the same software if facial recognition software WAS used. FaceID requires not just a picture but a detailed scan of a persons face using multiple cameras and close proximity. Its clear the lawyer doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and is just trying to throw **** at the wall and see what sticks. Also, he laughably suggests that Apple has never considered its facial recognition software to be fallible, which is again provably false. From Apples own documentation on FaceID and TouchID security:
"The probability that a random person the population could look at your iPhone X and unlock it using Face ID is approximately 1 in 1,000,000 (versus 1 in 50,000 for Touch ID). For additional protection, Face ID allows only five unsuccessful match attempts before a passcode is required to obtain access to your iPhone. The probability of a false match is different for twins and siblings that look like you as well as among children under the age of 13, because their distinct facial features may not have fully developed. If you're concerned about this, we recommend using a passcode to authenticate."
Not only does Apple openly admit FaceID isn't perfect, it points out scenarios where its more likely to match another person AND suggests that in those scenarios a concerned person should use a passcode instead. there goes another (pointless) leg of this kangaroo lawyers case. Which of course doesn't really matter anyway because there is zero evidence Apple used FaceID for this situation to begin with.
Oh, and another interesting point, no where in the lawsuit is there any indication that the store (or stores) in question accepted the lost learners permit as proof of identity. The detective suspected it, but thats it. This lawsuit is based on two statements by the detective, one of them a supposition!
I am sorry the kid had to go through this, it sounds like a really awful situation to have to deal with, but even IF we accept the premises in this case:
1. Apple/SIS accepted the learners permit as ID at least once
2. Apple/SIS used some kind of facial identification software in its store cameras to try and track suspects across multiple stores (I wouldn't be surprised if they did honestly, it makes sense)
Apple/SIS are still not responsible for the police arresting someone who didn't match the evidence provided to them. By the lawsuits own admission, it was the police who made the arrest despite the mismatch between the photo and Mr. Bah. Apple wasn't involved with that at all.
