New York Student Sues Apple for False Arrest After Being Mistakenly Identified as Store Thief [Updated]

[0947347]

So, the facial recognition arrested him, or the police did?
Why did police arrested him, if the person in the picture, didnt look like him? And what does it have to do with Apple?

If police did arrest him, based on pictures and the picture of him didn’t match his face, the police messed up, then isn’t it a police fault?

And yes, they have camera systems in Apple stores. From that you can see people’s face. Is that so hard to believe? I guess you expected they would have cameras pointed at knees, or something.

 

[Ans010]

According to Bah, Apple's in-store facial recognition software mistakenly linked him to a series of thefts from Apple Stores, leading to his arrest back in November.

All stores have surveillance cameras. How did he know that Apple uses a software for facial recognition to track everyone entering their stores? Software based facial recognition would mean that Apple has built a database similar to that of NSA/FBI/CIA or has access to their database. In that Apple could not recognize him correctly makes it clear that Apple does not have access to that sort of information.

Bah says that he was forced to respond to "multiple false allegations which led to severe stress and hardship."

He could have avoided the stress and hardship by being more responsible. How can one not know they have misplaced their Learner's Permit/ Driver's License? You cannot blame Apple(or anyone else) if you cannot take care of your belongings.

 

[Jmausmuc]

1B Dollars. Embarrassing what the justice system has come to that people would even dare to sue for this much money. This should be thrown out of court.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Yes, he is. You’re defending trying to hold people liable for actually using law enforcement to investigate a crime.

I'm curious ... with all that is provided publicly thus far ... how did you determine that law enforcement used all available to them to "investigate a crime"?
A picture?

He was charged based on a picture and potentially ID.

What "investigation" was done before laying charges?
- Location and proximity in the date/time of the crime occurred? He wasn't in the same state, lol.
Fingerprints (anywhere in any of the stores he's allegedly stolen from)?
Eye witnesses (as vague as this is, so far no reports about this)?
Products within his possession by any means?

I'm no expert of the law (in my country of Canada, and definitely not in the USA) ... however the word "investigate" clearly was not even done correctly here ... else how on Earth can they charge this guy when he's not anywhere near the scene of the crime and with a proper alibi ? At best they'd "observe" him or "investigate" proper details to prove he was there - in this case he was not ... as the statement of facts state; "wrongfully charged".

 

[Delgibbons]

But....Apple is all about privacy? I've seen the ads

 

[Romeo_Nightfall]

Okay he’s not wrong for suing, but $1 billion? That’s a bit of a stretch...

nope - you have to hit them hard!

 

[Shanghaichica]

All stores have surveillance cameras. How did he know that Apple uses a software for facial recognition to track everyone entering their stores? Software based facial recognition would mean that Apple has built a database similar to that of NSA/FBI/CIA or has access to their database. In that Apple could not recognize him correctly makes it clear that Apple does not have access to that sort of information.



He could have avoided the stress and hardship by being more responsible. How can one not know they have misplaced their Learner's Permit/ Driver's License? You cannot blame Apple(or anyone else) if you cannot take care of your belongings.

Yep let’s berate him for losing his license. The issue here isn’t that he was arrested and falsely accused of a crime he didn’t commit. Let’s blame the victim.

 

[NovemberWhiskey]

um, wtf. apple has face recognition in their stores?

 

[mikzn]

um, wtf. apple has face recognition in their stores?

It’s a sobering thought

 

[Scubaman]

$1B! Only in America...

 

[iPhysicist]

That’s the world we live in, in today’s age of when someone feels they’re ‘entitled’ to money due to legalities where they have been ‘subjected to severe stress and hardships’ as the article indicates , they will reach for the highest number possible, even if they’re not rewarded that, in the end, it’s all about the money versus the real reason why they are suing.

I’d like to sue life for subjecting me to severe stress and hardship. Come on life pay me with fortune!

 

[mw360]

um, wtf. apple has face recognition in their stores?

Yes, a lawyer in a ridiculous lawsuit said so.

 

[Brian Y]

Everyone claiming he’s an idiot for the $1bn clearly doesn’t have a clue how this works.

1. It forces apple to listen. They can’t brush it under the carpet in the same way as if he was claiming for $50k

2. It gets attention. Apple doesn’t like negative press. This gets them that.

3. It’s all about settlements. These cases never go all the way, they nearly always get settled. Claim for $100k, settlements will likely be in the 10-20k region. By claiming an absurd amount the lawyers are telling Apple “wanna settle, 6 figures please.”
[doublepost=1556009716][/doublepost]And how is Apple not the bad guy here? They use facial recognition without telling anybody to apprehend an innocent person, call the cops on him and make his life hell?

 

[Double-A]

Get rich quick schemer. Wants to ride out the rest of his life in luxury due to a small bump in the road.

I feel like the legal act of suing has become more of a bad thing than good and could even possibly use some sort of reform. Not that I’m any sort of legal expert. People use their legal right to sue not for the reason they should (to right a wrong they have suffered), but to enrich themselves without having to work hard to earn it, like the rest of us.

 

[0947347]

Everyone claiming he’s an idiot for the $1bn clearly doesn’t have a clue how this works.

1. It forces apple to listen. They can’t brush it under the carpet in the same way as if he was claiming for $50k

2. It gets attention. Apple doesn’t like negative press. This gets them that.

3. It’s all about settlements. These cases never go all the way, they nearly always get settled. Claim for $100k, settlements will likely be in the 10-20k region. By claiming an absurd amount the lawyers are telling Apple “wanna settle, 6 figures please.”
[doublepost=1556009716][/doublepost]And how is Apple not the bad guy here? They use facial recognition without telling anybody to apprehend an innocent person, call the cops on him and make his life hell?

Beware, a sarcastic post!

And how exactly did Apple arrested him? An in-store robocop? Apple store is not a police station. They might detain him on suspicion, but that not unusual.

And what is with that picture-less
ID rubbish story?

“I lost my learners and somebody used it to steal the things with it”

???

If, the big IF, they would have a facial tracking recognition in store, and made a few videos of a person stealing, how the hell would police, based on footage, arrest the wrong guy? Because Apple (whom ever that would be) said so?

“Hey mr. police man, I am APPLEMAN. Somebody was stealing in our shop, here is his picture, please seek him out. Oh you don’t know who that is? Just grab some completely random guy, that will do. Tie him up to the chair in basement he will confess soon. Poke him with soft cushion. Oh, he was not there in time of the theft? Arrest him anyway, because I said so.”

Is that how you think it works?
Common sense is dead, isn’t it.

 

[Techwatcher]

That’s the world we live in, in today’s age of when someone feels they’re ‘entitled’ to money due to legalities where they have been ‘subjected to severe stress and hardships’ as the article indicates , they will reach for the highest number possible, even if they’re not rewarded that, in the end, it’s all about the money versus the real reason why they are suing.

He was falsely arrested for crimes he didn’t commit, through measures that are not promoted and conflict their “privacy” marketing campaign. He needs no other reasons to sue.

 

[Krayzkat]

Pay the 1 billion dollars Tim Cook. It’s not expensive, it’s just the cost of a coffee for the next 460 millennium

 

[jagolden]

Hope he wins a boatload of money. Apple has no right to be filming and recording without the consent of the second party.
This is what happens when technology is allowed to make the decisions, and clearly Apple’s facial recognition tech is crap.
False arrest is false arrest. It doesn’t matter what your reasons are and in this case the proof was clearly dubious.
Lawsuit should also include the manufacturer/supplier of the facial recognition system and the acting police department.

 

[robjulo]

If you can’t figure it out I’m not going to help you.....just keep flying that Apple flag and be on your way to a new thread to defend Apple.

But...but...but...what does your comment have to do with privacy?

 

[Kiorr]

Why aren’t the news outlets highlighting the fact that Apple is tracking people’s faces without their knowledge in their retail stores? I went to see if ANY outlet made more than a mention of it, and they all just breezed right by the statement... sure, retail stores have cameras and could technically implement similar security measures (they might do so), but I am curious to know if they are storing those images and profiles long-term and if they are linking the facial recognition profiles to actual customer records... or if they are just using photos from past known incidents and comparing them with the people that walk through the doors... that is still pretty damn creepy, especially if it can result in you being falsely accused of a crime. Good thing I do ALL of my Apple shopping online...

Thats the real story here! if its true

 

[PickUrPoison]

If you can’t figure it out I’m not going to help you.....just keep flying that Apple flag and be on your way to a new thread to defend Apple.

So nothing to do with Apple valuing privacy, or Tim Cook. Got it.

 

[dmi]

I would hope that any victim of false arrest can receive just compensation for their suffering. But since it sounds like he was identified from a stolen document, not his face, what does Apple facial recognition have to do with it?

 

[simonmet]

I don’t understand the problem MacRumors has with image-only posts. That earlier image of Dr. Evil (since deleted) was entirely appropriate... no words needed.

Yet MR will allow the same image with some useless padding text?

 

[PickUrPoison]

Hope he wins a boatload of money. Apple has no right to be filming and recording without the consent of the second party.
This is what happens when technology is allowed to make the decisions, and clearly Apple’s facial recognition tech is crap.
False arrest is false arrest. It doesn’t matter what your reasons are and in this case the proof was clearly dubious.
Lawsuit should also include the manufacturer/supplier of the facial recognition system and the acting police department.

1) If you think no one has the right to record you on video—or audio for that matter—when you’re out in public, you’re wrong. There’s no expectation of privacy in a public place. No consent is required by any party.

2) Technology didn’t make the decision.

3) Clearly, we don’t even know whether facial recognition technology was used.

4) Probable cause is a complete defense to a claim of false arrest.

5) Plenty of people are arrested for suspicion of having committed a crime, but are subsequently released without charges. That doesn’t mean there was a false arrest. Was the arrest reasonable? Was there a warrant? You don’t know.

 

[mr.bee]

i assume that the facial recognition is managed and owed by a third party and is in no way linked to any of Apples databases.

Why is everyone here screaming about privacy issues before knowing what’s going on?