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

[gnasher729]

Interesting that a company which warns against the technological abuses of privacy, uses the same tool as the Chinese government.

Well, no. Someone _claims_ that happened. Someone who asks for a billion dollars. A claim from someone asking for a billion dollar doesn't mean in the slightest that it is true.
[doublepost=1556034775][/doublepost]

This behaviour by Apple doesn't reflect their claim to respect privacy IMO

This behaviour, if Bah's claims were true, wouldn't reflect their claim to respect privacy. Oh wait... A thief robbing a store has no right to privacy. And if a thief somehow manages to use for photograph for fraud, then investigating this and finding you (and giving you a chance to clear this mess up), is not a violation of your privacy.

 

[LizKat]

Apple has released a comment saying they do not use facial recognition: https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/23/apple-facial-recognition-false-arrest-lawsuit/

Sounds to me like the plaintiff should probably just be suing the security services provider. That service would have been who matched up the in-store-provided ID of the consumer (which ID had no photo) with some collection of IDs and other datapoints that the security service had access to.

If the ID had been flagged in a past bad act by anyone (including the thief who at at some point had allegedly stolen the info on the plaintiff's learner's permit, for instance) but if the security service didn't also have a photo to compare to Apple's general store surveillance videos on any of the dates in question -- same kind of video surveillance any supermarket engages in-- then the security service seems remiss and overzealous in having flagged the plaintiff solely on a matchup of textual ID info.

Don't see how Apple is liable for an error like that, if that's what happened. But then I'm not a lawyer.

 

[gnasher729]

Apparently some of you don't understand how law suits for this type of thing work.... You sue for a crazy amount thus guaranteeing a settlement much higher than if you had sued for a specific amount.#ambulancechasing101

I like the German method.

You sue. First thing the judge asks is "How much do you want?" Answer: "One biiiillion".

Judge says: Ok then. At one billion, the fees are 0.8% for the court, 0.8% for the defending lawyer, 0.8% for your lawyer. That's 8 million dollars each. (The 0.8% is made up, the percentage goes down a bit as the money goes higher).

And loser pays. However, even if the judge gives you one million, that means you are 99.9% loser and have to pay 99.9% of 8 million each to your lawyer, their lawyer, and the court. (Apple would have to pay $8,000 each in that case).
[doublepost=1556035458][/doublepost]

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?

The first decision that Apple has already made is "that guy doesn't get one penny". On the contrary, Apple will closely examine anything he says and look for anything that isn't true, and if they find anything, they'll get him by the balls. Anything about facial recognition is just based on the claims of this man or his lawyer, and he will have to show evidence for this.
[doublepost=1556035579][/doublepost]

I understand Apples fault in this, but this kid sounds like a typical snowflake.

What is Apple's fault in this? If you don't blindly believe any accusations made by someone who wants a billion dollars?
[doublepost=1556035633][/doublepost]

By "in-store facial recognition software" do they mean "surveillance video?"

Could be "employee recognising the face of the guy".
[doublepost=1556035934][/doublepost]

Apple has released a comment saying they do not use facial recognition: https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/23/apple-facial-recognition-false-arrest-lawsuit/

Unfortunately, Engadget is one of those sites in blatant violation of GDPR. So where MacRumors is slightly annyoing at times (three mouse clicks to get to the site), Engadget asks you to go the website of every single one of their advertisers to turn off tracking. GDPR requires that a website must ask for consent to tracking that is given freely. Refusing to show the site or making it hard to access it without agreeing to tracking is not freely given consent, so what they are doing is illegal.

Could you just copy Apple's comment and post it here?

 

[Analog Kid]

While $1 Billion is clearly excessive, I do hope that he receives fair compensation for his hardship. In addition, Apple should be more forthcoming about its use of facial recognition in its stores.

It is a complete surprise to me that Apple is actively identifying all guests who walk into the store. As a company that is touting privacy in its recent marketing campaigns, Apple owes all of us, Mr. Bah included, a thorough explanation.

I'd agree, but we don't know if it's true. The article says that Apple uses in-store facial recognition software according to Bah. Since Apple declined to comment, we're left to wonder if the real outcome of Mr. Bah's case will be an outcry over an Apple invasion of privacy, or if it's not really the case.

From the Bloomberg article:

Apple said on Tuesday it doesn’t use facial recognition in its stores.
​

He’s also saying they got his name from an ID that didn’t have a photo. There are pieces to the process that haven’t been made clear.

And he doesn’t say they identify everyone. I fully expect that they have a security system installed— running recognition on that after a theft is legit. I’d actually rather it be Apple running that than some government agency running it through an Amazon service.

It looks to me like he’s going for the deepest pockets first.
[doublepost=1556036609][/doublepost]

I understand Apples fault in this, but this kid sounds like a typical snowflake.

I disagree on both points. I don’t see Apples fault— they were robbed. I also think the kid is right to be pissed if he was misidentified and is an innocent person having their life disrupted this way.

The Police should be the intermediary here. It doesn’t sound like Apple ran any facial recognition software, and even if they did the police should be taking those results on faith. It doesn’t sound like they did— it sounds like they tracked his name, not his picture.

Mistakes happen. That doesn’t always mean someone is flawed.

 

[apolloa]

Hang on a minute here... Apple stores use ‘facial recognition’ software.... and when would we be advised this before entering the stores?? Keeping video recordings is one thing, having Apples computers learn and remember and recognise your face is quite another and breach of privacy I think, it could be used for all sorts of targeted sales tactics!

Christ and people moan and wing about Amazons facial recognition software, Apple just uses there’s but doesn’t bother telling anyone about it. Then again it seems to flawed anyway...

As for the case I don’t blame the guy, if your accused of robbing several Apple stores by the Police and being treated as such, all because Apples crappy software identifies you as the culprit, wouldn’t you sue them? I would! Even worst if your face and the story got into the media,
then I’d sue for more!


EDIT:

Oh never mind as stated above, Apple ‘claims’ they don’t use facial recognition:

http://www.engadget.com/2019/04/23/apple-facial-recognition-false-arrest-lawsuit/

However, if I had my name dragged through the mud on false accusations in the media I’d be suing the hell out of everyone, because the damage is done then and seldom do you repair it... it’s happened here in the UK where people are on the news accused of his or that, then released without charge as it wasn’t then who did it. The media should have laws to stop them doing that until the people are proved guilty!

 

[colllin]

Man responds to false allegations of thieving from Apple by... attempting to thieve from Apple.

 

[ravenstar]

There's so much missing from this story it barely makes sense. A kid loses his non-photo ID (did he report it lost?) then claims that somehow Apple used facial recognition software to identify him as a thief (how does this relate to the lost ID?), gives the evidence to police who convince a judge it's sufficient to issue an arrest warrant (what judge would issue a warrant on just the word of a computer without reviewing the evidence himself?), and with warrant in hand the police go to the kid's house and arrest him?

I've read newspaper reports of accident scenes that I've responded to that bore no resemblance to what actually happened, and this story sounds like one of those reports. Nothing about it can be taken at face value, and it'll be very interesting to hear how this really played out. It'd be really surprised if it ever made it far enough for us to find out, though.

 

[neuropsychguy]

Could you just copy Apple's comment and post it here?

Engadget doesn't post the actual statement. Here's the blurb in the story though: "An Apple spokesperson told Engadget that the company does not use facial recognition in its stores." We'll see if that's verified by other media sources.

 

[ikramerica]

False arrest sucks. You sue the city though. And what judge approved a warrant? Why wouldnt the police simply visit the kid for questioning?

Apple says they dont use facial recognition and the kid says he lost his non-picture ID and maybe someone was committing crimes in his name somehow.

Apple uses a security company at these stores who didnt comment.

 

[Mal]

Did Apple arrest him? Obviously not. Any blame, if there is any beyond a possible fraud case against whoever used his ID (if true), lies with the police department, not Apple. They had all the information and chose to go ahead with an arrest warrant. Apple was merely the provider of the information they had available to them.

 

[Gasu E.]

1 BILLION? That's Dr. Evil money.

 

[jarman92]

As Relentless noted, Apple cannot arrest anyone. They can, if policy allows, detain someone, until the proper authorities arrive.

Since the article states he was arrested, that leads me to believe that the police (along with the DA) believed there was sufficient probable cause (and evidence) for arrest.

Unless Bah can show Apple was negligent in its security process, I don't see him winning.

Apple also can’t detain you...they can try, but you can just leave. They can’t hold you against your will for any reason. Once the police arrive, that’s obviously a different story.

 

[Gasu E.]

I'd agree, but we don't know if it's true. The article says that Apple uses in-store facial recognition software according to Bah. Since Apple declined to comment, we're left to wonder if the real outcome of Mr. Bah's case will be an outcry over an Apple invasion of privacy, or if it's not really the case.

Actually, other articles have Apple commenting. They deny using facial recognition in their stores.

Apple certainly has video surveillance in its stores, which would be able to capture an image of said suspect. But there's no way said suspect could know that "facial recognition software" was involved in identifying him, unless "someone" told him so.

 

[ravenstar]

Apple also can’t detain you...they can try, but you can just leave. They can’t hold you against your will for any reason. Once the police arrive, that’s obviously a different story.

That depends on where you are and the circumstances. It varies by state in the US.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm referring to incidents within their store or taking place in an employee's presence. They can't go to your house and attempt to arrest you, at least, not in the US.

 

[Gasu E.]

Hang on a minute here... Apple stores use ‘facial recognition’ software.... and when would we be advised this before entering the stores?? Keeping video recordings is one thing, having Apples computers learn and remember and recognise your face is quite another and breach of privacy I think, it could be used for all sorts of targeted sales tactics!

Christ and people moan and wing about Amazons facial recognition software, Apple just uses there’s but doesn’t bother telling anyone about it. Then again it seems to flawed anyway...

As for the case I don’t blame the guy, if your accused of robbing several Apple stores by the Police and being treated as such, all because Apples crappy software identifies you as the culprit, wouldn’t you sue them? I would! Even worst if your face and the story got into the media,
then I’d sue for more!


EDIT:

Oh never mind as stated above, Apple ‘claims’ they don’t use facial recognition:

http://www.engadget.com/2019/04/23/apple-facial-recognition-false-arrest-lawsuit/

However, if I had my name dragged through the mud on false accusations in the media I’d be suing the hell out of everyone, because the damage is done then and seldom do you repair it... it’s happened here in the UK where people are on the news accused of his or that, then released without charge as it wasn’t then who did it. The media should have laws to stop them doing that until the people are proved guilty!

You automatically gave credence to a story by a random guy, when the one thing you know for sure is that he is suing for 1 BILLION DOLLARS. That's a moronic amount. Lots have people have been subject to false arrest; unless the police have brutalized them significantly, or they have been held in prison falsely for long periods, no one person ever gets more than a few thousand.

 

[Khedron]

Actually, other articles have Apple commenting. They deny using facial recognition in their stores.

Apple certainly has video surveillance in its stores, which would be able to capture an image of said suspect. But there's no way said suspect could know that "facial recognition software" was involved in identifying him, unless "someone" told him so.

From Business Insider:

An NYPD detective realised that Bah had been wrongfully arrested, viewing surveillance footage from the store and seeing that the suspect looked "nothing like" Bah. The detective then told Bah that the problem might be to do with Apple's facial recognition. He said that Apple's security technology, "identifies suspects of theft using facial recognition technology."

 

[aliensporebomb]

Okay not reading the 72 page thread but one thing I'm thinking of: when I visit an apple store (last time was for a genius bar appointment) my phone knew it and checked me in for my appointment.

I don't think they necessarily have real facial recognition happening but they may have some way of knowing who you are by the device you carry. Make sense?

So how did this kid's face get flagged as a potential thief if he didn't resemble the actual face?

 

[ravenstar]

Okay not reading the 72 page thread but one thing I'm thinking of: when I visit an apple store (last time was for a genius bar appointment) my phone knew it and checked me in for my appointment.

It may not just be looking at faces but if you have an apple product they may have some way of knowing who you are by the device you carry. Make sense?

Maybe, but it could also be your Apple product was able to identify the Apple store and then act on your behalf. It's an important difference as it places the identification in your hands not theirs.

 

[ronntaylor]

From reading several articles online, Apple is totally at fault here. They busted someone in one of their Boston stores possessing an interim Learner's Permit without a photo (which on its face states "not meant for identification purposes"). Then associated that person (using Bah’s name, address and other personal information) with three additional thefts in stores in Delaware, New Jersey and New York City. They sent that info to the NYPD to have Bah arrested. Bah was released once the NYPD saw that the person in Apple’s surveillance video (from the Manhattan store theft) clearly wasn’t Bah.

So besides being arrested at home at 4 am, he had cases against him in four states. He had to hire a lawyer and attend an arraignment hearing in Boston although he lives and goes to school in New York. All cases have been dropped except the case in New Jersey which he still has to resolve thanks to Apple’s negligence. His initial lawyer asked for all alleged surveillance video and allegations of thefts to resolve the misidentification in late June, 2018 -- several months before the NYC arrest -- but Apple and its co-defendant denied having any video and did not disclose additional allegations of thefts. The affidavit for the NYC arrest included a photo from Apple of someone clearly not Bah.

Asking for $1 Billion wasn't foolish as the news is out there at dozens of places in a short period of time. While Apple has commented to say that they don't use facial recognition in store, they haven't denied sending Bah's info to law enforcement to have him charged in four states, with an arrest warrant in NYC. Defendants also made an allegation of theft by Bah at an Apple store in Connecticut.

The suit: https://www.scribd.com/document/407269527/Ousmane-Bah-v-Apple-Case

 

[jarman92]

That depends on where you are and the circumstances. It varies by state in the US.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm referring to incidents within their store or taking place in an employee's presence. They can't go to your house and attempt to arrest you, at least, not in the US.

Sure, some places allow stores to detain you with probable cause and for a reasonable time. But no matter which jurisdiction, if you try to leave they probably aren’t going to physically stop you. And if they do they’ve opened themselves up to charges of false imprisonment, assault, and/or battery.

 

[Snikwahac]

FACIAL RECOGNITION?! Facial recognition?!

In the store?? Da fuhh...

 

[Defthand]

Apple may not have facial recognition systems installed in its stores, but the security contractor named in the lawsuit may have used such a tool incompetently. According to Security Industry Specialists' website:

The biggest security challenge is preparing for the unforeseen. We meet that challenge using sophisticated electronic and on-location operatives to monitor, analyze and predict thousands of data points that can affect our clients’ security.

 

[realtuner]

From Business Insider:

An NYPD detective realised that Bah had been wrongfully arrested, viewing surveillance footage from the store and seeing that the suspect looked "nothing like" Bah. The detective then told Bah that the problem might be to do with Apple's facial recognition. He said that Apple's security technology, "identifies suspects of theft using facial recognition technology."

Of course you’d believe a rumor over an actual statement by Apple. Must be nice to conveniently ignore facts that don’t go along with your narrative.

 

[Khedron]

Of course you’d believe a rumor over an actual statement by Apple. Must be nice to conveniently ignore facts that don’t go along with your narrative.

Like when Apple stated that only a small number of keyboards were faulty?

 

[realtuner]

Like when Apple stated that only a small number of keyboards were faulty?

You have some empirical data to share with us?


BTW, did you post in the wrong thread? It's the Galaxy Fold thread that's collecting all the "but Apple had problems with...." comments.