This is much, much more likely...I seriously doubt Apple handles their own security, every store pretty much uses a security service, so Apple may only have a part in things, in fact I would think this hangs more on the security company than Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New York Student Sues Apple for False Arrest After Being Mistakenly Identified as Store Thief [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Unfortunately for Apple, the security company's mistakes may lead to a large settlement for Bah. They shouldn't rely so much on an outside company doing things correctly. They must have oversight and make necessary changes.
I agree totally with your realistic response. But to be precise, it’s the USA ‘we’ live in. I live in another part of our world, in the UK, where the pushback is underway in the argument between entitlement, justice and common sense. For example, ludicrous sums involved in compensation awards would cripple the NHS if this USA phenomena had been allowed to prevail. 1 billion dollars has nothing to do with justice it simply reflects the reality that lawyers are in control in the USA.
Oh... no need to go to China or did you think that the US government and many other governments don't use such 'technological abuses of privacy'...?
No one is supposed to get rich with damages. Or the company get poor.
1 billion is way too much for any human being on Earth. And is a good amount of Apple's revenue. No way.
Asking for a public apology and about $100 million would suffice. Still a little bit too much, but you can't replace the days/hours he was detained. Apple, of course, is lying in this article about its store faceID and does not feel ashamed for doing so.
[doublepost=1556103153][/doublepost]
That's why I avoid going to physical stores. There's no need to go to an Apple Store nowadays, unless strictly necessary.
I remember once going to a Apple Store and the staff did not even notice me (it was not full). Not a bad thing, but for a company that praises its customers....well, the worst experience ever. I was going to buy a product. I don't know what they thought, maybe that I did not have enough money, well...just not going there ever again. New York City stores in particular I never go again. They refused to address my Macbook Pro that came with a significant dent. If you bought such an expensive product like a Ferrari you expect to be perfect, not with minor defects that doesn't affect the products, but are still there. They market their products like luxury, but some stores are just as bad as regular ones.
1 billion is way too much for any human being on Earth. And is a good amount of Apple's revenue. No way.
Asking for a public apology and about $100 million would suffice. Still a little bit too much, but you can't replace the days/hours he was detained. Apple, of course, is lying in this article about its store faceID and does not feel ashamed for doing so.
[doublepost=1556103153][/doublepost]
That's why I avoid going to physical stores. There's no need to go to an Apple Store nowadays, unless strictly necessary.
I remember once going to a Apple Store and the staff did not even notice me (it was not full). Not a bad thing, but for a company that praises its customers....well, the worst experience ever. I was going to buy a product. I don't know what they thought, maybe that I did not have enough money, well...just not going there ever again. New York City stores in particular I never go again. They refused to address my Macbook Pro that came with a significant dent. If you bought such an expensive product like a Ferrari you expect to be perfect, not with minor defects that doesn't affect the products, but are still there. They market their products like luxury, but some stores are just as bad as regular ones.
Last edited:
Just because he is the "victim" doesn't mean he did nothing wrong. That is a false notion that the internet has grabbed onto. He should have reported his ID as stolen. That is his responsibility. I am confused as to why his ID, even a learners permit did not have a photo on it. Where I live they do.
Target, Wal-Mart, Casinos - they all use real time facial recognition to know who is entering their buildings. They don't all have to know exactly who you are but they can compare faces of people entering their doors to an "undesirables" list of people who have been caught stealing / cheating in the past so security officers can be alerted to that person's presence.
This story makes a lot of assertions about Apple Stores without a lot of facts / details. I have no doubt Apple has security cameras recording everything that happens in their stores in case of theft or staged "slip & fall" lawsuits. I doubt that Apple is using facial recognition in real-time but if they record someone stealing from a store I would not blame them at all for giving that video to a company to try to identify the person in the video. I hope there will be an update to this story that clarifies exactly what happened and what Apple's store policies are.
This story makes a lot of assertions about Apple Stores without a lot of facts / details. I have no doubt Apple has security cameras recording everything that happens in their stores in case of theft or staged "slip & fall" lawsuits. I doubt that Apple is using facial recognition in real-time but if they record someone stealing from a store I would not blame them at all for giving that video to a company to try to identify the person in the video. I hope there will be an update to this story that clarifies exactly what happened and what Apple's store policies are.
Truthful statements can also be fatal to a suit.
Detective Reinhold, sorry to say, doesn't actually have any clue what "Defendant's security technology" does. This statement is plain and simple hearsay. Doesn't count. Means nothing. And since the thief looks nothing like Bah, it seems extremely unlikely that any security technology has identified him based on security footage of a person looking totally different.
What may have happened, is that there is a thief stealing many items, including Bah's "learner's permit without a photograph", and various items at Apple Stores. And that he was caught on surveillance camera, AND somehow lost that learner's permit. So at this point Apple had photos, and a learner's permit dropped by the thief.
It is then totally normal to hand this to the police, who go and arrest the owner of the learner's permit. Now I don't know why they had to make that arrest at 4am, and I don't know why it took them more than ten seconds to see that the owner of the learner's permit was not the person from the security footage, but in that situation, the arrest itself was quite normal, and legitimate, and just bad luck.
Apple didn't apprehend anyone. Bah _did_ match the info on the interim Learner's Permit, because it was his, lost or stolen from him. And Bah _did not_ match the photo of the thief. Bah was a very likely suspect, because his Learner's Permit was found at the crime scene. Why the police didn't look at his face, looked at the photo with the arrest warrant, and conclude that they are not the same, nobody knows. The "facial recognition" story is bunk. Or would you care to explain why facial recognition software would out of 300 million Americans identify one who looks nothing like the picture?
Last edited:
the article didn't say that he did or didn't. However, that would seem to be an important fact if he did. Seems like he would want to point out that he reported his ID stolen.
You're getting hung up on the dollar figure, which essentially means nothing. It's an old trick that lawyers have employed for years... Throw out a ridiculously high number, obviously knowing the lawsuit is not worth anywhere near that or that the defendant won't get that much... But it generates headlines (especially when a big popular name brand is involved) and more importantly it shapes the mind frame of the jury should it come to that. So don't get hung up on the actual number as it means nothing.
Your understanding of the law and how the DA/police operate is what’s laughable.
His complaint is unlikely to withstand scrutiny. One basic problem is that he cites both Apple and SIS as defendants in the caption, but then uses "Defendant" to refer solely to Apple. If I were SIS, I would immediately move to dismiss on this basis alone. This defect also is of use to Apple, because much of the alleged conduct is not that of Apple, but rather of SIS. In short, this plaintiff appears to be playing games.
It gets worse. The complaint devotes considerable attention to attacking Face ID in Apple's *devices*. When it then turns to the actual incident, it more blandly discusses security footage (i.e., not necessarily facial recognition itself). The complaint does try to link Face ID to the incident by citing a police detective's purported (and most likely inadmissible) statement that Apple uses facial recognition in stores, but qualifies this heavily by discussing what Apple "presumably" does to identify potential suspects from security footage. Yes, it actually uses the word "presumably" to describe Apple's purported use of facial recognition technology in this case.
Even worse, the complaint refers to a particular SIS employee who purportedly identified plaintiff from "security cameras" because the employee told police "he knew" plaintiff from thefts at other stores. This appears to contradict the narrative that plaintiff was identified by facial recognition technology. Oops.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
It gets worse. The complaint devotes considerable attention to attacking Face ID in Apple's *devices*. When it then turns to the actual incident, it more blandly discusses security footage (i.e., not necessarily facial recognition itself). The complaint does try to link Face ID to the incident by citing a police detective's purported (and most likely inadmissible) statement that Apple uses facial recognition in stores, but qualifies this heavily by discussing what Apple "presumably" does to identify potential suspects from security footage. Yes, it actually uses the word "presumably" to describe Apple's purported use of facial recognition technology in this case.
Even worse, the complaint refers to a particular SIS employee who purportedly identified plaintiff from "security cameras" because the employee told police "he knew" plaintiff from thefts at other stores. This appears to contradict the narrative that plaintiff was identified by facial recognition technology. Oops.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
But that's not even close to all. There's plenty more where that came from with Apple.
Suing for $1 billion = he and his lawyer see deep pockets and they are gunning for a settlement.
I hope Apple fights this tooth and nail and beats him. Once that's done, they need to ban him from all of their stores permanently.
I hope Apple fights this tooth and nail and beats him. Once that's done, they need to ban him from all of their stores permanently.
Would you be ridiculous enough to try to sue for $1,000,000,000 because of “severe stress and hardship”?
He’s obviously just trying to find a way to take advantage of one of the world’s wealthiest companies at this point.
Kid’s a snowflake.
I wouldn't sue at all because where I live suing isn't very common. However maybe if I lived in America and litigation was common place, maybe I would.
Would you be ridiculous enough to try to sue for $1,000,000,000 because of “severe stress and hardship”?
He’s obviously just trying to find a way to take advantage of one of the world’s wealthiest companies at this point.
Kid’s a snowflake.
Just as you said, mistakes happen, and sometimes human beings need to grow a pair and just get over it cuz, ya know, mistakes happen.
Well I do live in America, and that kind of thinking is exactly what’s destroying my country.
“Well, everyone else does it... so guess I will too!”
You put the balm on? Who told you to put the balm on!
First Apple doesn't use face recognition in their stores. Like every other store they use surveillance equipment. And at best you get a some what image of the person. Plus an employee must catch you red handed in order to be arrested.
Second the police would not bust down your door at 4 am to question you about stolen iPhones. They have more things to do than deal with that nonsense, just think of how many doors would be busted at 4 am because someone stole a phone.
Third This teen is a potential activist. He has a you tube channel and labels himself as a community leader. And God only knows his intentions for the US. Just my opinion, but I have yet to see an activist from another country do any good for the American people. Just saying.
So summary he is on a FBI watch list and was arrested and question about some activites he is involved in and decide to use it to sue a major company for bogus nonsense for an enormous amount of money to fund his activities. And I am sure his pigment of skin tone will be a major factor as well.
So there, no sense costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars on a fruitless lawsuit I just settle it in less than 5 minutes. You are welcome New York
Second the police would not bust down your door at 4 am to question you about stolen iPhones. They have more things to do than deal with that nonsense, just think of how many doors would be busted at 4 am because someone stole a phone.
Third This teen is a potential activist. He has a you tube channel and labels himself as a community leader. And God only knows his intentions for the US. Just my opinion, but I have yet to see an activist from another country do any good for the American people. Just saying.
So summary he is on a FBI watch list and was arrested and question about some activites he is involved in and decide to use it to sue a major company for bogus nonsense for an enormous amount of money to fund his activities. And I am sure his pigment of skin tone will be a major factor as well.
So there, no sense costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars on a fruitless lawsuit I just settle it in less than 5 minutes. You are welcome New York
In both the UK and PRC surveillance facial recognition enabled cameras are ubiquitous. Their purpose and deployment differ greatly. Simply having and deploying the technology does not necessarily mean it is being abused.
Because his name and address are on the learner's permit?
The insane thing about this is Apple can't get the receipt printers at the register/Genius Bar to work most of the time, but people think they've invested millions into putting some kind of Skynet facial recognition system into their retail outlets? As opposed to... just using CCTV and asking for ID? Does that really make any kind of sense?
The kid thinks he can squeeze Apple for money and his lawyer's probably hoping they'll settle rather than divert lawyer hours to a court case. I guarantee both of them are full of it.