Teen’s $1B suit claims Apple’s facial recognition software led to false arrest

[alturic]

Are you fine with facial recognition software without your consent ?

So a little sign placed next to existing ones, or even 3 words added to the existing "cameras in use" saying "Facial Recognition and ..." and problem solved? After-all, now you would be consenting to it.

How about this... are you fine with "undercover" store employees potentially watching your movements through the store?

The real question is "are you fine with companies being drop-dead fucking dumb and not doing any sort of research before linking A to B".

Being completely honest, the OP sounds like one of those people who think I am invading their privacy or something by recording them almost anywhere outside of their home.

[Cracked]

So you agree that it is not the property of the photographer?
Because then it wouldn't be a gray area?

Also, is your defintion of "most free countries" "countries with common law", or "former British colonies", or something?

Edit: I see that you did not take the time to read your own source, it disagrees with you.

What are you even talking about, maybe it's time for you to read it again. And no, I agree that it's the property of the photographer. He's the one who created the material.

[Knaar]

They are suing him...as an employee of Apple. Lots of valid complaints in this case but yours is not one of them.

I most have miss that part somwhere? From what i get, it's the dude suing apple, not apple suing the guy...

[alturic]

What are you even talking about, maybe it's time for you to read it again. And no, I agree that it's the property of the photographer. He's the one who created the material.

Yea, that's always been a weird one for me. Someone taking >MY< picture and they are the copyright holder?

[zenkai]

So a little sign placed next to existing ones, or even 3 words added to the existing "cameras in use" saying "Facial Recognition and ..." and problem solved? After-all, now you would be consenting to it.

How about this... are you fine with "undercover" store employees potentially watching your movements through the store?

The real question is "are you fine with companies being drop-dead fucking dumb and not doing any sort of research before linking A to B".

Being completely honest, the OP sounds like one of those people who think I am invading their privacy or something by recording them almost anywhere outside of their home.

There is a huge difference of using surveillance footage to protect your store and tying someone to multiple crimes they didn't commit. Can't figure out why some of you can't grasp that simple concept. I can draw you a picture in crayons if that helps.

[Noradin]

What are you even talking about, maybe it's time for you to read it again. And no, I agree that it's the property of the photographer. He's the one who created the material.

Hint: Maybe look at the part about privacy and the European Charter of Human Rights instead of derailing by pointing at the copyright of the resulting photograph which is not up for discussion here?

- - - Updated - - -

Yea, that's always been a weird one for me. Someone taking >MY< picture and they are the copyright holder?

Copyright holder of the photograph, but that does not mean that they had any right to take it.
It just means that you do not get to claim and make money off of photographs made by someone else just because you happen to wander into the picture.
It can mean that they do not get to use it either.

A photograph of a face is not the same as a face, otherwise there could be no copyright on said photograph (but there could be on the face).
See the part about reproduction for reference.

[Knaar]

Hint: Maybe look at the part about privacy and the European Charter of Human Rights instead of derailing by pointing at the copyright of the resulting photograph which is not up for discussion here?

Hold on... what does the European laws have to do with stuff happening in USA? You cant use law from other countries as an argument for a different country... that's now how law work...

[Noradin]

Hold on... what does the European laws have to do with stuff happening in USA? You cant use law from other countries as an argument for a different country... that's now how law work...

"Most free countries" is code for "USA" now, or something?

Also, where does the opening post state that the question is addressed at people living in the USA, only?
If it is, why is it posted on a forum based in the EU?

[Knaar]

"Most free countries" is code for "USA" now, or something?

Oh ok, you are cherry picking knowing you have lost the debat long time ago so you are trying to derail the thread to something irrevelant to the OP, gotcha.
Keep doing you, man!

[Noradin]

Oh ok, you are cherry picking knowing you have lost the debat long time ago so you are trying to derail the thread to something irrevelant to the OP, gotcha.
Keep doing you, man!

Let me remind you of the content of the opening post:

Are you fine with facial recognition software without your consent ?

And even the USA are not so far gone as to gran copyright of a face to anyone who happens to take a photo of it.

[Amnaught]

doesn't matter if we are, its a tool and it will be used. /shrug

So are masks, man. This isn't about what you can physically do, but what you can legally do.

[dacoolist]

The part that I love so much: people thinking you could EVER get a court summons without probable cause LMFAO

Stopit, GET SOME HELP

( If you think they are going to give you a COURT SUMMONS because a company 'said this person looks like xyz' without having ACTUAL PROOF to back it up - you're out of your FUCKING MIND ) This has nothing to do with facial recognition - this has everything to do with the court system.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, the guy asking for a BILLION DOLLARS LMFAOOOOOO

This will get tossed out in court so fast I can't even wait - also: if this gets big enough - you'll get countersued and lost your ASS OFF

[vindicatorx]

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion on the matter, fortunately you do not get to dictate the laws.

Yes, fortunately the Supreme Court shares my 'opinion' and has ruled as such.

[schwarzkopf]

Are you fine with facial recognition software without your consent ?

No, but I'm also not fine with a stack of far more important things - like extreme income inequality, climate change response, lack of gun control and lack of universal healthcare.

[Nurasu]

There is a huge difference of using surveillance footage to protect your store and tying someone to multiple crimes they didn't commit. Can't figure out why some of you can't grasp that simple concept. I can draw you a picture in crayons if that helps.

The same exact thing could have just as easily happened if the guy just gave the stolen ID at each location; if they were in different states, it's unlikely they would have even recognized him without this software in the first place. In this case, every one wins - the innocent guy is easily vindicated and Apple can link the perp to each crime.

[Xar226]

Eh, they tied the name to the wrong suspect. I see no problem in tracking the face of a perp, which it sounds like they did. Then if they thought the name was his is just incompetence from apples side.

No. It's incompetence from the police and prosecutor's side.

Apple does not have prosecutorial powers. They forwarded the information they had to local police and prosecutors, who, with the exception of the detective in New York, seemingly accepted it and filed charges without even reviewing something as basic as "does this actually look like the guy we're charging?" That's a major problem -- but it's not Apple's.

The lawsuit is just a money grab. It's not going anywhere. I'm not even sure he's stated a valid claim based on the article, but then again it is Fox News so I don't expect them to include something that "trivial" in their reporting.

[Pooti]

Taking pictures and using your pictures to tie you to crimes are two different things

- - - Updated - - -



Except in normal circumstances they would have let the police validate the ID. So now the because of apple he was tied to other thefts simply because of the thief's face getting tied to his ID.

The police still had the responsibility of validating the ID. All they did was tie the face of the person to the provided ID, just like a human being would do if they took security footage and used a xerox machine to make flyers and distributed them to their other locations and said "watch for this person, this is the ID he provided". They are not responsible for validating the evidence, just providing what evidence they have.

[Najnaj]

I most have miss that part somwhere? From what i get, it's the dude suing apple, not apple suing the guy...

They are not. The guy is suing the guy who put his name to the wrong pic as an agent of Apple. Technically Apple could sue him if he was negligent I guess.

[rayvio]

seems more like a human error than a problem with the system. if the idiot hadn't just linked a photo to the account without proof of ID then there wouldn't have been a problem

[Jujudrood]

The article is sparse, so a lot of detail is missing, but the thing that jumped out to me was:

"He only learned about the mix-up after receiving a Boston municipal court summons in the mail in June, according to court papers.
The NYPD arrested him on Nov. 29, but a detective working the case viewed surveillance footage from the Manhattan store and concluded that the suspect “looked nothing like” Bah, his lawsuit states."

So, like, this dude got a court summons in June and presumably did nothing?
Didn't give them a ring and be like "yeah, so I have this court summons but I don't know why?".
Maybe follow up with his local police department to try to get to the bottom of it?
Did he just toss it out like "lolz not me".
Being arrested 5 months later leads me to believe he didn't act on the summons, so a warrant was issued for his arrest.

Now, sure, this was a false accusation and the dude does have a gripe, but at the same time, he maybe had a few months to clear his name, help the police figure out what happened, and maybe even avoid having the (later dropped) suits filed against him?
He could have kicked off the whole stolen identity thing a bit sooner, because who knows if the guy was actually caught but sitting on something for an extra 5 months probably didn't help much.

Yeah, this is a technology fail, it's an Apple store fail (the employee accepted improper/fraudulent information as identification), plenty of blame to go around.
Maybe Apple should train their employees to require a photo ID, then if their store is robbed maybe the police shouldn't take the surveillance footage at face value (lolz) and do a more thorough investigation, then maybe if the dude got a notice he should have responded to defend his name.
Kind of a jacked up situation.

His suit will probably settle out of court for like 50k for "time and damages" or whatever.