28 ms·

Some people here are saying that this is bad because the victim is asking 1bn, that it's a publicity stunt. Well, it better be a publicity stunt! You can't cha

Some people here are saying that this is bad because the victim is asking 1bn, that it's a publicity stunt. Well, it better be a publicity stunt! You can't change those stupid behaviors of facial recognition without such bad publicity. I hope they make as much publicity as possible, and maybe some money (but he won't get 1bn, that's not the point).

huffmsa 8y ago
Correct. What other's are missing is that the court will consider the financial compensation independently of the actual reason for the suit.
- mirimir 8y ago
  And financial compensation can include punitive damages.
saagarjha 8y ago
> he won't get 1bn, that's not the point That was my point, though. He’s abusing the legal system by asking for compensation he knows he will not receive to gain publicity. The issue involved is fine but I’m not a fan of exploiting and clogging up the legal system in this way. If this is “what it takes” I think we have a bigger problem we need to solve.
- tareqak 8y ago
  What’s a fair price for being responsible for causing a false arrest then?
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    No idea, that’s something that will be decided if the the lawsuit ever goes to court. But I’m pretty sure that the final value will be significantly less than a billion dollars.
    - lexs 8y ago
      so why does it matter what he originally "asks" for. The court will decide not the accuser.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        Because it looks like the person is using it to drum up publicity, possibly in an attempt to get Apple to pay them a decent settlement to get the media to shut up. I’m not really a fan of people using the legal system in this way.
        DanAndersen 8y ago
        What should be the exact dollar amount to avoid "looking like he's using it to drum up publicity"? You presumably have some idea of what the "right answer" is since your gut is telling you $1bn is too much.
        hopler 8y ago
        If I was mistreated by the police for a few days with no permanent harm, arrester on insufficient evidence, the police should pay me a few hundred or thousand dollar a day, maybe. Apple should pay nothing because because they did nothing wrong by sending evidence to the police. The real problem is that the government considers arrest without conviction to be a civil duty, not a tort.
        saagarjha 8y ago
        I dunno, maybe a couple thousand dollars, assuming there was no permanent harm?
        ryanlol 8y ago
        Obviously there’s permanent harm from an arrest. Have you never submitted a visa application?
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    The only entity responsible for causing a false arrest are the police, as they are the ones that have the authority to arrest. Unless they were intentionally given fraudulent information, I don’t see how anyone other than the police are responsible for a false arrest, it is their duty to do due diligence.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      It seems likely that Apple said that they had video of him stealing from them. But they obviously don't. So if they said that, they were lying.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        I don’t know why you’re bringing up these hypotheticals: Apple is equally likely to have not lied to the police. Do you believe they were purposely acting in bad faith?
        mirimir 8y ago
        I'm not arguing that they "act[ed] in bad faith". I'm arguing that they misused data that they had. And so they actually didn't have enough evidence to file a police report. But it's also arguable that the police screwed up, by not noticing that the photo from the video didn't match the suspect. So maybe the kid should also sue the police for false arrest.
- duiker101 8y ago
  He should sue for 10k so Apple can dismiss him, not feel any repercussion and no one will talk about this anymore. /s
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    I mean, $10k seems like a reasonable compensation to me. It sucks that he might not get as much news attention, but I don’t think that’s what a lawsuit is supposed to be. The newsworthy bit should be the wrongdoing, not the outrageous demands; he could have tried to get support for his plight without the claim.
    - apatters 8y ago
      The argument behind entertaining huge fines or damages in tort cases is that it acts as a deterrent against future violations of the law. If the damages were only $10K then Apple would have less incentive to create safe software and fix bugs like this one. If the damages are a potential $1B they will take the issue seriously. It is fine when the defendant is a huge company like Apple IMO.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        But what law was violated here? The only thing I see is that the individual involved felt they were harmed by Apple in particular.
        mirimir 8y ago
        Giving bogus information to the police? That is, lying to the police. That is a crime.
        zimpenfish 8y ago
        But what bogus information did they give? If the thief used his ID, it's not like they can give the police another name, is it?
- nullc 8y ago
  How big does the penalty need for it to actually make avoiding it in the future a priority for Apple? Putative damages need to scale with the size of the defendant or they're meaningless.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    As far as I can tell, this is strictly supposed to be compensation for hardship. The size of the entity that is causing the hardship doesn’t affect the amount of suffering. So why should the payout be different? (Otherwise I’d just seek to be wronged by the organization with the biggest pockets?)
    - kuzehanka 8y ago
      If we keep letting a corporate entity get away with undesirable practices by merely slapping them on the wrist, we are actively signalling to them that they should continue to engage in those practices. The only way to stop a corporation from doing something undesirable is to make the punishment great enough that the undesirable act is a net financial loss to the corporation. I would personally fully support massive % of yearly revenue fines for anything to do with privacy.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        Work on making it illegal, then, so that corporations can be properly fined instead of random citizens having to justify billions in damages.
        kuzehanka 8y ago
        Just because something is illegal does not stop a corporation from doing it. If the financial penalty for an illegal act is less than the financial gain from carrying it out, it will be carried out. See: petrochemical pollution, bank money laundering, telcos selling customer data, etc. Legal or not, the discussion is whether a 1B punishment is appropriate. Yes, I think it is appropriate for an organisation with a reported quarterly revenue in the 90B range, maybe even on the low end.
- viraptor 8y ago
  What do you mean by clogging up the legal system? It doesn't matter how much he asks for really. This should be a valid case and it should cost Apple enough to hurt them. We can't tell what the arrest was worth to the teenager. Depending on timing and results on his life, that could be anything between mild inconvenience and 1bn.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    > This should be a valid case Agree. > it should cost Apple enough to hurt them Don’t. I think it should cost them proportional to the amount of “suffering”: this is a lawsuit after all, not a criminal trial. > We can't tell what the arrest was worth to the teenager. Depending on timing and results on his life, that could be anything between mild inconvenience and 1bn. Agree as well, but I hope you can forgive me for leaning towards “mild inconvenience” rather than “one billion dollars”.
    - NickNameNick 8y ago
      There are two seperate parts to a financial judgement. Reparations - which are paid to the victim to make them whole and Punitive damages - which are paid to the court to discourage the behaviour of the defendant. Both parts need to be considered.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        As far as I understand, the quoted figure was meant to be reparations.
  - danaris 8y ago
    > This should be a valid case Why? All Apple did was provide the police with the information they had, in good faith: that is, the information on the ID the thief had. It's not Apple's fault the ID was stolen and the information was false. It's also not Apple's fault that the police didn't do basic due diligence to determine if it was physically possible for this guy to have committed the crimes before arresting him. What, exactly, is Apple to blame for here that "this should be a valid case and it should cost Apple enough to hurt them"?
- huffmsa 8y ago
  Such a large figure means Apple actually had to take it seriously, even though it's only ~0.5% of their cash on hand. If he sued for some trivial sum, they'd probably just pay him to go away. And yes, publicity is the point. This is how you get new precedents established.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    They’re going to do that anyways. Most likely the case will be settled so the guy goes away and the press dies down; he’s not going to continue his moral crusade against Apple violating his privacy after that.
- fxfan 8y ago
  The publicity is not kids fault, its engadget's and media's. They want eyeballs. Anyone with the most basic legal knowledge knows that's not how damages work and he won't even get a million.
  - hopler 8y ago
    If apple giving evidence to police is their fault, then the kid giving a billion dollar lawsuit to the media is his fault.
- larkeith 8y ago
  > If this is “what it takes” I think we have a bigger problem we need to solve. Well, yes - we do. Using publicity (via mass media and/or the legal system) is, at this point, one of the few recourses citizens (at least in the US) have against tech giants when they engage in morally-questionable behavior. In the idealized capitalist world, we could move to competitors, but the current situation is that a number of markets are extremely monopolistic (search engines, online markets, platform app stores) or duopolistic (mobile devices, computers, news aggregation) - and consumer apathy, combined with toothless or entirely missing regulation, trivialize the impact of anything except for the most visible of reactions. If there were stronger legal repercussions in cases like this, it would make publicity stunts unnecessary.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    The publicity is obviously focused on the wrong thing, though: that’s exactly why we’re having this discussion instead of talking about the privacy implications.
- gridlockd 8y ago
  > That was my point, though. He’s abusing the legal system by asking for compensation he knows he will not receive to gain publicity. Asking for an unrealistically huge sum is par for the course. The judge can arbitrarily reduce that sum down, all the way to zero. > The issue involved is fine but I’m not a fan of exploiting and clogging up the legal system in this way. The legal system isn't being exploited or clogged up, he was going to seek damages (as one should) in either way, whether the number sought is a billion dollars or a thousand dollars doesn't make a difference.
- mmjaa 8y ago
  He's only "gaining the publicity" you're giving him, by ignoring the subject of the case: Apple programmed their computers to catch a citizen, so they could turn that citizen over to the police - but they screwed up and programmed their computers to catch the wrong person, therefore delivering on a promise that has been made, time and again by one dystopian author after the other, and which demonstrates the fact that we must always be willing to face up to abuses of technological power, whatever the cost. Hey, a billion dollars got your attention. Perhaps, in fact, after investigating it: we will find that in fact Apple has done more than a billion dollars worth of damage to society. If they can screw up like this once - perhaps there is more? 100 more cases, perhaps? We will see, once enough publicity from this "abusing of the legal system" runs its course ... considering that, indeed, there may in fact be bigger problems to solve.
jfk13 8y ago
But AFAICT from the bloomberg article, at least (I won't go through the Oath hoops to read engadget), it doesn't sound like facial recognition was the problem here. The issue was that someone (presumably) used his ID, thus associating his identity with a crime; this led to the police coming for him. The police may not have been quick enough to recognise that the person they found didn't match the arrest warrant they held, but that's not the fault of some camera in an Apple store.
- drcongo 8y ago
  I have Safari set up to automatically use reader mode on any Oath sites I might want to read, which admittedly isn't many as they're almost all terrible anyway.
- dngray 8y ago
  > But AFAICT from the bloomberg article, at least (I won't go through the Oath hoops to read engadget), I didn't need to allow oath that to read that. I have my browser configured like so https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/How-to-block-1st-party-scripts-everywhere-by-default https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/How-to-block-1st-par... For that page all I had was: https://i.imgur.com/DQe8TIr.png https://i.imgur.com/DQe8TIr.png you can clearly see oath was not enabled. It would appear you do need to allow 1st-party JavaScript to allow the <script type="application/ld+json"> portion to load which contains the "articleBody": ....." I am connected through my VPN, currently in NL, so yeah, GDPR.
  - jfk13 8y ago
    Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary tracking - which has no justification in terms of legitimate interest for the purpose of publishing a news article. It shouldn't require technical countermeasures (that 99% of users will not understand). If they don't offer an opt-out that is as easy as opt-in, I'm going to assume malign intent on the part of the site, and they can do without my traffic.
    - 8y ago
bko 8y ago
> You can't change those stupid behaviors of facial recognition without such bad publicity What's the "stupid behavior"? Some Apple stores have been robbed. Apple got video footage of the robbery and setup a system to look out for the suspect and alerted authorities when the suspect entered the store. It's no different than an FBI wanted poster. The knee jerk reaction of anti facial recognition has gone overboard. Also, it's also not entirely clear but the article suggests that the person had used a stolen ID of the arrested teenager, which makes the arrest all the more reasonable: > Apparently, the real perpetrator used a stolen ID that had his name, address and other personal information Finally it's worth noting that Apple didn't arrest the person, the police did. Apple likely just notified them and then the proper due process happened
- mirimir 8y ago
  > Apple got video footage of the robbery and setup a system to look out for the suspect and alerted authorities when the suspect entered the store. No, he wasn't in the store. He was at a party in another state. And perhaps he'd never been in an Apple store. And yes, the thief reportedly used a stolen or counterfeit ID. But it wasn't a photo ID.
  - bko 8y ago
    In that case, I don't see the role facial recognition played then. The thief walked in the Apple store with an ID stating he was Ousmane Bah. Apple contacted authorities that someone with an ID of Ousmane Bah robbed a series of Apple stores. Police made arrest and discovered that the man who robbed the stores used a false ID.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      TFA talks about thefts from four stores. And I doubt that he provided ID at all four.
    - pso 8y ago
      The reason you don't see the role that facial recognition played is because you still have not read the article. I'm genuinely curious, as this is happening more and more on hacker news. Why do you come on a thread about specific article to discuss it? When I read your 1st comment, it was clear you hadn't read the article. Then, someone makes a comment to correct some of your mistakes, and you still reply without reading the article. It just puzzles me.
sjwright 8y ago
I think when your lawsuit's claims sound more like a quote from Dr Evil than anything remotely plausible, people are entitled to apply appropriate quantities of mockery.
Chazprime 8y ago
While true, a court might be inclined to toss the case if there’s the perception that it’s frivolous. Judges don’t look kindly upon these kind of lawsuits.

huffmsa 8y ago

Correct. What other's are missing is that the court will consider the financial compensation independently of the actual reason for the suit.

mirimir 8y ago
And financial compensation can include punitive damages.

saagarjha 8y ago

> he won't get 1bn, that's not the point That was my point, though. He’s abusing the legal system by asking for compensation he knows he will not receive to gain publicity. The issue involved is fine but I’m not a fan of exploiting and clogging up the legal system in this way. If this is “what it takes” I think we have a bigger problem we need to solve.

tareqak 8y ago
What’s a fair price for being responsible for causing a false arrest then?
- saagarjha 8y ago
  No idea, that’s something that will be decided if the the lawsuit ever goes to court. But I’m pretty sure that the final value will be significantly less than a billion dollars.
  - lexs 8y ago
    so why does it matter what he originally "asks" for. The court will decide not the accuser.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Because it looks like the person is using it to drum up publicity, possibly in an attempt to get Apple to pay them a decent settlement to get the media to shut up. I’m not really a fan of people using the legal system in this way.
      - DanAndersen 8y ago
        What should be the exact dollar amount to avoid "looking like he's using it to drum up publicity"? You presumably have some idea of what the "right answer" is since your gut is telling you $1bn is too much.
        hopler 8y ago
        If I was mistreated by the police for a few days with no permanent harm, arrester on insufficient evidence, the police should pay me a few hundred or thousand dollar a day, maybe. Apple should pay nothing because because they did nothing wrong by sending evidence to the police. The real problem is that the government considers arrest without conviction to be a civil duty, not a tort.
        saagarjha 8y ago
        I dunno, maybe a couple thousand dollars, assuming there was no permanent harm?
        ryanlol 8y ago
        Obviously there’s permanent harm from an arrest. Have you never submitted a visa application?
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  The only entity responsible for causing a false arrest are the police, as they are the ones that have the authority to arrest. Unless they were intentionally given fraudulent information, I don’t see how anyone other than the police are responsible for a false arrest, it is their duty to do due diligence.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    It seems likely that Apple said that they had video of him stealing from them. But they obviously don't. So if they said that, they were lying.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      I don’t know why you’re bringing up these hypotheticals: Apple is equally likely to have not lied to the police. Do you believe they were purposely acting in bad faith?
      - mirimir 8y ago
        I'm not arguing that they "act[ed] in bad faith". I'm arguing that they misused data that they had. And so they actually didn't have enough evidence to file a police report. But it's also arguable that the police screwed up, by not noticing that the photo from the video didn't match the suspect. So maybe the kid should also sue the police for false arrest.
duiker101 8y ago
He should sue for 10k so Apple can dismiss him, not feel any repercussion and no one will talk about this anymore. /s
- saagarjha 8y ago
  I mean, $10k seems like a reasonable compensation to me. It sucks that he might not get as much news attention, but I don’t think that’s what a lawsuit is supposed to be. The newsworthy bit should be the wrongdoing, not the outrageous demands; he could have tried to get support for his plight without the claim.
  - apatters 8y ago
    The argument behind entertaining huge fines or damages in tort cases is that it acts as a deterrent against future violations of the law. If the damages were only $10K then Apple would have less incentive to create safe software and fix bugs like this one. If the damages are a potential $1B they will take the issue seriously. It is fine when the defendant is a huge company like Apple IMO.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      But what law was violated here? The only thing I see is that the individual involved felt they were harmed by Apple in particular.
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Giving bogus information to the police? That is, lying to the police. That is a crime.
        zimpenfish 8y ago
        But what bogus information did they give? If the thief used his ID, it's not like they can give the police another name, is it?
nullc 8y ago
How big does the penalty need for it to actually make avoiding it in the future a priority for Apple? Putative damages need to scale with the size of the defendant or they're meaningless.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  As far as I can tell, this is strictly supposed to be compensation for hardship. The size of the entity that is causing the hardship doesn’t affect the amount of suffering. So why should the payout be different? (Otherwise I’d just seek to be wronged by the organization with the biggest pockets?)
  - kuzehanka 8y ago
    If we keep letting a corporate entity get away with undesirable practices by merely slapping them on the wrist, we are actively signalling to them that they should continue to engage in those practices. The only way to stop a corporation from doing something undesirable is to make the punishment great enough that the undesirable act is a net financial loss to the corporation. I would personally fully support massive % of yearly revenue fines for anything to do with privacy.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Work on making it illegal, then, so that corporations can be properly fined instead of random citizens having to justify billions in damages.
      - kuzehanka 8y ago
        Just because something is illegal does not stop a corporation from doing it. If the financial penalty for an illegal act is less than the financial gain from carrying it out, it will be carried out. See: petrochemical pollution, bank money laundering, telcos selling customer data, etc. Legal or not, the discussion is whether a 1B punishment is appropriate. Yes, I think it is appropriate for an organisation with a reported quarterly revenue in the 90B range, maybe even on the low end.
viraptor 8y ago
What do you mean by clogging up the legal system? It doesn't matter how much he asks for really. This should be a valid case and it should cost Apple enough to hurt them. We can't tell what the arrest was worth to the teenager. Depending on timing and results on his life, that could be anything between mild inconvenience and 1bn.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > This should be a valid case Agree. > it should cost Apple enough to hurt them Don’t. I think it should cost them proportional to the amount of “suffering”: this is a lawsuit after all, not a criminal trial. > We can't tell what the arrest was worth to the teenager. Depending on timing and results on his life, that could be anything between mild inconvenience and 1bn. Agree as well, but I hope you can forgive me for leaning towards “mild inconvenience” rather than “one billion dollars”.
  - NickNameNick 8y ago
    There are two seperate parts to a financial judgement. Reparations - which are paid to the victim to make them whole and Punitive damages - which are paid to the court to discourage the behaviour of the defendant. Both parts need to be considered.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      As far as I understand, the quoted figure was meant to be reparations.
- danaris 8y ago
  > This should be a valid case Why? All Apple did was provide the police with the information they had, in good faith: that is, the information on the ID the thief had. It's not Apple's fault the ID was stolen and the information was false. It's also not Apple's fault that the police didn't do basic due diligence to determine if it was physically possible for this guy to have committed the crimes before arresting him. What, exactly, is Apple to blame for here that "this should be a valid case and it should cost Apple enough to hurt them"?
huffmsa 8y ago
Such a large figure means Apple actually had to take it seriously, even though it's only ~0.5% of their cash on hand. If he sued for some trivial sum, they'd probably just pay him to go away. And yes, publicity is the point. This is how you get new precedents established.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  They’re going to do that anyways. Most likely the case will be settled so the guy goes away and the press dies down; he’s not going to continue his moral crusade against Apple violating his privacy after that.
fxfan 8y ago
The publicity is not kids fault, its engadget's and media's. They want eyeballs. Anyone with the most basic legal knowledge knows that's not how damages work and he won't even get a million.
- hopler 8y ago
  If apple giving evidence to police is their fault, then the kid giving a billion dollar lawsuit to the media is his fault.
larkeith 8y ago
> If this is “what it takes” I think we have a bigger problem we need to solve. Well, yes - we do. Using publicity (via mass media and/or the legal system) is, at this point, one of the few recourses citizens (at least in the US) have against tech giants when they engage in morally-questionable behavior. In the idealized capitalist world, we could move to competitors, but the current situation is that a number of markets are extremely monopolistic (search engines, online markets, platform app stores) or duopolistic (mobile devices, computers, news aggregation) - and consumer apathy, combined with toothless or entirely missing regulation, trivialize the impact of anything except for the most visible of reactions. If there were stronger legal repercussions in cases like this, it would make publicity stunts unnecessary.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  The publicity is obviously focused on the wrong thing, though: that’s exactly why we’re having this discussion instead of talking about the privacy implications.
gridlockd 8y ago
> That was my point, though. He’s abusing the legal system by asking for compensation he knows he will not receive to gain publicity. Asking for an unrealistically huge sum is par for the course. The judge can arbitrarily reduce that sum down, all the way to zero. > The issue involved is fine but I’m not a fan of exploiting and clogging up the legal system in this way. The legal system isn't being exploited or clogged up, he was going to seek damages (as one should) in either way, whether the number sought is a billion dollars or a thousand dollars doesn't make a difference.
mmjaa 8y ago
He's only "gaining the publicity" you're giving him, by ignoring the subject of the case: Apple programmed their computers to catch a citizen, so they could turn that citizen over to the police - but they screwed up and programmed their computers to catch the wrong person, therefore delivering on a promise that has been made, time and again by one dystopian author after the other, and which demonstrates the fact that we must always be willing to face up to abuses of technological power, whatever the cost. Hey, a billion dollars got your attention. Perhaps, in fact, after investigating it: we will find that in fact Apple has done more than a billion dollars worth of damage to society. If they can screw up like this once - perhaps there is more? 100 more cases, perhaps? We will see, once enough publicity from this "abusing of the legal system" runs its course ... considering that, indeed, there may in fact be bigger problems to solve.

jfk13 8y ago

But AFAICT from the bloomberg article, at least (I won't go through the Oath hoops to read engadget), it doesn't sound like facial recognition was the problem here. The issue was that someone (presumably) used his ID, thus associating his identity with a crime; this led to the police coming for him. The police may not have been quick enough to recognise that the person they found didn't match the arrest warrant they held, but that's not the fault of some camera in an Apple store.

drcongo 8y ago
I have Safari set up to automatically use reader mode on any Oath sites I might want to read, which admittedly isn't many as they're almost all terrible anyway.
dngray 8y ago
> But AFAICT from the bloomberg article, at least (I won't go through the Oath hoops to read engadget), I didn't need to allow oath that to read that. I have my browser configured like so https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/How-to-block-1st-party-scripts-everywhere-by-default https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/wiki/How-to-block-1st-par... For that page all I had was: https://i.imgur.com/DQe8TIr.png https://i.imgur.com/DQe8TIr.png you can clearly see oath was not enabled. It would appear you do need to allow 1st-party JavaScript to allow the <script type="application/ld+json"> portion to load which contains the "articleBody": ....." I am connected through my VPN, currently in NL, so yeah, GDPR.
- jfk13 8y ago
  Sure, I know there are ways I could work around it. But I shouldn't have to. It's supposed to be easy for a visitor to refuse consent for all that unnecessary tracking - which has no justification in terms of legitimate interest for the purpose of publishing a news article. It shouldn't require technical countermeasures (that 99% of users will not understand). If they don't offer an opt-out that is as easy as opt-in, I'm going to assume malign intent on the part of the site, and they can do without my traffic.
  - 8y ago

bko 8y ago

> You can't change those stupid behaviors of facial recognition without such bad publicity What's the "stupid behavior"? Some Apple stores have been robbed. Apple got video footage of the robbery and setup a system to look out for the suspect and alerted authorities when the suspect entered the store. It's no different than an FBI wanted poster. The knee jerk reaction of anti facial recognition has gone overboard. Also, it's also not entirely clear but the article suggests that the person had used a stolen ID of the arrested teenager, which makes the arrest all the more reasonable: > Apparently, the real perpetrator used a stolen ID that had his name, address and other personal information Finally it's worth noting that Apple didn't arrest the person, the police did. Apple likely just notified them and then the proper due process happened

mirimir 8y ago
> Apple got video footage of the robbery and setup a system to look out for the suspect and alerted authorities when the suspect entered the store. No, he wasn't in the store. He was at a party in another state. And perhaps he'd never been in an Apple store. And yes, the thief reportedly used a stolen or counterfeit ID. But it wasn't a photo ID.
- bko 8y ago
  In that case, I don't see the role facial recognition played then. The thief walked in the Apple store with an ID stating he was Ousmane Bah. Apple contacted authorities that someone with an ID of Ousmane Bah robbed a series of Apple stores. Police made arrest and discovered that the man who robbed the stores used a false ID.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    TFA talks about thefts from four stores. And I doubt that he provided ID at all four.
  - pso 8y ago
    The reason you don't see the role that facial recognition played is because you still have not read the article. I'm genuinely curious, as this is happening more and more on hacker news. Why do you come on a thread about specific article to discuss it? When I read your 1st comment, it was clear you hadn't read the article. Then, someone makes a comment to correct some of your mistakes, and you still reply without reading the article. It just puzzles me.

sjwright 8y ago

I think when your lawsuit's claims sound more like a quote from Dr Evil than anything remotely plausible, people are entitled to apply appropriate quantities of mockery.

Chazprime 8y ago

While true, a court might be inclined to toss the case if there’s the perception that it’s frivolous. Judges don’t look kindly upon these kind of lawsuits.