3 ms·

He should ask for a billion dollars - the article says that Apple’s mistake resulted in his arrest, and even though it was a mistake and he was not convicted, I

He should ask for a billion dollars - the article says that Apple’s mistake resulted in his arrest, and even though it was a mistake and he was not convicted, I don’t think that arrest is ever going to be removed. He will forever be someone who was arrested and it will show up if someone does a background check. The police might pull him over for a minor traffic violation, the computer will pull up that the occupant has been arrested for theft in the past, suddenly its a whole different conversation because the cop is looking for an easy arrest.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Veen 8y ago
If Apple had circulated a photocopy of the possible perpetrator to its stores, to be shown to staff and taped beside the POS, and a member of the staff recognized him and called the police, would that be a billion-dollar mistake too? I think the facial recognition is a red herring. What matters here is that the perpetrator stole someone's ID and used it during the crime. When the owner of the ID entered the store, he became a suspect and was arrested. Shitty for him but perfectly understandable.
- Jolter 8y ago
  He never entered an apple store. He was arrested at home due to Apple giving his name to the police. I know it's a nitpick but you come off as not having read/understood the linked article.
  - Veen 8y ago
    The linked article says nothing about where he was arrested. (The NY Post article that is linked to in the linked article mentions that he received a summons in the mail and was later arrested, but it doesn't say where he was arrested. I concede that it wasn't in the Apple store, but there is no indication of that in the original article))
    - Ajedi32 8y ago
      The linked article clearly says: > Ousmane Bah, 18, said he was arrested at his home in New York in November and charged with stealing from an Apple store Don't know how you missed that, unless something got edited.
      - Veen 8y ago
        I’m confused. Has the linked article been changed from this Engadget article to the current Bloomberg article, or am I suffering from some sort of brain fart? https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/23/apple-facial-recognition-false-arrest-lawsuit/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/23/apple-facial-recognition... EDIT: According to this comment, they have switched the link. It’s a bit misleading to change the link once a substantial conversation has already happened based on the original link. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19726631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19726631
        Ajedi32 8y ago
        Yes, mods can edit posts after the fact. Unfortunately there's no edit history on HN so it's difficult to tell what happened unless someone says something.
gridlockd 8y ago
> He will forever be someone who was arrested and it will show up if someone does a background check. His case is probably eligible for expungement or sealing.
- sigzero 8y ago
  Correct, it is not going to show up on any background checks.
jmiserez 8y ago
>He will forever be someone who was arrested and it will show up if someone does a background check That's kind of an oddity in the US legal system then. Being arrested shouldn't matter if you're completely innocent (as in this case).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Veen 8y ago

If Apple had circulated a photocopy of the possible perpetrator to its stores, to be shown to staff and taped beside the POS, and a member of the staff recognized him and called the police, would that be a billion-dollar mistake too? I think the facial recognition is a red herring. What matters here is that the perpetrator stole someone's ID and used it during the crime. When the owner of the ID entered the store, he became a suspect and was arrested. Shitty for him but perfectly understandable.

Jolter 8y ago
He never entered an apple store. He was arrested at home due to Apple giving his name to the police. I know it's a nitpick but you come off as not having read/understood the linked article.
- Veen 8y ago
  The linked article says nothing about where he was arrested. (The NY Post article that is linked to in the linked article mentions that he received a summons in the mail and was later arrested, but it doesn't say where he was arrested. I concede that it wasn't in the Apple store, but there is no indication of that in the original article))
  - Ajedi32 8y ago
    The linked article clearly says: > Ousmane Bah, 18, said he was arrested at his home in New York in November and charged with stealing from an Apple store Don't know how you missed that, unless something got edited.
    - Veen 8y ago
      I’m confused. Has the linked article been changed from this Engadget article to the current Bloomberg article, or am I suffering from some sort of brain fart? https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/23/apple-facial-recognition-false-arrest-lawsuit/ https://www.engadget.com/2019/04/23/apple-facial-recognition... EDIT: According to this comment, they have switched the link. It’s a bit misleading to change the link once a substantial conversation has already happened based on the original link. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19726631 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19726631
      - Ajedi32 8y ago
        Yes, mods can edit posts after the fact. Unfortunately there's no edit history on HN so it's difficult to tell what happened unless someone says something.

gridlockd 8y ago

> He will forever be someone who was arrested and it will show up if someone does a background check. His case is probably eligible for expungement or sealing.

sigzero 8y ago
Correct, it is not going to show up on any background checks.

jmiserez 8y ago

>He will forever be someone who was arrested and it will show up if someone does a background check That's kind of an oddity in the US legal system then. Being arrested shouldn't matter if you're completely innocent (as in this case).