4 ms·
> 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. Ap
by 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 agoIn 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 agoTFA talks about thefts from four stores. And I doubt that he provided ID at all four.
- pso 8y agoThe 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.
- majewsky 8y agoNot the person you're asking, but FWIW, I regularly read the comments before deciding whether to read the article. In many cases, the top comment is some expert in the field in question who explains why the article is a waste of time.
- pso 8y agoI can understand that. But, do you debate specific points in the article based on the views you formed by NOT reading it? I get that some comments can be interesting without reading the article. But someone discussing and finding fault with an article they haven't read (properly?) ... that's the bit that just baffles me. Reading the article seems like a reasonable minimal entry requirement, IF someone wants to discuss the content itself.
- free652 8y agoI have read the article and I have no clue how the facial recognition is responsible. Instead of giving snarky comments you could at least acknowledge that the article is utter garbage. The only link between the thief and the person who was arrested is the NAME. Edit: and here is better article: https://googleness.com/unitedstates/student-sues-apple-for-1-billion-blames-face-detection-technology-for-fake-arrest/ https://googleness.com/unitedstates/student-sues-apple-for-1... Apple identified (using facial recognition) the same person who stole multiple items across different states and since the thief used a fake name - they associated all crimes with that name. So in the end the only link was NAME due to the stolen id.
- 8y ago
- deelowe 8y agoDid you read the article?