4 ms·

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 m

• majewsky 7y ago
  Not 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 7y ago
    I 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 7y ago
  I 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.
  • pso 7y ago
    Apple took the stolen ID used by the criminal. Then Apple incorrectly linked the details of that ID (with no photo), with images of the thief. Following further thefts associated with that ID, the innocent man was accused of all the thefts based on the ID and an INCORRECT photo match to the stolen ID which Apple had created in its facial recognition system, and used as the basis to inform the police of the suspect. I tried my best not to be snarky. I thought the article was a normal average article. Edit: I'm not sure the article says facial recognition was responsible, I think that's what the courts will decide. But to me, its clear that facial recognition was involved, based on the article's title and content
    • inflagranti 7y ago
      I think the point of disagreement regarding the "link" is not that there is none, but that it seemed to be nothing peculiar about facial recognition. If Apple sent a security camera picture of the robber together with information from the stolen ID to police, and police the same would have happened. So the core issue here is that the validity of the ID was never questioned, not the use of facial recognition. That might just have amplified / accelerated the identification of the wrong person.
      • pso 7y ago
        The multiple thefts are linked together via facial recognition in the Apple Stores and tied back to the stolen ID. If, it was just a single theft and the stolen ID was used on that occasion, then I would agree facial recognition would not be relevant.
        • nkrisc 7y ago
          But it wasn't the facial recognition that led back to the innocent man, it was the fact that the perpetrator used his name and details. It could have been facial recognition, or the same security guard who saw him at all three stores, it doesn't matter. He was arrested because his name and details were presented at the crimes by the perpetrator. I've read the article and this is what I've taken away from it. I really can't understand how facial recognition played a critical role in his arrest over his name being used.
• tzakrajs 7y ago
  This sounds like some grade A projection. His interpretation is sensible and follows from the article. Stop gas lighting.