Better article: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/04/23/524414.htm https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/04/23/52... My conclu

Better article: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/04/23/524414.htm https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2019/04/23/52... My conclusion: The face-recognition functioned completely correctly - it associated multiple acts by the same individual - but Apple incorrectly used a non-photo ID as identification of that individual, and thus incorrectly identified that individual as Bah. Sequence of events summary: Thief used Bah's stolen, non-photo ID. This led to Bah being arraigned for theft. Apple then identified video of the thief in multiple thefts at other stores (a detective asserted the matching was done by face-recognition). This led to Bah being arrested. Police then realized that Bah did not resemble thief, he was released, and various charges have been dropped.