info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Apple spins yet another bold lie - this one about facial recognition software run on store customers
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Arlen G. Holder
Apr 24, 2019, 4:33:21 PM4/24/19
to
Privacy...
Apple, again, as usual, apparently spun a "I did not inhale" "I did not
have sexual relations with that woman" style bold-faced fib to Bloomberg:
"*Apple said it doesnÿt use facial recognition _in_ its stores.*"
I don't think the lawsuit, itself, is the main issue.
o The issue to discuss are the facts of what Apple is apparently doing
"Appleÿs ´use of facial recognition software in its stores
to track individuals suspected of theft is the type of
Orwellian surveillance that consumers fear, particularly
as it can be assumed that the majority of consumers are
not aware that their faces are secretly being analyzed.¡
<https://hypebeast.com/2019/4/apple-facial-recognition-false-arrest-lawsuit-1-billion-dollars>
"The piece of identification the thief had on him during the arrest
listed Bahÿs name, address and other personal information, but did not
include a photo. Bah says Apple was negligent for taking the actual
perpetrator at his word and not verifying who the thief was with a proper
photo I.D. As a result of this oversight, Apple then programmed all of its
security systems to recognize the manÿs face as Bahÿs."
<https://thegrio.com/2019/04/23/apple-lawsuit-false-arrest-billion-lawsuit/>
Note that Apple paid others for part of the surveillance & identification:
o "Security Industry Specialists Inc., did not comment on the case."
Apple, again, as usual, apparently spun a "I did not inhale" "I did not
have sexual relations with that woman" style bold-faced fib to Bloomberg:
"*Apple said it doesnÿt use facial recognition _in_ its stores.*"
Notice the rather clever two-character, word, "in".
Apple, again, as usual, apparently spun a "I did not inhale" "I did not
have sexual relations with that woman" style bold-faced fib to Bloomberg:
"*Apple said it doesnÿt use facial recognition _in_ its stores.*"
I don't think the lawsuit, itself, is the main issue.
o The issue to discuss are the facts of what Apple is apparently doing
"Appleÿs ´use of facial recognition software in its stores
to track individuals suspected of theft is the type of
Orwellian surveillance that consumers fear, particularly
as it can be assumed that the majority of consumers are
not aware that their faces are secretly being analyzed.¡
<https://hypebeast.com/2019/4/apple-facial-recognition-false-arrest-lawsuit-1-billion-dollars>
"The piece of identification the thief had on him during the arrest
listed Bahÿs name, address and other personal information, but did not
include a photo. Bah says Apple was negligent for taking the actual
perpetrator at his word and not verifying who the thief was with a proper
photo I.D. As a result of this oversight, Apple then programmed all of its
security systems to recognize the manÿs face as Bahÿs."
<https://thegrio.com/2019/04/23/apple-lawsuit-false-arrest-billion-lawsuit/>
Note that Apple paid others for part of the surveillance & identification:
o "Security Industry Specialists Inc., did not comment on the case."
Apple, again, as usual, apparently spun a "I did not inhale" "I did not
have sexual relations with that woman" style bold-faced fib to Bloomberg:
"*Apple said it doesnÿt use facial recognition _in_ its stores.*"
Notice the rather clever two-character, word, "in".
Your Name
Apr 24, 2019, 6:00:10 PM4/24/19
to
On 2019-04-24 20:33:21 +0000, Arlen G. Holder said:
> Privacy...
<snip>
The moronic Anti-Apple know-nothing troll changes his name yet again to
post more idiotic crap. Just piss the hell off!! Nobody gives a remote
damn about any of the garbage you post.:-\
> Privacy...
<snip>
The moronic Anti-Apple know-nothing troll changes his name yet again to
post more idiotic crap. Just piss the hell off!! Nobody gives a remote
damn about any of the garbage you post.:-\
0 new messages