The headline is accurate because that's one subject of the lawsuit. If I'm understanding it correctly after skimming through the filing(read especially page 6 and 9):
1. the plaintiff argues that in Boston case (page 6) apple store only took less than 10 minutes to identify the shoplifter, so they probably used facial recognition tech. Note the shoplifter left the store, apple found the incident, report it to police within 10 minutes, without actually detain the person.
2. I'm guessing the facial recognition is actually accurate because it was based on their previous security video, not plaintiff's real id photo(which apple probably don't have access all the time). So the facial recognition just linked one person with previous security video properly, and the id of person was based on previous record made by employee.
3. Thus there is nothing wrong here with facial recognition, but the title will definitely evoke fear and people's emotion since most people will not see the details.
1. the plaintiff argues that in Boston case (page 6) apple store only took less than 10 minutes to identify the shoplifter, so they probably used facial recognition tech. Note the shoplifter left the store, apple found the incident, report it to police within 10 minutes, without actually detain the person.
2. I'm guessing the facial recognition is actually accurate because it was based on their previous security video, not plaintiff's real id photo(which apple probably don't have access all the time). So the facial recognition just linked one person with previous security video properly, and the id of person was based on previous record made by employee.
3. Thus there is nothing wrong here with facial recognition, but the title will definitely evoke fear and people's emotion since most people will not see the details.