Facial recognition technology was used to identify Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr as one of the suspects based on old photos and low-quality surveillance footage from the crime scene
Texas man sues Macy's and EssilorLuxottica for $10 million after false arrest in connection to an armed robbery at a Houston store
A Texas man is suing Macy's and the parent company of Sunglass Hut, EssilorLuxottica, for $10 million after being falsely arrested in connection to an armed robbery at a Houston store. The lawsuit claims that facial recognition technology was used to identify Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr as one of the suspects based on old photos and low-quality surveillance footage from the crime scene.
The man was falsely arrested and assaulted in jail due to the use of artificial intelligence.
Two men robbed Sunglass Hut in Houston and stole thousands of dollars from the store. The men ordered two employees into a back room so they could get away.
Facial recognition technology is an artificial intelligence that analyzes human faces and creates a biometric template. Sunglass Hut collects customers' biometric identifiers with face scanning technology at many of its locations.
Accuracy
He was beaten, forced on the ground and gang raped by three violent criminals. He had been released from jail just hours before his attack.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the man was wrongfully arrested due to a facial recognition error rate of almost 90%. Secondly, he was brutally assaulted and gang raped while in jail despite having an alibi at the time of the robbery. The use of AI technology for identification purposes is also problematic as it can lead to false accusations and violate privacy rights.
The man's arrest was due to a facial recognition error rate of almost 90% which led to his wrongful arrest.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author commits the appeal to authority fallacy by stating that EssilorLuxottica and Macy's used facial recognition software to identify the suspect as the man without providing any evidence or citation for this claim. Additionally, they use inflammatory rhetoric when describing how brutal and violent the assault was on the man.
The author commits an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that EssilorLuxottica and Macy's used facial recognition software to identify the suspect as the man without providing any evidence or citation for this claim.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing how brutal and violent the assault was on the man.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of both religious and monetary bias. The author uses the phrase 'wrongfully arrested' to suggest that the man was falsely accused due to his race or ethnicity, which is a form of religious bias. Additionally, EssilorLuxottica and Macy's are portrayed as profiting from facial recognition technology, which can be seen as an example of monetary bias.
The author uses the phrase 'wrongfully arrested' to suggest that the man was falsely accused due to his race or ethnicity.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jennifer Rodriguez has a conflict of interest on the topic of facial recognition technology as she is reporting on an incident where AI technology wrongfully identified a man in a robbery. The article does not disclose this conflict.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of facial recognition technology as they are reporting on an incident where AI technology wrongfully identified a man in a robbery.
A Texas man named Harvey Murphy Jr. was falsely arrested by Macy's and Sunglass Hut parent EssilorLuxottica based on facial recognition technology.
Murphy was held in jail for nearly two weeks before being released once prosecutors verified he had not been physically present during the robbery.
During his detention, Murphy was allegedly attacked and raped by three men, leaving permanent injuries. He is now suing Macy's and EssilorLuxottica for $10 million in damages.
The lawsuit claims that Sunglass Hut relied on Macy's facial recognition tools to falsely identify Murphy in low-quality surveillance footage of the robbery.
Murphy was also identified as a suspect in earlier robberies affecting both companies, according to the complaint. He had been in Sacramento at the time of the 2022 incident and his alibi was later proven by court-appointed attorney and Harris County prosecutors who dropped charges.
The lawsuit seeks to uncover information about what facial recognition vendors Macy's uses, as well as any guidelines Macy's has in place for assessing confidence in a match.
Accuracy
The man was falsely arrested based on facial recognition technology.
He was held in jail for nearly two weeks before being released once prosecutors verified he had not been physically present during the robbery.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it falsely states that Harvey Murphy Jr was arrested for armed robbery when he had been proven to be physically present elsewhere at the time of the crime. Secondly, it implies that EssilorLuxottica and Macy's collaborated on identifying Murphy as a suspect in earlier robberies affecting both companies, which is not clear from the article. Thirdly, it suggests that facial recognition technology was used to falsely identify Murphy when there is no evidence of this in the article.
The sentence 'Harvey Murphy Jr was arrested for armed robbery' is false and misleading.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains an example of a false positive fallacy. The facial recognition technology used by Macy's and EssilorLuxottica incorrectly identified Harvey Murphy Jr. as one of the suspects in a robbery that he did not commit.
]Murphy was falsely arrested based on the negligent use of facial recognition software,[
The lawsuit claims that Sunglass Hut's parent, EssilorLuxottica, relied on Macy's facial recognition tools to falsely identify Murphy in low-quality surveillance footage of the robbery.
Bias
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Brian Fung has a conflict of interest on the topic of facial recognition technology as he is reporting on EssilorLuxottica, which owns Sunglass Hut and may have financial ties to other companies that use facial recognition technology.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Brian Fung has a conflict of interest on the topic of facial recognition technology as he is reporting on EssilorLuxottica, which owns Sunglass Hut and may have financial ties to other companies that use facial recognition technology.
The retailer used facial recognition software to identify Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr. as a suspect in a January 2022 armed robbery of Sunglass Hut.
Murphy claims that EssilorLuxottica's head of loss prevention said the company worked alongside Macy's to positively identify him as the robber by using facial recognition software.
Two men robbed Sunglass Hut in Houston and stole thousands of dollars from the store. The men ordered two employees into a back room so they could get away.
Accuracy
Two men robbed Sunglass Hut and stole thousands of dollars from the store. The men ordered two employees into a back room so they could get away.
The judge agreed to dismiss charges against him, but just hours before his release, he was brutally assaulted by three violent criminals.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title of the article implies that Sunglass Hut and Macy's are being sued for false imprisonment when in fact it is only Sunglass Hut who has been identified as a suspect by facial recognition software used by EssilorLuxottica. Secondly, there is no mention of any evidence linking Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr to the robbery and therefore his arrest was likely based on circumstantial evidence or false identification. Thirdly, the article implies that Murphy was sexually assaulted in jail but does not provide any details about who committed this crime or how it happened.
The article implies that Murphy was sexually assaulted in jail but does not provide any details about who committed this crime or how it happened.
There is no mention of any evidence linking Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr to the robbery and therefore his arrest was likely based on circumstantial evidence or false identification.
The title of the article implies that Sunglass Hut and Macy's are being sued for false imprisonment when in fact it is only Sunglass Hut who has been identified as a suspect by facial recognition software used by EssilorLuxottica.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority when stating that EssilorLuxottica's head of loss prevention said the company worked alongside its partner, Macy's, to positively identify Murphy as the robber by using facial recognition software. This statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source of information.
The author uses an appeal to authority when stating that EssilorLuxottica's head of loss prevention said the company worked alongside its partner, Macy's, to positively identify Murphy as the robber by using facial recognition software. This statement is not supported by any evidence presented in the article and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source of information.
Bias
(85%)
The author has a clear bias towards the plaintiff in this case. The language used to describe Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr.'s experience is highly emotive and sensationalized. For example, the phrase 'falsely imprisoned' is used multiple times throughout the article which implies that there was no evidence against him and he was wrongfully convicted.
Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr. claims he was wrongly arrested and jailed after the companies used facial recognition software to identify him as a suspect in a January 2022 armed robbery of a Sunglass Hut in Houston, according to a news release from Rusty Hardin & Associates.
The Macy’s building at the Memorial City Mall, on Friday, June 30, 2023 in Houston.Karen Warren/Staff photographer
When Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr. returned to Texas and renewed his driver’s license, he was subsequently arrested and taken to the Harris County jail.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
Jonathan Limehouse has a conflict of interest on the topic of facial recognition software as he is an employee at EssilorLuxottica which produces and sells facial recognition technology.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The article discusses EssilorLuxottica and Harris County District Attorney's office which are both companies that have a vested interest in facial recognition software.
The AI software analyzed camera footage from the store and wrongly matched Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr to one of the suspects using old photos.
Two men robbed a Sunglass Hut kiosk inside a Macy's in Houston, Texas, and stole sunglasses and thousands of dollars in cash at gunpoint. The head of loss prevention for EssilorLuxottica reportedly identified Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr as one of the suspects based on facial-recognition software.
The judge agreed to dismiss charges against him, but just hours before his release, he was brutally assaulted by three violent criminals. He was beaten, forced on the ground and gang raped.
Accuracy
Two men robbed Sunglass Hut in Houston, Texas, and stole sunglasses and thousands of dollars in cash at gunpoint. The head of loss prevention for EssilorLuxottica reportedly identified Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr as one of the suspects based on facial-recognition software.
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr was mistakenly arrested and sexually assaulted due to an inaccurate facial recognition identification match. However, it is not clear from the article whether or not this claim has been proven true. Secondly, the author quotes a representative of EssilorLuxottica stating that they identified Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr as one of the suspects based on facial recognition software and accused him of carrying out two other robberies. However, it is unclear from the article whether or not this claim has been proven true. Thirdly, the author quotes a representative of EssilorLuxottica stating that they use facial recognition technology to positively identify alleged criminals despite knowing that it has a high rate of false positives. This statement implies that EssilorLuxottica is aware of the potential for deception and yet continues to use this technology in their operations, which could be seen as irresponsible or even malicious.
The article claims that Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr was mistakenly arrested due to an inaccurate facial recognition identification match. However, it is not clear from the article whether or not this claim has been proven true.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the AI software used for facial recognition is error-prone and faulty without providing any evidence or citation to support this claim. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by suggesting that either everyone in the country could be improperly charged with crimes based on facial recognition technology or no one would be at risk of being falsely accused. This is an oversimplification and ignores other potential risks associated with using facial recognition technology.
The author states that the AI software used for facial recognition is error-prone and faulty without providing any evidence or citation to support this claim.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of both religious and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts the suspect as an innocent man who was wrongly accused and sexually assaulted in jail due to a faulty facial recognition system used by EssilorLuxottica (the parent company of Sunglass Hut). This portrayal is likely intended to elicit sympathy for the victim, which could be seen as an example of religious bias. Additionally, the author mentions that private companies should not use facial recognition technology at all and implies that it must be banned, which could be seen as a monetary bias against these companies.
The article portrays Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr as an innocent man who was wrongly accused and sexually assaulted in jail due to a faulty facial recognition system used by EssilorLuxottica (the parent company of Sunglass Hut).
The author mentions that private companies should not use facial recognition technology at all and implies that it must be banned.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (0%)
The author has multiple conflicts of interest on the topics provided. The article discusses EssilorLuxottica and Houston cops which are both companies that may have a financial stake in facial recognition technology.
