Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Indiana Bans Driver's License Smiles, For Security

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the one-doozy-of-an-aha!-moment dept.

Security 459

Smelly Jeffrey writes "According to a recent article, Indiana BMV Communications Director Dennis Rosebrough states that applicants for a new or renewed operator's license or state identification card will no longer be allowed to smile and say cheese. Apparently new facial recognition software being employed by the state fails to function when the face is distorted by something as innocuous as smiling. Also on the list of taboos are hats, eyeglasses, and hair that hangs down over the face. The article fails to mention, however, the legality of beards, mustaches, and bushy eyebrows." Similar restrictions are in place for the Enhanced Driver License (which serves as a sort of limited passport) implemented by the state of Washington, among others.

cancel ×

459 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

As an Indiana resident... (5, Funny)

Gigiya (1022729) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045859)

I'd damn well like to keep my awkward smile on my driver's license!

Re:As an Indiana resident... (4, Funny)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045989)

"In a recent modification of their assessment of the effects of the policy, the Indiana BMV has now estimated that 8 residents will be disappointed about the inability to smile..."

Re:As an Indiana resident... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046215)

Easy to fix their little red wagon. go in and intentionally have your face distorted all the time you are there, mention you have a medical condition and they will let you go.

remember these are DMV people, not the brightest of the population.

Re:As an Indiana resident... (4, Interesting)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046427)

I never smile anyway, but what's with this "you can't wear glasses" rule? That seems really stupid considering I'm always wearing glasses. Will the cops now ask me to remove my glasses so they can compare my face to the drivers license?

Also:

Why is Indiana using facial recognition software? Is there now a database of faces that police are searching every time a crime is committed???

I'm glad I'm not a Hoosier (4, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046173)

As those who have read my old sm62704 journals know, I was very nearsighted all my life, until I got a cataract in my left eye that was caused by prescription eyedrops. My eye surgeon implanted a CrystaLens inside it (you will be assimilated, resistance is futile), and my vision in that eye is better than 20/20 now. The doctor said I should no longer have any "corrective lens" restrictions on my driver's license.

My driving record was exemplary so last time my license was renewed I could have had it done by mail, but I went in anyway, extatic. For the first time in my life I was going to have a license without vision restrictions!

Also for the first time, I'm smiling in the picture. In light of the circumstances, how could I not?

And it actually looks like me, unlike every other picture I've ever had on my license. You should vote those morons out of office. A picture of a normally happy person who is frowning does not look like him.

Note to the mods- "Hoosier" is not an insult. Indiana is known as "the Hoosier State", and that was the motto on their license plates for decades. Indiana's citizens are proud to be hoosiers.

Re:I'm glad I'm not a Hoosier (4, Funny)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046403)

Note to the mods- "Hoosier" is not an insult

It's a sad comment on the state of Slashdot's moderation system when you have to preemptively explain a fairly common phrase you used because you have a reasonable expectation that someone will mistake it for "flamebait."

To take this even further off topic, our local hockey team is called "the Canucks," and the company I work for disperses season ticket amongst the sales staff to use for marketing purposes. The CEO recently complained that he had attempted to send an email three times, but nobody received it and he didn't get a bounce back. Turns out the nanny filters on the mail server quarantined his message due to a racial slur - he'd mentioned that the "Canucks" tickets were available.

Fascists (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26045863)

Papers, please.

Nothing new under the sun (1)

Apotekaren (904220) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045871)

This has been an unwritten(or maybe even a written) rule in Finland for drivers licenses, passports, ID card etc.
Or maybe it's just that they don't want anyone to mistake Finland with some happy smiling nation.

Re:Nothing new under the sun (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26045935)

BS. You can smile, if you please.

I guess we are just that glum.

Re:Nothing new under the sun (5, Informative)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045963)

This is a rule in the UK already for passports, driving licenses, immigration applications etc. Also the background can't be pure white, no hair can be covered (except for religious reasons), only one person per picture, and it's quite tightly defined where in the photo the face must be.

.. except for religious reasons.. (5, Informative)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046161)

And the employee that gives out the passport is not allowed to question your believe. By this reasoning someon managed to gat a official id card dressed as joker [theregister.co.uk] . He later fialed to a a drivers license as joker because the employee refused. In that case you also seem to have no rights.

by the way, later his card was taken in because the card is still owned by government..

Re:.. except for religious reasons.. (5, Interesting)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046303)

Brilliant - actually, I'm glad they allowed him to keep his hat. Saying people aren't allowed to do things, but then making an exemption for religious reasons is pointless (as now the rule doesn't apply to everyone), and discriminatory against those who have other reasons. But it's particularly annoying when they make judgements and claim that some religious reasons are acceptable, whilst some religious reasons are not. Whilst I accept that this guy probably had different intentions, in general, who's to say that someone's belief that they must wear a hat because they think they're the Joker, is any less legitimate that someone's belief they must wear headwear because they think God told them to?

As for UK passports not allowing smiles - I'm amused that most of the photo machines still have photos on the outside showing people with smiles (not to mention with dogs in the pictures, or random "fun" backgrounds added in...)

Re:Nothing new under the sun (1)

Sobieski (1032500) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046033)

Same goes for Swedish IDs, I look very angry in my passport photo. I thought this was the norm all around the globe, not to be allowed to smile for those kinds of photos.

Speechless (5, Insightful)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045873)

If your anti-terrorist/pedo/freedom/whatever facial recognition software is so sketchy that it can not cope with eyeglasses or facial expressions, it is not doing its job, and neither are you.

Re:Speechless (1)

Frigga's Ring (1044024) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045925)

+1 for common sense

Re:Speechless (5, Insightful)

rhsanborn (773855) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046339)

In other news, the TSA will begin ramping up security under a new no-smiles initiative. Travelers appearing too happy while traveling through the airport will be stopped and asked to undergo an intensive search, as research has shown that terrorists might smile to get past facial recognition software.*

*I wish I didn't have to do this, but for the record, the above is satire.

Re:Speechless (2, Funny)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046455)

In other news, the TSA will begin ramping up security under a new no-smiles initiative. Travelers appearing too happy while traveling through the airport will be stopped and asked to undergo an intensive search, as research has shown that terrorists might smile to get past facial recognition software.*

Oh, so *that's* why TSA are such dicks all the time. If they get you to stop smiling, the software works. See, they're being assholes for our safety!

Re:Speechless (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046349)

Hopefully its simply that a plain unsmiling face is the best baseline for the stored face, at that point alterations such as glasses or facial expressions can be recognized against the baseline face. HOPEFULLY. Otherwise, YES, FAIL..

Re:Speechless (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046393)

Oh, it is doing its job, allright...which is to cause the population to live in fear of their being flagged though a false positive which may result in further intrusive, unwarranted search. By the time that you're finally proven innocent of what they originally suspected you for, they may have already found something else with which to charge you.

Re:Speechless (1, Insightful)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046459)

That would be true if the object was actually to catch any "perps" at this stage of the game. The object however is at this point only to sell gazillions of dollars of astronomically over-priced "security" equipment and "services" to various governments. And then endlessly "upgrade" them. The actual functionality is at the moment beside the point, all that counts is maintaining appropriate level of hysteria amongst the brainless public.

When the equipment becomes actually usable, then the object will be to cheerfully use it in implementing increasingly Orwellian/fascist policies. And all that will count then is maintaining appropriate level of hysteria amongst the brainless public.

Dark times ahead.

But then again most thinking people already sense that.

Beards (3, Interesting)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045875)

Beards are a great point. In my license picture I have no facial hair, now I have a full beard. My hair is also quite a bit longer. I wouldn't say I look like a completely different person just a mere two years after getting this one taken, but I doubt I would be recognized by this facial recognition software.

Re:Beards (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26045943)

Given you sound like you match the profile of a long-haired bearded hippy, the facial recognition software would correctly red-flag you and put you on a watch list.

Works as designed by reactionary rightwing nutjobs with crew cuts.

Re:Beards (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046223)

I really did make myself sound like that, well, ever since I moved back into my mom's basement, things just haven't been the same.

Re:Beards (5, Interesting)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046415)

Not a problem with the Government's planned ID card scheme. This will require you to notify the Government of "drastic" appearance changes [independent.co.uk] , or face a £1,000 fine.

I don't know if big bushy beards and long hair would count, but it's worrying nonetheless.

Re:Beards (2, Informative)

pbhj (607776) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046481)

Beards are a great point. In my license picture I have no facial hair, now I have a full beard.

I've been bearded since I was 16 (except for a brief charity shave). My perception is that my appearance changes a lot with my changing facial hair - others barely notice because they are looking at different things.

I'm pretty sure that a full beard will reduce the effectiveness of matches but not by a lot - I'd imagine eye position and spacing, nose and brow alignment, ear position and size, head width and height would provide pretty good identifying factors. Sure, obscuring mouth and chin position isn't going to help them get a match but this is just providing a rough sift anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised if all us pogonomists were given a closer look anyway.

A testament to the technology (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045879)

...that it can bet beat by a simple smile, much less something like a beard or actual disguise. Another one of those government boondoggles that's supposed to make us feel safe, but actually just wastes money and effort.

Re:A testament to the technology (3, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045949)

It's not supposed to make us feel safe. It's supposed to make the police feel like they're in control of the herd^H^H^H^H citizenry. After all, it's law enforcement agencies, not the general public, that is falling all over themselves to acquire these dodgy systems.

Re:A testament to the technology (1, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046363)

It's not supposed to make us feel safe.

No. It's supposed to make you feel watched.

Re:A testament to the technology (2, Funny)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045997)

I think its more of a testament to the Indiana DMV. I know in my state, nobody feels like smiling after waiting in line at the DMV!

Re:A testament to the technology (4, Funny)

tgd (2822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046099)

Its okay, terrorists never smile ...

Re:A testament to the technology (1)

DFJA (680282) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046467)

Just remember to keep your cheesy grin all the time you're at the airport, and you'll be perfectly OK.

As an Indiana resident.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26045893)

Who cares?

Huh. (1)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045895)

Note to self: Don't shave for the week before getting driver's license renewed. Also wear old, ugly glasses instead of current glasses.

So all it takes to fool the software... (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045897)

is a smile or a pair of eyeglasses. What a stupid waste of taxpayer dollars.

Re:So all it takes to fool the software... (2, Funny)

Firkragg14 (992271) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046153)

obviously taking lessons from the Louis Lane school of identifying people.

A solution to this... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26045903)

... is for those people who don't want to be detected by the recognition software to go around smiling when in the view of cameras that use it?

Re:A solution to this... (3, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046411)

I'm pretty sure the guy smiling and sweating in the trench coat when its 80 degrees out is going to attract somebody's attention.

So Give 'em What They Expect (1)

blcamp (211756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045905)

When buying your booze (and being carded) or being pulled over for speeding, you're generally annoyed, surprised or just plain ticked off, right?

So perhaps the driver's license photo should be graced with one of those common expressions.

Re:So Give 'em What They Expect (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046245)

When buying your booze (and being carded) or being pulled over for speeding, you're generally annoyed, surprised or just plain ticked off, right?

These days, if someone cards me at the liquor store I am delighted! Wow, you really thought I was that young?

I am toothless (1)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045913)

Why smile? :P

Re:I am toothless (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26046059)

Agreed... however your boyfriend obviously smiles A LOT.

Re:I am toothless (0, Offtopic)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046443)

Yes he does and loves it. Need I say more?

And just because the wife is a 'Handsome' woman,
try to cut her some slack, she looked much better
before she had the kids and all.

Redundant? (1)

renoX (11677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045915)

I'm not sure what is new in this article: in France (and I bet in many other country too), this is already the case for ID card, passport..
Not smiling when the photography is taken feels very weird, but that's not a big issue, though I would guess that parents trying to make their children not smiling for the photography may disagree.

Re:Redundant? (3, Funny)

smaerd (954708) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045991)

Kind of hard to get your six-year-old a driver's license in Indiana, anyways.

State ID cards (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046093)

Kind of hard to get your six-year-old a driver's license in Indiana, anyways.

Six-year-olds in Indiana are eligible for non-driver identification cards just like everyone else. I don't see how this regulation distinguishes between identification cards that include vs. don't include a license to drive on public highways.

In Indiana we do things differently (0)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045923)

I wish I could find the lyrics to that song, because it sums up a few of the oddities that this state has.

So to be a terrorist... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26045933)

All you have to do to get away with it is smile all the time.

uh... i see a flaw in this 'security measure'.

Re:So to be a terrorist... (5, Funny)

Zordak (123132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046091)

Which is why Congress is, at this moment, working on the CAN-SMILE act, which will put a stop to smiling, along with other un-American behavior like being happy, being friendly, playing with your children, giving to charity, and staying out of debt.

Re:So to be a terrorist... (2, Funny)

complete loony (663508) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046333)

But just like its name sake, the legislation will have so many exceptions for politicians and non-profits that it ends up with no teeth.

My poor coffee (1)

Panzor (1372841) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045965)

You owe me a new keyboard slashdot! Dx

You know what happens when someone is told NOT to laugh? I can picture it now...

PictureLady: No sir, no smiling.
Driver: *stiffles a chuckle*
PictureLady: Sir...

Maybe waiting two hours in a quiet room will remedy that however...By the way, at least in my state, you can call ahead. I was in and out in 30 minutes = record. Maybe that's why I have a big smile on mine....lol.

Missed Opportunity (5, Insightful)

PMuse (320639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26045985)

Why not tell people, "you can smile if you want to for your license, but we also have to shoot a picture of you not smiling"? Then, record both images, so that the recognition software has two looks available for that individual. Heck, get a shot of them with and without glasses, too.

This approach would make people happy, promote friendliness, and improve security.

Re:Missed Opportunity (1)

changos (105425) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046463)

My thoughts completely it's not the policies, but how you present it.

Papers, please. (4, Insightful)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046003)

Real ID [google.com] should make any sensible person cringe. Take five minutes and read how the federal government has mandated a variety of criteria for states' drivers licenses, the cost of which to the states is in the millions and is entirely unfunded (not to mention unconstitutional!) and poorly executed in states where it has been effected.

Take a moment today to call your state legislators and see where they stand on your states' Real ID compliance. If they oppose it, congratulate them and consider donating to their campaign. If they support it, swear on your mother's grave to see them unseated and replaced with a responsible legislator.

Re:Papers, please. (3, Insightful)

kabocox (199019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046345)

Real ID should make any sensible person cringe. Take five minutes and read how the federal government has mandated a variety of criteria for states' drivers licenses, the cost of which to the states is in the millions and is entirely unfunded (not to mention unconstitutional!) and poorly executed in states where it has been effected.

I think opposing Real ID should make any sensible person cringe. Why? Because it doesn't mandate any "new" criteria that almost every state isn't already collecting on you if you have a drivers license. What it is doing is trying to make the 50 states DLs uniform. Those that really oppose it don't like it solely based on money issues. Privacy issues aren't even a real issue with it as you are already submitting that same info to the state any way. Now why do states oppose this based on money issues? Base some states have had statewide RMSs for police for years and it fairly trival in their state for their police to read their state DL licenses and import into their RMSs and it's mainly been paid for once. The thing is it would be nice if the police from TX, CA, FL, NY could just as easily read other states as their own. That's the entire issue that some already have their system in place and don't want to change even if the feds paid every penny.

I think this'll something like NIBRS or UCR where the feds would like the states to do it, but realistically it won't be until the next big change in RMS for those states that currently oppose this to even consider adopting it. At that time, they'll whine that they want to keep their current format as well.

haiku in there.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26046009)

Indiana -
Shady beard guis.
Tend no moar.

(bit of fail though)

Fake beard (1)

tonto1992 (922918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046013)

It's settled then, wear a fake beard when you get your picture taken

Beware the Unibrow! (1)

qwertphobia (825473) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046019)

The article fails to mention, however, the legality of beards, mustaches, and bushy eyebrows.

'cause we all know, unibrow == unibomber

Re:Beware the Unibrow! (1)

Cocoa Radix (983980) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046169)

Sorry, unibrows are not allowed, either!

Privacy? (1)

TheRon6 (929989) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046031)

If you don't like the idea of the police finger printing you or taking a DNA sample when you've done absolutely nothing wrong then I suggest you put on a nice big smile for your next license photo. Because that's what this is, the government taking a facial fingerprint of you.

Which brings me to my next concern... are they going to try to make me take off my tinfoil hat for the picture too???

Re:Privacy? (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046225)

"Which brings me to my next concern... are they going to try to make me take off my tinfoil hat for the picture too???"

Your tinfoil hat is visible? Jeez, what are they teaching kids these days?

Re:Privacy? (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046335)

Because that's what this is, the government taking a facial fingerprint of you.

Not quite. I don't leave my face behind everywhere I go.

Best tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26046037)

!liberty

Smiling? At the DMV? (1)

skgrey (1412883) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046045)

Who the hell smiles at the DMV anyway? This shouldn't be that big of a problem; by the time you get your picture taken you've already been there three hours, been coughed on, had to deal with incompetent workers, and had your car towed because your stickers are out of date. Smiling shouldn't occur.

What is this "DMV" you speak of? (1)

Praxxus (19048) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046171)

Here in Indiana, we have the BMV. Yes, that's right. It's the Bepartment of Motor Vehicles.

. . . because Indiana is fucktarded in a lot of ways, that's why!

dooooohh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26046065)

Thats it now all we have to do is tell the stupid terrorist to smile all the time oh wait

Similar requirement for Canadian passports (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26046067)

Canada's passports have had a similar "no-smile" requirement since 2003. http://www.ppt.gc.ca/cdn/photos.aspx?lang=eng [ppt.gc.ca]

No license for Slash (4, Funny)

T.E.D. (34228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046089)

Also on the list of taboos are hats, eyeglasses, and hair that hangs down over the face.

So I guess Slash is out entirely.

Re:No license for Slash (3, Funny)

T.E.D. (34228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046287)

A visual aid [wilsdomain.com]

Re:No license for Slash (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046343)

However, it's worth noting that the bushy eyebrow and mustache exception was put in place at the request of the Greater Indianapolis Groucho Marx Lookalike Society.

Re:No license for Slash (2, Funny)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046447)

hair that hangs down over the face.

So... it's ok for me to comb my beard up to cover my face?

Indiana bans smiling, for security (2, Funny)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046107)

Residents of Indiana will no longer be allowed to smile in public when the Homeland Security Alert Level is Orange or Red, to improve security. Image recognition software is not able to easily recognize and track citizens movements if they smile, which causes terrorism and child pornography.

Eyeglasses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26046113)

So if I am required by law to wear eyeglasses when driving, I will not patch my DL photo?

Amazing.....

also banned (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046119)

So the cameras can get images that will match the photos, it is also prohibited to smile in:

  • Airports
  • Train stations
  • Subways
  • Planes, Trains, and Automobiles
  • Federal buildings
  • State buildings
  • Post offices
  • Traffic court
  • Traffic
  • Within 100 miles of the national border
  • Video phone/chat
  • Public
  • Private, in case you are under surveillance

Not necessarily a bad thing (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046121)

I don't get the point of the !liberty tag here. Technically your liberty went out the window the moment you had to get licensed to drive in the first place, making this a moot point viz-a-vis liberty. That said, this can be a good thing because one of the controversies in Britain has been with making Muslim women take off their veils to get a state ID. Only in multicultural, bureaucratic lala land could a photo of a woman with a veil be considered part of a photo ID, but with this sort of thing in place, hopefully tactics like that can be avoided before they become a contentious issue.

They're doing this for all of the wrong reasons, but some good can indeed come out of it.

Re:Not necessarily a bad thing (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046419)

Technically your liberty went out the window the moment you had to get licensed to drive in the first place

Nonsense. Operating a dangerous machine on public roads is not a right. Driving is an action that inherently puts other people at significant risk of death or injury; requiring operators of motor vehicles to be licensed is no more an infringement of liberties than outlawing shooting your gun into the air on a crowded city street.

Not Even Realtime (2, Insightful)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046123)

BMV Communications Director Dennis Rosebrough said if a criminal went to get a driver's license under his name, the criminal's photograph would be compared to an old photograph of Rosebrough and the BMV could be alerted the next day that the two don't match.

This system isn't even realtime. What good does it do if a criminal gets away with a state-issued ID a full 36 hours before anyone knows that he shouldn't?

Re:Not Even Realtime (1)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046265)

Typical Slashdot attitude: if it's not perfect, it's completely useless!

There is a lot of utility in catching this sort of thing after the fact. 36 hours is actually a very short amount of time. I don't really approve of these automatic biometric identifiers but objecting to it because it takes a day to discover a problem is just nonsensical.

Re:Not Even Realtime (1)

TheNinjaroach (878876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046477)

You work for the government, don't you?

Simple workaround: smile all the time when... (2, Funny)

BobSixtyFour (967533) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046131)

Whenever your not at the DMV, wear glasses/smile/frown/etc...

They'll never know its you.

Re:Simple workaround: smile all the time when... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26046261)

wear colored contact lens if you can't wear eye glasses. Better yet, make each eye a different color!! Now take that Indiana!

The 2008 Luthor Act (5, Funny)

CommandoCody (1154955) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046141)

Also on the list of taboos are hats, eyeglasses...

Local reaction: Newspaper reporter Clark Kent was quoted as protesting this in the strongest possible terms, while wealthy socialite Bruce Wayne said he didn't really see this as a problem.

Fix the software! (1)

pythonhacker (898864) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046143)

"Apparently new facial recognition software being employed by the state fails to function when the face is distorted by something as innocuous as smiling."

Perhaps they need to use facial anti-distortion software before using facial recognition software ?

I don't care about smiling, but... (1)

therpham (953844) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046181)

I want to wear my glasses in my driver's license picture! But, as an Indiana resident whose license expires next year, I suppose I'll have to be Scowly McNoGlasses in my next picture. Though I guess it's better than the rain-induced white boy afro in my current picture.

Passports have done this for years (1)

lafiel (667810) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046201)

This is a pretty normal precaution. Apparently, smiling allows you to distort your face enough to allow others a better chance of passing themselves off as you.

Of course, keep in mind that the photo is for humans to do facial recognition.

I wouldn't be too concerned.

Gives new meaning... (1)

lordsid (629982) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046217)

It gives new meaning to the phrase "Smile, big brother is watching.". No wonder they couldn't recognize Guy Faulks.

on the upside (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046267)

neither the joker [about.com] nor rachael ray [wikipedia.org] can get a driver's license

is it just me or does her mouth weird anyone else out? it extends beyond natural dimensions into a creepy permanent smile

No problem (1)

Cro Magnon (467622) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046277)

I'm at the freaking DMV! I've been at the freaking DMV for hours!! By the time my picture is taken, I'm definitely not smiling!!!

Simple solution! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046281)

Frown when they are taking the ID photo and grin from ear to ear when driving! ;D

Can you already hear the complaint? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046317)

"NO, this is NOT a combover, my hair grows like that!"

No need to worry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26046327)

Terrorists never smile.

Sure, it's stupid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26046337)

...but it's the government. What did you expect?

Now, let me get this off my chest, anonymous-cowardly style as I'm sure this will turn into a nice little flame-bait post:

I'm quite fed up with all the complaining about how states and/or the federal government regulate ID for their citizens. I'm quite fed up about peopling crying over all the Real ID, National ID, and whatever-else ID acts being proposed. What's that you say? Privacy? Infringement of rights? What in the hell are you talking about? Since when did ANY of you think that you had truly rock-solid privacy at ANY time in this country in the last 50 or so years?

Let me tell you a story. I used to work for a now on-its-way-down finance company. We did our own in-house collections work. The fact is, with just your social security number I could tell you who your neighbors was/were, what kind of car your neighbor's second cousin drove, where he or she bought it, and how much they paid for it. I could tell you how much money your mother's recent surgical procedure cost. I could see just about every piece of information I wanted because it's all right there, floating around in cyberspace for people who know how to do a little detective work. Do you not think your own GOVERNMENT has the power and the know how to pull that off? Wake up, people!

I, for one, would welcome a National ID system. I, for one, would welcome some kind of biometric system for identifying citizens. It sure would beat the hell out of carrying a little plastic card around everywhere. I carry as little on my person as possible in case I'm ever robbed. Imagine everything tied together in such a way that you never needed to carry around anything more with you than your own person. To me, that's a safe way to live.

So what if Uncle Sam knows you watch porn or that you just went into the drugstore and bought some cold medicine? You weren't doing anything illegal. I'll state this time-honored phrase again: if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. If you commit a crime, you should be punished. Simple. I don't see how privacy factors in.

The real problem, yes, does come into play if companies are allowed the option of viewing this information and treating their employees based upon what they find, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. If anything, recent events have shown that "voting with your wallet" does work rather well. Don't do business with companies that violate the moral dignity that people deserve, but don't spit on the people who protect you from the real dangers of the world.

No matter how bad you think you have it here, I'm certain that we can arrange for you to go somewhere else in the world that's far, far worse.

Glad I Got My License This Summer (1)

schalliol (676467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046341)

Usually the pictures aren't that great on the Indiana BMV photos, now they will especially be poor.

Biometrics photography (1)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046399)

makes me a sad panda. :\


Actually, you know what, I'm not even sad but the law makes me look like I am.

Great, now I'm actually sad.

Easy fix (1)

ParanoiaBOTS (903635) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046407)

Seriously why doesn't the government hire the best of the worst to write programs like this? I mean look how fast the captcha was broken, among thousands of other security features. I bet that if there was some way to profit off of it, within a few weeks we would have a near bulletproof facial recognition software from the hacking community.

wait,wait,wait..... (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046421)

Why do I get sudden flashes of anyone smiling at airports being given strip searches for security?

Well, if you are smiling or showing any other signs at an US airport with all the headaches that goes on there you probably do need a mental exam, but that is besides the point.

The same rules apply for UK passports (1)

NoNeeeed (157503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046435)

However it isn't to do with facial recognition as such. UK passports (and some others I believe) are fitted with chips which store a fingerprint of the face (presumably encoded in some way) which describes the geometry of the face. This allows the photo in the passport to be confirmed against the chip, preventing someone from nicking your passport and replacing the photo. Eventually it will be possible for the passport's data to be confirmed against a record held on a central system.

The restrictions make it a real pain to get passport photos for kids.

Of course this hasn't stopped people hacking these, and demo fake passports have been produced. It also doesn't stop The Man from potentially tying the data into all those CCTV cameras we have.

The BMV use here is to prevent the same person getting multiple licenses, not for comparison against camera footage. Face recognition is much harder than the media (and companies that do it) would like you to think, and for this purpose, where all the images are from the same source, it makes sense to simplify the problem.

Civil Disobedience (1)

GogglesPisano (199483) | more than 5 years ago | (#26046451)

My license expires this year. I am TOTALLY wearing this t-shirt [zazzle.com] when I renew!

Does it work?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26046475)

Not sure if it really prevents [findarticles.com] recognition [nytimes.com] ..

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>