Indiana Bans Driver's License Smiles, For Security

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.

Comments

Speechless

[dyingtolive]

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

[rhsanborn]

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

[IgnoramusMaximus]

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.

Re:Speechless

[squiggleslash]

Oh, for the love of...

It's a rule to make it easier for technology to prevent one person applying for multiple driver's licenses under different identities. It has nothing to do with control or revenue - indeed, it'll reduce revenues as less driver's license applications = less money.

Further, the rule is being implemented by a State government, not the US government.

It's a sensible, unobtrusive, rule that'll help prevent fraud. If you consider it a violation of your liberties to be unable to smile on a part of a card intended for use identifying you, then you probably should be asking yourself why you're required to submit a photograph in the first place.

Re:Speechless

[Anonymous Coward]

It is to stop people applying for multiple licenses under different identities.

Then they should use this thing called a "fingerprint" which can be scanned & automatically searched. And your fingerprints can't 'smile'.

Facial recognition is very hard to do well*, most systems have terrible accuracy rates.

Then it's not ready to be used. What if I have a nerve problem (my sister has one) that makes half her face pinch up and contort? Are people with facial deformities now denied licenses?

Just plain stupid. The Photo is so a human looking at the license can compare it to the person holding the license, it's not for the computer. We have things like fingerprints, social security numbers, signatures, birth certificates, etc. for the computer to chew on. Leave the pictures alone.

On a side note, I like to wear a shirt with a color that exactly matches the background, so I always have the floating, dis-embodied head. It drives the dmv workers nuts, but they can't tell you to change your shirt.

A testament to the technology

[elrous0]

...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

[SirGarlon]

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

[Opportunist]

It's not supposed to make us feel safe.

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

So to be a terrorist...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Missed Opportunity

[PMuse]

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.

Papers, please.

[Rinisari]

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.

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.

[kabocox]

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.

Re:Papers, please.

[Rinisari]

21 states have rejected it because it would be too expensive, too invasive, and/or pretty much unconstitutional.

Pennsylvania's Dept. of Transportation effected many of the points of Real ID without an edict from the PA legislature, and there are many legislators not pleased with this. One point required a multimillion dollar contract with a security firm whose technology was cracked reliably just a few months later (I wish I could find evidence on the 'net of this, but I trust the person who told me, as he's been following Real ID religiously since it was introduced).

You're advocating a national ID card, essentially. That's one stop shopping for identity thieves--just like social security numbers are now--and it won't do a thing to stop "terrorists" and other malfeasant souls. It's also terribly close to the "papers, please" seen in many places throughout time.

Not Even Realtime

[TheNinjaroach]

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?

Excuse me, but NO.

[Svartalf]

WHY was your post modded insightful? You present an argument, but don't back it up. They already HAVE the ability to look up most state licenses right now without this amongst other things.

It does NOTHING of what you think it will.
It does NOTHING of what they claim it will.

Trying to make them more uniform does nothing for security.

Trying to make them all be in a single database (i.e. One of the other requirements of RealID) makes it easier to hack in or grab a single ID and go to town with ID theft. (Niiice...)

With it not doing what it says it does and increasing the risks involved with it all, it doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever.

Re:Nothing new under the sun

[Hognoxious]

This strikes me as odd, considering I need glasses to legally drive a car, yet I'm not allowed to wear them for my driver's license picture.

One, the glasses partially hide your face.

Two, if the photo has you without glasses, they can always compare you to it by asking you to take your glasses off. If the photo shows you with glasses, they can only compare by getting you to wear the same glasses.

Next episode, why they have braille on drive-thru ATMs.

Re:Nothing new under the sun

[Mister Whirly]

If a simple action like smiling can make the facial recognition useless, I would suggest fixing the software, not banning smiles.

Re:I'm glad I'm not a Hoosier

[houghi]

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

Do you smile when they pull you over? Probably not.

Re:So Give 'em What They Expect

[glwtta]

Yes, the man in his fifties getting carded - just to make really sure that those dang teenagers don't get their hands on the Devil Drink - is clearly the moron in that situation.

Re:I'm glad I'm not a Hoosier

[Golias]

Kinda how 'yankee' or 'redneck' is an insult, unless you are one, in which case it's a badge of pride.

Pretty much true of all racial/regional/religious identity slurs, isn't it?

I have a Korean friend who insists that her preferred nickname for herself is "gook". No matter what she says, I just can't bring myself to call her that. If I was also Korean, it would be one thing, but for a white person to call an East Asian by that word... It's simply not how I've been brought up.

That Means the Software Doesn't Work

[Arsynic]

If I were Indiana, I would tell the developers to go back to the drawing board because the software doesn't meet the requirement of actually WORKING in a practical way.