Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Indiana Bans Driver's License Smiles, For Security

Posted by timothy on from the one-doozy-of-an-aha!-moment dept.

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.

15 of 459 comments (clear)

  1. As an Indiana resident... by Gigiya · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:As an Indiana resident... by timothy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That is what the E. German border guards were famous for doing, so ... Yes, probably so. Not that this will *actually* happen, but if you meet an especially scrupulous cop (in the sense of scrupulous attention to detail and procedure) then the glasses may come off.

      timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    2. Re:As an Indiana resident... by Skrapion · · Score: 5, Funny

      "License and registration, please."

      "Hold on, officer, I need to put on my eyebrows."

      --
      The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
  2. Speechless by dyingtolive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
    1. Re:Speechless by rhsanborn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. Re:Nothing new under the sun by Threni · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Missed Opportunity by PMuse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  5. Re:So to be a terrorist... by Zordak · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --

    Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
  6. The 2008 Luthor Act by CommandoCody · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  7. .. except for religious reasons.. by leuk_he · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. 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..

    1. Re:.. except for religious reasons.. by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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...)

  8. Re:Beards by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

  9. Re:hmmm, no. by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative

    The basic tenet of fascism is the bundling of powers of state and industry

    That's generally a feature of fascist regimes, but not "the basic tenet", and it certainly isn't why we dislike fascism. Many European countries from 1945 to the mid-eighties also "bundled the powers of state and industry", but they were hardly fascist.

    Fascism is defined by extreme nationalism and a disregard for basic human rights. That's what sets it apart from other more benign ideologies.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  10. Re:Papers, please. by ttuegel · · Score: 5, Informative

    The law doesn't actually force the states into making the drinking age 21. As is usual, when Congress anticipates the "that's unconstitutional!" outcry, they, rather than mandate it, make some funding conditional upon it. So, federal interstate highway funding in your state is conditional upon the 21 drinking age and the 0.08% legal limit of intoxication. But the federal government didn't "mandate" it. Neat trick, huh?

  11. Re:So Give 'em What They Expect by glwtta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi