backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by myocardia.. on Jun 2 at 3:09 PM


Happy days are over for drivers in Arkansas, Indiana, Nevada and Virginia, which have banned smiles on license photos.  (Source: NY Daily News)

Diana Kim, of Fairfax, Va. isn't smiling as she gets her license -- it's banned in her state.  (Source: USA Today)
Turn that smile upside down

As high-tech licenses become increasingly hard to forge, the Department of Motor Vehicles has found that one popular approach to obtaining fraudulent license is for someone to pose as a friend or colleague in an effort to get an official license.  New high-tech software uses facial recognition to warn officials if the face of the person being licensed matches someone already licensed.

However, there's one problem -- the algorithms often fail if people are making different faces in the two photos.  So four states -- Arkansas, Indiana, Nevada and Virginia -- are telling drivers to wipe that grin off their face.  No more happy days for licensing, the states have declared, drivers must adopt "neutral facial expressions".

Carnegie Mellon University robotics professor Takeo Kanade acknowledges that the move is necessary given the poor state of facial recognition technology when it comes to facial expressions.  Researchers still have yet to catch up to the inherent processing capability of the human brain, which can recognize familiar faces in a broad variety of expressions.

Karen Chappell, deputy commissioner of the Virginia DMV says that the smile ban is necessary to "make the comparison process more accurate."

Some citizens who were initially offended are changing their tune, deciding that the rule is in the best interest of national security.  States Elaine Mullen of Great Falls, Va., "It's probably safer from a national-security point of view."

Arkansas, Indiana and Nevada do still allow small smiles.  Currently 31 states in total do computerized matching of driver's license photos, and 3 others are considering it.  Of the 27 other states without anti-smiling policies, many are considering adopting similar measures.  Some states though are resisting the movement.  Pennsylvania Transportation Department spokesman Craig Yetter, states, "People can smile here in Pennsylvania."

Even without a smile-ban, Illinois stopped 6,000 people from getting fraudulent licenses since 1999, according to Beth Langen, the state head of Drivers Services.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: And the sheep say...
By Lifted on 5/27/2009 11:07:37 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
You have lost the ability to express yourself for an identification/license photo


You also can't wear glasses, a hat, a hood, etc.

Were you crying over those as a loss of expression?

Do you really have nothing else going on in your life that losing the ability to "express yourself" in a drivers license is such a downer?

I'm guessing you're a total drama queen in real life.

I guess you could always tattoo a smile on your face if you really feel the need to express yourself.


RE: And the sheep say...
By wuZheng on 5/27/2009 11:10:09 AM , Rating: 3
*facepalm*

You obviously didn't read my post, let me rephrase, your PROPORTIONAL LOSS of freedoms is not EQUAL to the GAIN in BENEFIT for national security purposes.

Learn to read buddy.


RE: And the sheep say...
By b534202 on 5/27/2009 6:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
So what's the proportion of smiling on your id card to the freedom you enjoy in this society?

For me it is 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%. I think having DMV's facial recognition software working is worth more than that.


RE: And the sheep say...
By Boze on 5/28/2009 3:23:50 AM , Rating: 2
The Department of Homeland Security spends billions and billions of dollars each year. State governments run off millions; some of them, billions.

And you're telling me they can't afford to hire a company to write extremely capable facial recognition software?

Look, I was prior military, the biggest problem with government, both large and small, is the "lowest bidder" mentality. Make a six foot noose and then put it over someone... tighten it over years and years - they'll never complain, even when it starts ever so slightly cutting off circulation.


RE: And the sheep say...
By tmouse on 5/28/2009 7:23:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What security benefit does NOT smiling for your ID have for the police, airport officials, or anyone else interested in national security for that matter? In the large majority of cases I'm willing to bet the benefit is negligible at BEST.


From the article:

quote:
New high-tech software uses facial recognition to warn officials if the face of the person being licensed matches someone already licensed.
However, there's one problem -- the algorithms often fail if people are making different faces in the two photos.


You said:
quote:
Learn to read buddy


Sage advice


RE: And the sheep say...
By elgoliath on 6/1/2009 12:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and most of those are just kids trying to get a license to enter a bar and drink, not terrorists. So, show me the national security issues that make this worth it.

And no, I don't think keeping 'kids' out of the bar is a good enough reason especially since I think the 'kids' should be allowed in the bar if the country says they are old enough to die for their country.

Also, if the states are having issues getting facial recognition software that isn't screwed up by someone smiling, I suggest they go talk to the casino's in Las Vegas as they have the ability to see through actual disguises.

But yes, lets continue to cut people's 'rights' so we can continue to use and prop up bad versions of good technology.


RE: And the sheep say...
By FaaR on 5/28/2009 8:46:43 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you feel a need to "express" yourself on your ID card photo?

ID card photos do not exist for purposes of expression, they exist for the express purpose of identification.

You sound like you're complaining just for the sake of it. I'm sure that you agree that since there are hucksters, fraudsters, criminals and (yes) terrorists out there, we need a means to identify ourselves and make certain we are who we say we are. Do you not also agree then that ideally this identification process should be as precise as we can make it, so that you can't fake your ID, or erroneously be mistaken for someone else?


RE: And the sheep say...
By mindless1 on 5/28/2009 9:06:46 AM , Rating: 1
Well in THAT case, someone who is apt to smile in real life would be more easily identified on their ID if it had a picture of them smiling.

Look at it the other way. Since someone now isn't smiling on their ID, all they have to do to avoid detection by security cameras with facial recognition is SMILE. Even worse, now they know to do such a simple thing and unlike a mask, there's no overt sign they are trying not to be detected by a security camera since people do routinely smile.

Either way the argument they make about security is a load of bull. They could simply require more proof for identification purposes, and they don't want you to know that whether someone is smiling or not is not the only problem with current facial recognition software.

No, I do not agree that facial recognition software would be, or needs to be, so accurate that something a person would naturally do has to be taken away from them. It seems such a trivial thing but you don't understand it is the principle, principles being worth far more than money.

Money where my mouth is, I'd rather pay a few bucks more for the license and not have to bend over for legislators deciding my rights aren't as important as the idea of safeguarding a country that claims to uphold our rights. A bit ironic.

Let me put it to you another way. Either nobody has ever faked my ID, or the consequence of it was irrelevant as it had no effect on my life. I have not been erroneously mistaken for something else because of this, in fact most states do not do it, in fact the states that do did not do it for many many years.

I totally disagree that we should change a process that thus far has worked well enough. If someone is going to forge a license in this day and age they can just do so instead of going to the DMV at all to get a fake, and I would speculate that is how the majority are done so this becomes even more off the wall an idea with more cons than pros no matter how you look at it so long as you look at all angles.


RE: And the sheep say...
By tastyratz on 5/27/2009 11:20:11 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
You also can't wear glasses, a hat, a hood, etc.


Wait wait I know this!
Does your character have red hair?
Does your character have facial hair?

Your Herman aren't you? I know your not Clair

(For those who don't remember or don't get it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8iOvPOAerQ


RE: And the sheep say...
By Biggiesized on 5/27/2009 5:31:59 PM , Rating: 3
Does he look like a bitch?


RE: And the sheep say...
By croc on 5/27/2009 7:10:26 PM , Rating: 2
I always found that strange, frankly. My license here in AUS says that I must wear glasses, so I do. I also always wear a hat. I look nothing like my license photo.

As to the facial recognition sloppyware, either fix it or don't depend on it. At this point in time it is an unreliable technology, so I'd vote for the 'don't count on it' option.


RE: And the sheep say...
By Alexstarfire on 5/27/2009 8:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think there is a big difference between purposely, or what can be purposely, trying to make it hard to identify yourself based on the photo ID and just expressing yourself. I do say think that if you wear glasses all the time, like prescription, that you should be allowed to wear them.


RE: And the sheep say...
By boulder2 on 5/28/2009 7:10:15 AM , Rating: 2
No hoods ?
No wonder they couldn't find Osama.
I bet he went for his driving license, and they told him to first shave off the long beard, then remove his long muslim white dress and wear ordinary pants and a T-shirt.


RE: And the sheep say...
By tmouse on 5/28/2009 7:37:09 AM , Rating: 2
People will always complain, I'm not sure how I really feel about this issue its kind of surprising that facial recognition software is still so limited. I suppose this is only required for 100% identification because software is used to presort potential security risks in places like airports, but it is used only to alert security who can then go for personal identification. To bring up an extreme case remember the woman who wanted to sue Florida because she couldn't have her driving license picture taken while wearing a burka?


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki