> He claims the photo is a "fiction". All photos are.
That's not true. Your passport photo is supposed to be a snapshot of what you looked like in person at a certain point in time. It is the difference between a registration and a creation.
The likely effect of actions like these is that eventually the passport office will take the photographs to avoid people playing games with the system (such as: replacing the eyes with the eyes of someone else or changing other details that might screw up the biometric passport requirements).
>Your passport photo is supposed to be a snapshot of what you looked like in person at a certain point in time.
Then the photo the Post Office official took fails this test. My skin is not green and my hair is not black. They sure look that way in my passport photo.
The likely effect is that my official "photo" will become an amalgamation of AI facial recognition scans at official checkpoints through time. Perhaps closer to this render than any single photo could be.
That's the scary part. The machine will simply learn to recognize me on sight. The 4th Reich won't have to demand my papers, it will already know me by heart.
> Contactless technology will remove the need for eligible travellers to present a passport to verify their identity in automated immigration clearance.
> The identity of a traveller will be confirmed on the basis of a unique biometric identifier, such as their facial image, instead of document based checks. The live facial image of the traveller at the SmartGate will be matched against an image previously verified as the unique identifier associated with that identity.
> This verified image and others collected during subsequent travel, become the images used by the Department to confirm identity on future travel.
How is minor color distortion comparable to a completely artificial 3d rendering? In the past id photos were taken in completely black and white. But it was still a photograph of that person.
It matters how similar to reality the picture printed on ID looks because it determines the usefulness of this picture.
The process how that picture was obtained doesn't necessarily change the usefulness - a really good pencil drawing may be more accurate and useful than an unlucky photography.
this is actually an interesting subject and one should not jump on quick/easy answers.
- is a photography really a snapshot of what something looks like? seems to be an easy one until you look closely at the history of technology behind photography
- if photography is a faithful representation of something, does it mean there's not "creation" involved? how can photography be considered art if it's not creation?
- "a passport photo is supposed to depict a snapshot of your face" and "all photos are fiction" are not mutually exclusive statements
Every single passport photo I got in china was "touched up" with photoshop to remove the background but also things like hair. This includes the photo I took for my USA passport renewal.
There are legal requirements that are implemented as automated checks by photo booths here so that the photo is made sure to comply, so that official offices don't have to do so. The effect of this regulation is that the expression and lightning is so unnatural that the photo on my ID card only looks like me in a very uncanny way, very similar to that render.
tl;dr: on my ID card I look like my digital psychopathic serial killer brother.
> The likely effect of actions like these is that eventually the passport office will take the photographs
That is the case in Hungary, where I'm from. I was surprised by this the last time I had a passport made. It came out looking good, I was just upset that I had had photos made before because the rules weren't communicated clearly. Other than that, I see no drawbacks.
Loads of Eastern European countries have the passport photo taken by a passport official; the Latvian passports in our family have the best photos, and it nicely bypasses the silly 'provide evidence of your ability to form social bonds in the local community' requirement of UK-derived applications which want you to get a declaration of the true-and-accurate-likeliness of the photo signed on the back.
Countersignatures are mainly intended to confirm a person's name/identity. They certify the photo too, but an adult who hasn't had a passport before needs to attend an interview where the photo will be checked and applicants who do have a previous passport will have the new photo checked against the record.
I do think the countersignature system should be revisited, though.
> Your passport photo is supposed to be a snapshot of what you looked like in person at a certain point in time. It is the difference between a registration and a creation.
This doesn't make any sense. Use a slightly wider or longer lens and you get vastly different pics, and we're not even talking about lighting or other aspects yet.
In Sweden, applications for passports and ID cards are done at a machine that captures your photo, signature and fingerprint digitally and sends it off to manufacturing. These machines are distributed to post offices and embassies abroad.
> Feel free to submit a photo that confuses the biometric requirements, hope you like the automated border gates rejecting your passport
Actually, that seems like a really good idea to avoid being tracked by facial recognition systems. Remove enough detail from your photo so that you can't be identified by a neural net, but can still be identified by a human?
Except, the human will just be told by the computer, "subject does not match passport photo" even though his own eyes say you match, and he'll be bound by duty to treat you as an identity theft. You think border guards are allowed to make decisions? Ha!
I forget the exact number, but the distances between n points on your face is a representation of your face. So we've reduced that to a number too.
I don't think anyone uses the photo for biometric identification. I thought those devices you look at in line simply take a photo of you on entry. In most countries you still face the customs officer who looks at you and your documents.
eGates at UK airports do programmatically allow entry based solely on a facial recognition match between the person standing at the gate and the file on their passport's chip. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
(+ run the passport through a gamut of watch lists and risk profiles)
The border agent, when handed an EU passport, does exactly the same (match the photo to the face) and nothing much more. What exactly is the problem with automating that?
Nope. I left last week and will return on Monday and - just like entering the UK - can confirm that, while there are Customs staff hanging about to make sure nothing goes wrong, they are not individually monitoring each entry/exit.
I find it bloody marvellous. I was on the Heathrow Express literally 20 minutes after getting off the plane from Melbourne. That's how it should be.
In Chile, where I'm from, the institution in charge of identity cards and passports effectively does this, and as far as I'm aware, always has. It doesn't sound weird to me.
That's not true. Your passport photo is supposed to be a snapshot of what you looked like in person at a certain point in time. It is the difference between a registration and a creation.
The likely effect of actions like these is that eventually the passport office will take the photographs to avoid people playing games with the system (such as: replacing the eyes with the eyes of someone else or changing other details that might screw up the biometric passport requirements).