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).
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.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w...
It's already here if you're a person of interest.
Soon your passport photo will be a 3D scan of your face. Increases ability to recognize under different lighting conditions.
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.
- 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
- and so on
tl;dr: on my ID card I look like my digital psychopathic serial killer brother.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
What on earth makes you assert this? Do you personally know the man?
"Artists" have been known to perform stunts in this vein.
I pulled out my new photo ID received days ago and showed my son the godawful photo on it. We had a good laugh about how it doesn't look like me at all. He could tell because he was looking at me right then while we talked.
I stand by my idea that if you have not seen this person in person, you don't really know how representative it is. My ex husband consistently took hideous photos of me. My sister consistently took charming photos of me. Photos say as much about what is in the mind's eye of the photographer as they do about the subject -- and sometimes more.
Your own passport or ID photos being particularly bad isn't actually relevant to the assertion that this is a good likeness of this man. How do any of us know this is a good likeness of him, other than just taking him at his word?
I guess they scanned it in with crappy settings and didn't care enough to fix it.
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe."
He claims the photo is a "fiction". All photos are. The photo's job is to say that "the person identified by this card looks like this" to an official looking at that card. If he modeled his head well and chose good render settings, it might be truer than a "real photo" in this regard.