No Smiling Allowed… on Virginia Drivers License Sez DMV

Published on May 30th, 2009

“I mean, when you get pulled over, you want a friendly picture for the cop to look at.”
CHRISTOPHER GEORGE

Virginia driver opposed to the state’s new ban on smiling in driver’s license photos

Quirky as it may seem, a new no smile policy will soon be in place at all Virginia DMVs, through it’s already made it to Roanoke. When drivers now go to get their picture taken for their license, they’ll be asked to keep a neutral expression. A dull face, versus a smile, will make it easier for DMV to use face recognition software in the future, if the move is approved by state lawmakers. The software would help crackdown on identity fraud, an ongoing problem in Virginia.

“I think anything to keep people from doing stuff illegal, I’m fine with that,” said Toby Brown. “Well, they do the same thing for the passport. You can’t smile when you get a passport,” said Amy Nichols. Another new change, instead of getting your driver’s license the same day, you’ll get a temporary ID good for 30 days, until the real one is processed at a central location in Danville and mailed to you.

It appears the DMV will be the collection point for the state to capture your pre-crime image. This will inevitably lead to a ban on smiling anywhere there is a use for face recognition cameras, which will of course be everywhere. Do you feel safer yet? We are being governed by idiots.

34 users responded in " No Smiling Allowed… on Virginia Drivers License Sez DMV "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Picture this! said, on May 30th, 2009 at 12:25 pm

This is another scheme. Do some research and let your state representatives know you are against making this a smile less surveillance society. Next they will demand you not smile at the bank, at the checkout when using your ATM, or when driving, lest you be ticketed.

# 2 lock_down said, on May 30th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

Who’d be smiling in these times anyway?

# 3 sargasso said, on May 30th, 2009 at 1:36 pm

#2. Apparently, Australian women.

# 4 eaze said, on May 30th, 2009 at 1:36 pm

i think the UK already has this. i know for sure they have it for passports. it has nothing to do with a smile-less society, its just a more accurate way of identifying people’s faces. it has nothing to do with civil liberties and should not be clouded with them. its not like they’re taking away your right to smile. this was a poor story to post.

# 5 BubbaRay said, on May 30th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

VA wasn’t the only state, there were 3 others who pulled the same stunt. Now if I could only find the article…

# 6 chris said, on May 30th, 2009 at 1:43 pm

Hmmm… If you’re leaving the scene of a crime smile like an idiot, if a hi-res smile can throw the software off a lo-res smile will do even better.

or push one side of your jaw down when you’re getting the picture taken.

or a cotton ball in your jaw.

or a breathe right strip on your nose covered by concealer.

or grow a thick untrimmed beard(that you usually don’t have) before going for the picture.

or subtly open or squint your eyes.

or hold your jaw to one side.

or tape your earlobes back.

# 7 faxon said, on May 30th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

In a better time, you did not need a fucking “License” to ride a horse, or drive a team. You did not need to “register” your wagon. No. Now, the government says you have to be “licensed”, and “registered”. Why is that? So they can collect money from you at the drop of a donut. And now, so they can track you everywhere you go. RFIDs, on your vehicle license plate, readable by pole mounted devices, are next, and NOBODY will stand up and revolt against it. Why? Because it’s for “Homeland Security”. I am getting really fed up with our society.

# 8 madtruckman said, on May 30th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

indiana has had this ignorant rule for about a year now….

# 9 Jägermeister said, on May 30th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

If this upsets you… How about showing your ear(s)? It’s just a matter of time before this is enforced on this side of the pond.

# 10 FirstTimeCaller said, on May 30th, 2009 at 3:31 pm

Take two damn photos already… photons are free. Put one on the license (smile if you like), put the other one (no smiling damnit!) in the database for facial recognition. Problem solved. Now we can move on to the trivial stuff…

# 11 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on May 30th, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Biometrics is the only sure form of ID, and only an iris scan is reliable over time.

# 12 brm said, on May 30th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

#11:

“Biometrics is the only sure form of ID, and only an iris scan is reliable over time.”

Which is exactly why I don’t want them storing this shit.

These bureaucrats will put so much faith in the biometrics that you’ll be screwed when someone swaps out your iris print from the central database.

I can see it now: you go in with a hundred people who can vouch for your identity, but the automaton behind the desk will be all like, “yeah, but your iris doesn’t match the database. sorry.”

# 13 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on May 30th, 2009 at 5:50 pm

brm, just as likely as someone swapping your driver’s license number, eh?

If you’d rather trust your life secrets to a PIN (something you know) or card of some sort (something you have), fine. Biometrics (something you are) is way better. A combo of any two seems to work well.

# 14 brm said, on May 30th, 2009 at 6:19 pm

#13:

“just as likely as someone swapping your driver’s license number, eh?”

Yeah, but I can get a new pin or number, and the old one can be invalidated. Not so with my iris print. Someone gets a hold of that, and I’m screwed.

But the nightmare sitch I imagined was this:

Because biometrics are so unique and (supposedly) hard to fake, they will, in the minds of low-level gov’t officials, be then end-all means of identification. They can always fall back on, “your iris doesn’t match up to the DB, I’m not allowed to do anything” and punt you to their out box.

And then you circulate for months (years?) in the bureaucracy trying to convince people you’re really you.

I see biometrics being a difficult to fix single point of failure when the gov’t starts ID’ing you with them.

But yeah, you’re right, as long as the DB isn’t hacked, they’re a great way to ID. But the system will be hacked.

# 15 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on May 30th, 2009 at 6:39 pm

brm…You can be locked out, but there’s no way for someone else to be you. That’s better than current forms of authentication, by a huge factor, where faking happens daily.

# 16 brm said, on May 30th, 2009 at 7:14 pm

#15:

You can be locked out.

Imagine a master database of identities (possibly maintained by the gov’t.) Every time someone needs to identify you, they check against this DB. It stores your name, and your iris print.

Someone hacks the DB or bribes someone to replace your iris print with their own. Now this new person correctly identifies as you, and you don’t. Maybe they swap you with someone else so that you identify as a wanted criminal. Or maybe they just remove your print from the DB, rendering you a non-person.

If we move to an ID system based on biometrics, and someone gets a hold of your print, and can replicate it, you’re screwed. There is no way to get a new iris, for example.

If a print is used in conjunction with ID numbers, as additional information, like a PIN, that’s different.

Right now, I have: a driver’s license, a CCW license, a passport, a social security card, a birth certificate, a student ID.

If someone hacks my driver’s license, no problem. I have all these other forms of ID, and I can be issued a new driver’s license number. And the stolen one can be marked fraudulent.

# 17 brm said, on May 30th, 2009 at 7:16 pm

#15:

“but there’s no way for someone else to be you”

What I’m trying to say is that the only way your print is known to be ‘yours’ is because it’s matched up with your name in the database.

So replace the print associated with your name, and now someone else is ‘you.’

# 18 The Silver Frog said, on May 30th, 2009 at 7:39 pm

I don’t smile on my driver’s license.

Common this side of the ound.

# 19 soundwash said, on May 30th, 2009 at 8:11 pm

I’m sure the “other” reason they
don’t want you to smile is so when
you get framed for domestic terrorism,
the main stream media’s Sunday talking heads will play their roll in the frame up and point out the “mean and emotionally vacant stare” you wear, even when you take “normal” pictures.

-Which of course, will count for 75% of the body of evidence in the case against you.

*rolling eyes*

-s

# 20 NancyDisgrace said, on May 30th, 2009 at 8:20 pm

Won’t bother black men. They never smile for
photos.

# 21 eaze said, on May 31st, 2009 at 2:13 am

#6 or you could just wear a mask

interestingly in the UK when you register your car with the DVLA you are signing the actual owenership of the vehicle over to them, and just registering yourself as the registered keeper.

# 22 Dallas said, on May 31st, 2009 at 4:33 am

Cheney as asked to smile in order to get within the dull face range.

# 23 Rupert_Bear said, on May 31st, 2009 at 5:23 am

#21 Total rubbish.
DVLA has nothing to do with vehicle ownership. If you buy a car with finance, the finance company own the car until you’ve paid up. You cannot give ownership of a car to the DVLA if you don’t actually own it yourself.

# 24 The0ne said, on May 31st, 2009 at 5:47 am

China’s involved, I just know it!

# 25 dusanmal said, on May 31st, 2009 at 6:01 am

@#, eaze: “its just a more accurate way of identifying people’s faces. it has nothing to do with civil liberties and should not be clouded with them.”

Govt. should not collect biometrics data from citizens at the point which citizens can’t avoid for normal daily lives: ex. drivers license. Such collection is what makes this civil liberty issue. I don’t mind Govt. collecting biometric photos of convicted criminals or of people in charge of extreme security sites/data/… who work for the Govt. But collecting biometrics from my drivers license photo is where it crosses the line from free society to police state.

# 26 bb said, on May 31st, 2009 at 6:50 am

No smiling in the first state. (Delaware) Also, no glasses – my driver’s license picture is the only picture of me without glasses taken in the last 50 years. Yeah, I started wearing them early.

But I wonder, I am so near-sighted and with a high astigmatism that my eye shape, size, and placement is different when viewed through the glass lenses as opposed to not. Will that invalidate the face recognition?

# 27 Patrick said, on May 31st, 2009 at 6:55 am

all your smiles are belong to us

# 28 Patrick said, on May 31st, 2009 at 6:57 am

11 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, “and only an iris scan is reliable over time.”

Umm, no. Eye damage can occur. It’s not really any better than finger print in that respect. DNA is FAR more reliable over time…

# 29 Knotta Trole said, on May 31st, 2009 at 8:48 am

“We are being governed by idiots.”

IN GENERAL, these guys are who were voted in. We get the government we deserve.

BTW this means all we have to do to avoid face recognition is go around with a sh*t eating grin all the time.

# 30 chuck said, on May 31st, 2009 at 9:20 am

We have this in Canada now – you can’t smile for passport or driver’s license photos.

Interestingly, you can insist on wearing a face-covering veil and burka if are a female Muslim. (Or if you are pretending to be one.)

# 31 geezopete said, on May 31st, 2009 at 2:16 pm

What are you people trying to hide? What are you doing that you don’t want people to be able to identify you? Do you think it would be fine for you to walk around wearing a ski mask all the time? That’s essentially what you’re asking for: “I want to be unidentifiable to the police should I commit a crime”

# 32 Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on May 31st, 2009 at 4:55 pm

#28, ummm, that’s incorrect. Iris damage is rare, otherwise it’ll never change throughout your life. Fingerprints are easily damaged, permanently and temporarily. And fingerprints are easily faked, too.

DNA is irrelevant.

#31…This subject reminds me of the RFID paranoia prevalent on this blog.

# 33 brm said, on May 31st, 2009 at 9:21 pm

#32:

“Iris damage is rare”

Can you still read the iris through a cataract? Or a colored contact lens?

dunno, just asking.

# 34 Barnaby said, on June 1st, 2009 at 4:33 am

Summary of a study on eye surgery vs iris scan accuracy:
Cataract surgeries change iris textures in such a way that iris recognition systems, which perform mathematical comparisons of textural biometric features, are able to detect these changes and sometimes even discard a pre-enrolled iris considering it an impostor. In our study, re-enrollment proved to be a feasible procedure.

…

From a biometric FAQ:

Colored contact lenses can reduce the accuracy of iris scans, as can the use of drugs that dilate your pupils.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!