9 ms·

> This was an extremely important part of the workflow we set up long ago, to ensure integrity I guess I didn't make my question clear enough which is why that

> This was an extremely important part of the workflow we set up long ago, to ensure integrity I guess I didn't make my question clear enough which is why that sort of integrity matters. Is it just in response to government legislation that has nothing to do with the usefulness of the ID, or is there some sort of measurable impact on the effectiveness of the ID if that sort of integrity is not followed? A crappy photograph with no compression artifacts is arguably a worse form of ID than a very well taken image that has compression artifacts. And with an extra layer of lamination and holographic images superimposed across the pictures, why is that allowed but discreet photo manipulation isn't? Is it just that the government doesn't fully understand technology so just knee-jerk bans all of it, or is there an actual basis for the suspicion of such things leading to bad identification?

jacquesm 9y ago
The integrity matters because anything other than that is considered a falsification. It's a legal requirement, not a technical one. Of course you could flip a LSB in some grayscale image and get away with it. But from a legal point of view you've just done something that is not allowed.
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  Thank you for answering my question. It's illegal because the law says that it's illegal, and the law doesn't really have any justification based in fact or actual use-cases, it's just legislation and legislation has a mind of its own. So this new model might lead to additional legal changes, but the main changes a customer might see is that if the government decides it was wrong and decides on another definition of "falsification" (not likely) or the government doubles down and requires an audit trail of the ID photograph from the taking of the photograph and all devices used to process the photograph.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > It's illegal because the law says that it's illegal That goes for all laws. > the law doesn't really have any justification based in fact or actual use-cases, it's just legislation and legislation has a mind of its own. No, the law is embodying many years of experience with people attempting to forge IDs. So 'tampering' with the inputs to the process is tantamount to forgery, it makes good sense and it draws the lines in an extremely clear and non-ambiguous way. Far better than to leave some vague statements open to interpretation about what manipulation is allowed and what not (fun bit: people asking the service if we can edit out their wrinkles...). > the government doubles down and requires an audit trail of the ID photograph from the taking of the photograph and all devices used to process the photograph. In some places they do this, you get a certificate of authenticity with your passport photographs that you have to hand in to the officials.

jacquesm 9y ago

The integrity matters because anything other than that is considered a falsification. It's a legal requirement, not a technical one. Of course you could flip a LSB in some grayscale image and get away with it. But from a legal point of view you've just done something that is not allowed.

jimmywanger 9y ago
Thank you for answering my question. It's illegal because the law says that it's illegal, and the law doesn't really have any justification based in fact or actual use-cases, it's just legislation and legislation has a mind of its own. So this new model might lead to additional legal changes, but the main changes a customer might see is that if the government decides it was wrong and decides on another definition of "falsification" (not likely) or the government doubles down and requires an audit trail of the ID photograph from the taking of the photograph and all devices used to process the photograph.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > It's illegal because the law says that it's illegal That goes for all laws. > the law doesn't really have any justification based in fact or actual use-cases, it's just legislation and legislation has a mind of its own. No, the law is embodying many years of experience with people attempting to forge IDs. So 'tampering' with the inputs to the process is tantamount to forgery, it makes good sense and it draws the lines in an extremely clear and non-ambiguous way. Far better than to leave some vague statements open to interpretation about what manipulation is allowed and what not (fun bit: people asking the service if we can edit out their wrinkles...). > the government doubles down and requires an audit trail of the ID photograph from the taking of the photograph and all devices used to process the photograph. In some places they do this, you get a certificate of authenticity with your passport photographs that you have to hand in to the officials.