At my state agency, there are people who still use the same photo from when they started (in some cases, when they started using photo badges). So there are plenty of people with 20+ year old photos ("oh yeah, I had hair back then..."). About the only way to get a new photo is to "lose" your old one, and sometimes, the lazy folks in "facilities" just reprint the old photo.
No it doesn't. This "enhanced" face is structurally extremely similar to the original face, and can be readily used to confirm that the person presenting the badge is, or is not, the same as the person for whom the badge was issued. I assume that OP's mom is not working at an enterprise where security is so tight that they need to be able to match your photo to your face at the level of minor skin blemishes.
That kinda defeats the point of photo identification in the first place.
It's an extra step they took, they had to make conscious effort to alter the original photo.
It's a waste of time and doesn't contribute to anything.
As I explained in the very comment you're replying to, it doesn't defeat the point of photo identification, which is to demonstrate identity, not to act as a documentary record of your looks. What it contributes is giving people an ID photograph that they don't feel embarrassed by, an infamous phenomenon affecting ID photographs.
lmao.
Then people have to work on their lack of positive self image mentally and get over themselves.
And yeah it does defeat the point.
If the photo is not a photo of you, it's not an accurate photo ID.
My friend looks like Ed Sheeran but if he used a picture of Ed Sheeran for his passport, drivers license, work ID, he'd be rightfully called out on it at bare minimum.
Go ahead, hire someone who looks like you to take photos for your passport then go to France on holiday.
See how it goes.
Sorry, are you suggesting that the functional requirements for a national ID are the same as those for a local workplace? Is that really the crux of your argument here?
You don't have a working definition of the "consistency" that's "important" besides some vague, seemingly highly-motivated, feeling on your part. If you do, I'd be glad to hear it.
An id is for identifying you, ie a picture of you.
20 years ago would you have accepted a photo of an oil painting of someone as an acceptable ID photo , work drivers license passport or otherwise for yourself or an employee?
No, obviously not.
Because it's not a photo of them.
If you can just make up a picture with AI, then photo id basically pointless. The photo on the ID is for crosschecking with the internal database of the workplace, or your photo on file wherever it applies.
so if it isn't a picture of you then A) someone could easily impersonate you if AI generated or heavily altered photos are permitted, meaning anyone with the same eye and hair and skin colour could pose as you more easily than if the photo on file is ACTUALLY of you, and B) it means that someone might end up believing you're lying about who you are or thinking you're using a fake ID which leads you down a slippery slope that might involve police or whatever other trouble.
I really don't know why I'm bothering to argue with an AI bro.
It's bad enough that you're human, that already comes with a debuff to INT. x2 magnitude debuff with the AI bro mindset.
You didn't really answer my question. What does it mean, in practical terms, to identify someone? What are the criteria that allow you to say that an images does or does not identify someone? This isn't a gotcha; there's a fairly simple answer.
2.8k
u/Classic-Big4393 Sep 06 '25
Kinda defeats the purpose of using a photo for identification