
Artist uses a computer model of his face to get a French National ID - oska
http://www.raphaelfabre.com/#cni
======
noonespecial
To be fair, his "photo" looks a lot more like him than my passport photo looks
like me. It was taken early in the morning with an ancient camera under
fluorescent lights at a post office. I am tinted decidedly green and my eyes
look half closed. I look more like an extra on The Walking Dead than an
international traveler.

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.

~~~
jacquesm
> 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).

~~~
noonespecial
>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.

~~~
Houshalter
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.

~~~
mynewtb
A photograph is a model of reality. This 3D render is a model of reality.

------
rhblake
In Sweden an artist painted a self-portrait, took a photo of it, and used that
photo when renewing his driver's license. It was accepted. [0] The transport
agency, when told about this afterwards, had no problem with it as it was --
in that small size anyway -- indistinguishable from a normal photo (but they
discouraged others from trying the same). [1]

[0] [https://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/konst-form/konstnar-har-
sjalvp...](https://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/konst-form/konstnar-har-
sjalvportratt-som-korkortsfoto/)

[1] [https://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/konst-
form/transportstyrelsen-...](https://www.dn.se/kultur-noje/konst-
form/transportstyrelsen-bilden-ser-ut-som-vilket-foto-som-helst/)

------
jacquesm
Oh that's cool. Would be even cooler if he had embedded some obvious
artificial artifact through steganography in the image.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography)

I've been messing with the system here by sanding off my prints before
applying for a passport:

[https://jacquesmattheij.com/the-belt-sander-and-the-
battle-f...](https://jacquesmattheij.com/the-belt-sander-and-the-battle-for-
privacy-a-body-hack)

That was a fun exercise but this guy takes it to the next level.

~~~
lucb1e
I don't see an easy contact method on your website, so here goes. The 'old
people' link is dead. Archive:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20110121171058/http://www.compas...](https://web.archive.org/web/20110121171058/http://www.compassnewspaper.com/NG/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73449:inec-
machine-rejects-obasanjos-fingerprint&catid=43:news&Itemid=799)

~~~
jacquesm
Good one, thank you! I'll fix it as soon as my NAS has finished rebuilding
(waiting for days :( ).

------
andybak
Hmmmm. Without knowing the details of how the image was created it's hard to
say whether this is especially interesting or not.

For example - why would a 3D model based on high-quality photogrammetry be any
less "real" than a digital photograph.

It's just a few more stages in a processing pipeline that starts with his real
face.

If however - there was no photographic source material - either for geometry
or textures - then it becomes much more interesting.

I suspect it's actually somewhere between the two and therefore mildly
interesting but not incredibly profound.

~~~
jacquesm
> For example - why would a 3D model based on high-quality photogrammetry be
> any less "real" than a digital photograph.

Because it isn't. It shows that you can get a digital ID based on the
photograph of an entity that technically never existed, it's a texture map
around human shaped blank, not a photograph of a human. You can bet that to
the authorities this is a real problem.

~~~
nine_k
It is not. Photo quality is low a anyway.

What's important is a controlled _process_ that attaches this photo to a hard-
to-forge token, such as a passport or other identity document. It confirms
that some designated clerk looked at the photo and at the person, and also at
other documents confirming the identity of that person, and maybe asked
questions to make sure the person is who (s)he alleges to be.

That photo is for reference only, and is worth next to nothing without the
identity verification process above.

~~~
jacquesm
You're talking to the guy that pioneered digital photos used for
identification purposes in 1985 (Goodsports, Alphabet BV, Amsterdam).

I think I know a thing or two about the processes involved to get a pass on
being allowed to use digital imagery as proof of identity, the one thing that
everybody involved from the official side was quite clear on was that _any_
kind of tampering with the image content was absolutely forbidden.

So I would expect this piece of art to have some far reaching consequences.

~~~
jimmywanger
There's de-facto and de-jure.

Any tampering is forbidden right? Even the transposition of a pixel is
forbidden - it's technically illegal, but as long as it doesn't make a
difference then I don't think anybody is going to care - so what if this pixel
is cyan in this picture and turquoise in the other.

When things are really going to hit the fan is if you are able to have a
digitally altered picture that passes the eye test for visual verification but
is useless somehow for facial recognition algorithms (altered facial
proportions, etc etc). That's a big if, because I don't know much about facial
recognition technologies, I'd suspect they're born from machine learning
technologies based for human curated results.

~~~
jacquesm
Yes, this is correct. And that's exactly what this opens the door to. I
suspect this will lead to some changes in the law regarding what route an
image should take to be acceptable. It's been converging on this for a long
time with ever more strict rules about what can and can not be in the picture.
The list of requirements is quite long. It's a small step from there to having
the passport office make the photograph.

~~~
jimmywanger
> Yes, this is correct. And that's exactly what this opens the door to.

I don't quite understand what you mean. I get that it's technically illegal to
swap pixels, but I don't think anybody can tell/would care if that happened.
Only if a digitally altered picture can pass both a visual clerk test and
facial recognition software will this be considered a problem.

Also, everything is still pointing towards having the passport office make the
photograph. Right now post offices do have picture taking facilities - I think
that if you just prevented people from taking their own to the post office, or
made them take the picture at a place that never let you take possession of
the photograph, that would be roughly equivalent. Hardly anybody takes a
passport pic at home now, in my experience.

~~~
jacquesm
> I get that it's technically illegal to swap pixels, but I don't think
> anybody can tell/would care if that happened.

This was an extremely important part of the workflow we set up long ago, to
ensure integrity. Even compression artifacts were 'out', this posed some very
interesting challenges in controlling the laser printers available at the time
to output grayshades (which they really did not want to do), early attempts at
dithering did not meet the required standards.

> Hardly anybody takes a passport pic at home now, in my experience.

Interestingly enough, my partner at the company that I worked for in the 80's
(and who is technically retired) has just started up a new company to make
those pictures with your smartphone.

[http://www.photo4id.com/](http://www.photo4id.com/)

~~~
jimmywanger
> 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
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
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
> 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.

------
adrianmonk
To me, this is really not that weird. Law enforcement can put up "wanted"
posters based on an artist's sketch. So there is already a way that
governments rely on a synthetic image for identification purposes.

Of course that is only for preliminary identification, but then this is a more
accurate representation than a sketch.

~~~
roywiggins
A photorealistic color painting might be just as good for identification
purposes as a photograph, though it might be easier to tell it was done by
hand. As long as it looks "like you" (according to other fallible humans!)
then it does its job.

------
ipsin
Now we just need a scare story about how two similar-looking men could get a
single passport using an "averaged digital composition".

[To bypass a no-fly list, for example]

~~~
nine_k
A friend of a friend told me about identical twins that sometimes swapped
identities and documents, to circumvent some bureaucratic hurdles.

~~~
programLyrique
I actually know identical twins that do that... Seems quite common. One
managed to board a plane with the ID card of the other one for instance.

------
morganvachon
This is a perfect example of the uncanny valley for anyone not familiar with
the concept. It's _just_ beyond the threshold enough to make the viewer feel
as if something's off.

~~~
jacquesm
I can't tell. And I _used_ to be pretty good at spotting fake stills but this
is beyond my ability to discern, what specifically makes you feel 'something's
off'?

~~~
morganvachon
The eyes look dead, the hair is obviously fake, and blur seems to be used to
soften the wrong parts. It is very close though.

I showed it to my wife with no context, and she immediately asked if it was a
still from a new video game.

------
mbrookes
What people seem to be missing is that this _is_ a photograph. It just happens
to be wrapped on a 3D model.

~~~
lucb1e
Is it? I thought the newsworthiness was that he re-made it. Otherwise, indeed,
it is(/would be) just a picture.

Edit: this comment makes a pretty good point regarding that
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14576962](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14576962)

~~~
mbrookes
> Is it?

Yes - photos of the face will have been used as texture and bump maps.

------
evanb
Is there no confirmation under penalty of perjury that the image provided was
a photograph (and not just a likeness)? Or, is it as he claims, satisfactory
according to the requisite standards?

"Artist uses a blog post to provide evidence of government falsifying
documents."

~~~
djsumdog
Well he lists the French legal requirements on the post and he seems to match
all the criteria.

~~~
throwaway_photo
The criteria (online at [https://www.service-
public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F10619](https://www.service-
public.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F10619)) talk explicitly about photos. They
also say it has to be taken by a professional or in a photo booth certified by
the government. IANAL, but I wouldn't build on that defense.

------
avenoir
I think this is the first time when I almost thought that this is a photograph
not 3D model. The facial features are almost life-like, but then you look up
and look at the hair line and you realize what you're looking at. Still mind-
blowing, at least to me, how close we are to modeling 3D models of humans
indistinguishable from real-life.

------
tyingq
The US passport system has you bring in your own photos as well. I wonder if
the various law enforcement facial recognition databases account for the
potential of people altering photos...changing the distance between eyes,
nose, etc. Of course, end users can't alter mug shots.

~~~
cm2187
The problem is that if you do that, you won't be able to use the epassport
gates. Not that they are very efficients, but perhaps one day they will be.

~~~
natdempk
Maybe this is a feature rather than a bug. Hypothetically you could create a
representation of yourself that works for humans to recognize you, but not for
facial recognition systems.

~~~
lucb1e
I tried that, to fool the bus' facial recognition system (they want to keep
known assholes out, or at least that's currently the intended purpose (or at
least that's what they say)), but you need to go really far before most
algorithms don't recognize your face as a face anymore.

------
throwaway321373
This is too boring. Out here in 'radical' India, we have Aadhar 'unique ID'
(tm) for such diverse specimens as trees and cows (and fully equipped with
biometrics like fingerprints and Iris).

I wish this was a '/s' but really it's true!

------
extr
As a complete aside, google translate is incredible. Until I started reading
the same thing again, I didn't even realize the page was french. And even
then, I thought the second section was the translation, not the first!

