It's a lot of "fun" trying to get acceptable photos. Last week I went to my local American Automobile Association (AAA) office to get an International Driver's Permit (IDP). It's just a translation of your license, which is valid for 1 year. I had to take 2 passport-sized photos with me, which I did.
But I was told they wouldn't be accepted because I had long hair and a beard in them, but short hair and no beard now. That's absurd, because it's the same photo used in both of my passports, and there's no requirement that you don't alter your appearance from your passport photo. Somehow border guards can crack the code.
Amusingly, my California driver's license shows short hair and no beard, but the AAA person wasn't even looking at my CA license at the time. What happens if I grow long hair and a beard before I travel? Was he just trying to upsell me on a $9.99 photo?
We had a hell of a time getting the UK passport authorities to accept the photos we sent in for her passport; they recommend getting your photos taken at an "official" UK location where the digital photos are identified by a code you send in. Well, we happened to be traveling through Australia during this timeframe, so we were able to stop at an Australian Post Office, which supposedly had the same "digital" system, but instead of a code to send to the UK authorities, they handed us printed photos and a web link. Thankfully I was able to use the web link to download the photo and upload it to the UK site, where it was approved almost immediately, and the new passport arrived back at our home before we returned from our trip. But there's no user-obvious criteria that was being used to reject the SEVERAL rounds of photos we had sent to the UK earlier.
A lot of companies seem to have "policies" that are grounded in nothing. Airlines are especially bad about this, thinking they know better than you whether you'll be able to get through immigration at the destination. For whatever reason, airline policies about whether you can get on the plane are completely unrelated to the destination countries' policies about whether you can be allowed in.
The most egregious such policy that comes to mind was when Philippine Airlines refused to give me a boarding pass for a flight to China unless I filled out a health declaration form that was guaranteed to expire before my flight arrived.
There was of course no obstacle to me filling out (a new copy of) the form on arrival in China. As was necessarily the case, given that the pre-flight declaration expired during the flight.
I think the rationale behind this is that many countries will fine the airline around $10,000 for each passenger that doesn't have the right immigration documentation and has to be deported. So there is a reason they err on the side of caution for them at the expense of making your life harder
> A lot of companies seem to have "policies" that are grounded in nothing.
A lot of this comes down to people not wanting to stick their head out to change process and groupthink.
I witnessed an individual in a “worker bee” capacity trying to suggest a small-but-significant change on a client-facing first-contact form. They went through their CoC to get the message out, but got the “that’s nice, dear” treatment.
Said “worker bee” moved into a different department some time later, and all of a sudden, it was such a great idea that no one had thought about.
These kind of policies are usually grounded by the one dickhead who tried to do something completely stupid that they never anticipated, now they have to have a policy for it.
> These kind of policies are usually grounded by the one dickhead who tried to do something completely stupid that they never anticipated, now they have to have a policy for it.
How do you think that could create a policy of "before boarding the plane, you must fill out some invalid paperwork which will be available, and valid, after you disembark"? There is literally zero consequence for not doing it, and also literally zero benefit for doing it.
Public service message: in many countries, the IDP, International Driving Permit, is not needed.
Since it is only a translation, it carries no official weight.
Many countries that use the Latin alphabet only need a translation of the drivers license (ie IDP) if the alphabet on the driver’s license is not Latin.
Check online before you travel.
This can save you a trip to the AAA, a few bucks, and an encounter with a clerk who questions the validity of your beard.
As an example, Australia wants one. I can't remember if Geneva or Vienna type or both. Last time I've been there was 2019 and my country uses the Latin alphabet too (it was invented here.) The official document is the country's of origin driving license but basically owning a valid IDP states that your country and the destination country are signatories of one of those two conventions and agree to let their own citizens drive in both countries with no need of further tests.
Some countries recognize some foreign driving licenses, at least for a while, without the need of the IDP. The USA is one of them but it has been a long time since I drove a car there so it could have changed or be regulated state by state and not at federal level. The USA is a signatory of the 1949 Geneva convention.
Yeah; I'm a USian, and this one is for Japan which "requires" it. I also got one for Italy a bunch of years ago, as I was told the car rental agencies would not rent me a car without one.
Otherwise I've never bothered, and I've rented cars in a half dozen countries in Europe, Australia, NZ....
Yeah, the criteria is clear, but do everything you can to meet it, and the online submission will just say the photo quality is "poor" (unlikely to be approved) and not explain what's poor about it. I spent a lot of time juggling aspects of the photo itself as well as of the scan (DPI, compression, etc) and nothing seemed to make a difference.
My prior passport photo was taken with the Irish Passport office's manual "send in photos and someone decides if it's good enough" process they had at the time. As I always wore glasses, I wore them in my photo too, which given they didn't obscure the face, the manual check indicated they were fine.
For my latest renewal, they've moved to an app based process which just flat out rejects any with my glasses on because the prescription is so strong it distorts the outline of my face (at least that's my best guess, as the app claims compatibility with glasses.
Anyway, since renewing the passport to one without glasses in my passport photo, I've found I much more frequently get rejected at automated passport gates, often needing to take my glasses off so I match the passport photo better.
Really they should probably do three photos minimum, looking 45 deg right, then left, then straight on, they could add a with/without glasses (or anything else you'd normally wear, facial jewelry perhaps).
In my recent experience renewing my UK passport, I found I was able to submit the image regardless of the complaining it gave, I just had to write a note as to why I thought the image did in fact meet their criteria.
In my case, whatever detection software they used seemed to think my eyes were closed, which they were not.
I just used a normal picture taken on a phone, against a plain white wall, accepted with no issues.
Geneva Convention which established IDPs in the post-war period ran parallel to measures implemented under the Marshall Plan. The regulation of road signs and establishing protocols for uniformity within the EU and 101 member states involved in its ratification paved the way for the re industrialization of the EU.
I made my passport photos on a phone camera against a white wall, stitched them together with other family members and printed them on a 4x6 photo at CVS.
I think it cost something like $0.68 for 2 photos, each of which had all four of our photos plus 2 extra spots.
It's been awhile, but probably my mistake was scanning an actual high quality passport photo with a flatbed scanner rather than just halfassing it with a phone camera, since that seems to have worked so much better for everyone here!
Vietnam famously doesn't. You can rent a motorbike without showing any sort of license, but in the most touristic areas (eg Ha Giang loop) the police picks out foreigners to check and get their bribe.
And I have a vague remembrance (take with a whole rock of salt) that foreigners from many countries technically _cannot_ legally drive there even with an IDP, because there's 2 competing IDP standards or something like that. But I'd guess you'd be fine
Yeah, the actual law is irrelevant most of the time, since it's just a shakedown. I did encounter one cop who knew about the 2 different IDP conventions and was able to extract the coffee money even if you had one. If you don't want to pay, offering to accompany them to the station to pay there (and get a receipt) usually works, especially if you're out in the countryside, since they don't want to give up on the chance to stop a bunch of other people. If you do choose to pay, they'll usually share your license plate on a WhatsApp group with the other local police if you ask them to, so you won't get hassled again for the rest of the day.
Not sure why but I'm quite tickled by the existence of WhatsApp groups to coordinate who's paid their bribe for the day. I think it's the thought of breaking the law being done in an orderly way.
> but instead of a code to send to the UK authorities, they handed us printed photos and a web link.
I had a similar experience with getting UK photos at a chemist, they said they could do digital photos and didn’t. So I went to the Photo Warehouse and it was smooth sailing. I guess the specialist photo outfits are more likely to know what they’re doing.
Huh. Last time I got an IDP from AAA, I don't think the lady behind the desk even really looked at the photo. She just took my $20, copied the info from my app to my permit, stapled one of the photos to the permit, and handed it to me. It was like less than three minutes total.
It doesn’t feel like a scam. It IS a scam. You were able to get a 3 year valid one but now they reduced it to 1 year. If my permit is valid for 10 years, so should the IDP. But then it’d cost x10 if they were to keep the same profit. So suddenly asking for close to $200 will feel outrageous. Just shows how corruption can be worse than a monetary loss.
You don't even need it most of the time. Almost every country will just accept a driver's license from most other countries as long as it's fairly standard and has a section in English. I've driven in dozens of countries with my local driver's license.
Yeah, I don't bother any more, but it has happened a couple of times to me in Europe that a rental car company asked for it and then refused to rent without it. In both cases I just walked over to a different company's desk and they didn't ask.
Unfortunately I don’t live in the country my license was issued in, so until I get a local license (which takes some time) I don’t have much choice, since the alternative is flying half way around the world to get an IDP. The whole system is a bit flawed.
There are some websites that will issue a translation of your license that looks very similar to the "official" IDP. Depending on where you're going it might be sufficient. (Generally works fine for avoiding police "coffee money" shakedowns in Southeast Asia, for example.)
> But I was told they wouldn't be accepted because
yeah, and I would have expected nothing less. from my personal experience, the photos were required to be recent. just based on your having visited a barber would signal to me that the photos were not recent. even if you visited the barber while you waited for the 1-Hour Photo guy to finish, a logical person would realize this was not going to work out well
The criteria says "Two original passport pictures" ; it does not say "recent".
Regardless, the photos are recent (<1yr) and my driver's license has a 5 year validity and passports 10 year validity. As an illogical person, I sometimes change my appearance over a given 10 year span.
When I renew my US passport by mail, they don't actually know what I look like at the time of the renewal.
IDP's are only valid for a short period of time. I suspect that money-grubbing may play a role, but the purpose of them is to let you identify yourself to police in a language (especially an alphabet) you don't speak. So perhaps it's something that clerk had heard some horror story about and was giving good advice.
Yes, I suspect the 1 year validity of the IDP plays a part here. The gentleman who said my photo wouldn't be accepted was front desk (and, apparently, photo-taking) staff; he wasn't even the person creating the IDP. I agree with you that I suspect he was trying to be helpful.
$9 isn't worth being detained while on an international trip in a place where the police don't speak your language because they don't believe your photo is you. Actually, it's less expensive than the last set of passport photos I had made, so maybe I'll just go to AAA next time.
comparing the validity of existing documents is moving the goal posts and pretty dishonest to the conversation.
you're applying for a new passport. to be shocked that at a minimum the pictures would look like you at the time of the application is pretty...I don't even know what word to use here. there's a way to make dealing with gov't agencies simple and as painless as possible, and then there's this.
The point that identity photos often look different from the person being identified isn't remotely dishonest to the conversation. It's the entire point, in fact: Does this actual human person look like this person depicted in this photo? That's why I bought up the passport photo situation to compare it to.
If you'll re-read more closely, you'll see that I was not applying for a new passport. I also wasn't working with a government agency.
By the way, it was simple and painless. I was told to bring photos if I had them; otherwise they could be done on-site for $9.99. I opened up my desk drawer on my way out of the house, and I happened to have photos. So I brought photos. I was told they were not acceptable, so I accepted the offer of an on-site photo, which took about 90 seconds, paid my fee, and went on my way. There was nothing difficult about it. I would not have saved myself any hassle had I left the photos in my drawer.
It's unclear to me why you have gone out of your way to misunderstand or misinterpret the situation, other than in a misguided attempt to be antagonistic, but it's not working.
> It's unclear to me why you have gone out of your way to misunderstand or misinterpret the situation
It's the internet. Even HN isn't immune to the Eternal September.
I still think Reddit is useful, sometimes, and I've got karma to burn for years, so I find it hilarious when my comments get downvoted into hell over some trivial issues. Since I don't care about imaginary internet points except to make sure that people can read what I post (I don't want to fall into the well of negativity on that), I don't delete the ones that get buried.
That poster you replied to is doing the kind of crap you see on the Reddit front page subs. They're almost all trash. You get upvoted for hivemind, you get downvoted for going against the grain. Regardless of the merit of the comment.
Hell, I've been downvoted here for my very milquetoast comment that maybe the clerk was trying to help you keep out of trouble in a country where you really need an IDP (different alphabet, e.g.). You can't downvote before you have a bunch of points here, and I almost never do - if you're wrong I'll try to help you fix it, and if it's just a disagreement then... that's life? You pretty much have to explicitly be an unprovoked major asshole or advocate straight-up genocide to make me downvote you.
So I actually shave my beard every time I get a haircut (so, let's say every 8 weeks).
What does 'recent' mean, since you have already acknowledged that temporal recency is irrelevant? When am I traveling? What's accurate to my current appearance? What if I started a cancer treatment that renders me unable to grow a beard?
Your flippant reply ignores reality, and these aren't even edge cases.
If you are applying for a new passport where you are needing these photos, the common sense logic from the person accepting/rejecting them would be do the photos look like the person in front of them. No? Reject. Yes? Accept. The flow chart is pretty simple.
The frequency of your grooming habits AFTER receiving a passport are irrelevant to the actual approval of a passport. This doesn't need to be hard.
> do the photos look like the person in front of them
To what ridiculous extent do you take that, though? You must be wearing the same clothes? You must be made-up in the exact same way? I think it's pretty clear that the test should be "is it obvious that the person in the photo is the same as the person in front of you" and somebody with a beard does look like themself, even when they shave that beard.
Of course, this raises other interesting questions: is it OK for you to use a photo of your identical twin?
But I was told they wouldn't be accepted because I had long hair and a beard in them, but short hair and no beard now. That's absurd, because it's the same photo used in both of my passports, and there's no requirement that you don't alter your appearance from your passport photo. Somehow border guards can crack the code.
Amusingly, my California driver's license shows short hair and no beard, but the AAA person wasn't even looking at my CA license at the time. What happens if I grow long hair and a beard before I travel? Was he just trying to upsell me on a $9.99 photo?
We had a hell of a time getting the UK passport authorities to accept the photos we sent in for her passport; they recommend getting your photos taken at an "official" UK location where the digital photos are identified by a code you send in. Well, we happened to be traveling through Australia during this timeframe, so we were able to stop at an Australian Post Office, which supposedly had the same "digital" system, but instead of a code to send to the UK authorities, they handed us printed photos and a web link. Thankfully I was able to use the web link to download the photo and upload it to the UK site, where it was approved almost immediately, and the new passport arrived back at our home before we returned from our trip. But there's no user-obvious criteria that was being used to reject the SEVERAL rounds of photos we had sent to the UK earlier.