In 2023, 27% of people who reported a fraud said they lost money, while in 2024, that figure jumped to 38%.
In a way this is odd, since you would think that we would better detect fraud attempts now. But I guess we don’t. (I’ll say why in a minute.)
Imposter scams
The second fraud category, after investment scams, was imposter scams.
The second highest reported loss amount came from imposter scams, with $2.95 billion reported lost. In 2024, consumers reported losing more money to scams where they paid with bank transfers or cryptocurrency than all other payment methods combined.
Deepfakes
I’ve spent…a long time in the business of determining who people are, and who people aren’t. While the FTC summary didn’t detail the methods of imposter scams, at least some of these may have used deepfakes to perpetuate the scam.
…technology that simulates human activity, such as software that creates deepfake videos and voice clones….They can use deepfakes and voice clones to facilitate imposter scams, extortion, and financial fraud. And that’s very much a non-exhaustive list.
The results found that four of the six products — from ElevenLabs, Speechify, PlayHT, and Lovo — did not have the technical mechanisms necessary to prevent cloning someone’s voice without their knowledge or to limit the AI cloning to only the user’s voice.
Instead, the protection was limited to a box users had to check off, confirming they had the legal right to clone the voice.
And of course the identity/biometric vendor commuity is addressing deepfakes also. Research from iProov indicates one reason why 38% of the FTC reporters lost money to fraud:
[M]ost people can’t identify deepfakes – those incredibly realistic AI-generated videos and images often designed to impersonate people. The study tested 2,000 UK and US consumers, exposing them to a series of real and deepfake content. The results are alarming: only 0.1% of participants could accurately distinguish real from fake content across all stimuli which included images and video… in a study where participants were primed to look for deepfakes. In real-world scenarios, where people are less aware, the vulnerability to deepfakes is likely even higher.
So what’s the solution? Throw more technology at the problem? Multi factor authentication (requiring the fraudster to deepfake multiple items)? Injection attack detection? Something else?
(The Cyrkle “Red Rubber Ball” 45 rpm single cover; fair use)
How should thought leadership content present its arguments?
It depends.
Thought leadership content
Let’s say that you’re a content marketing consultant creating thought leadership content for one of your clients. Furthermore, the client works with two types of rubber balls: the old-fashioned gray ones, and the new red ones.
Now let’s say the content describes moving from the old to the new rubber balls, and you list (perhaps in the manner of a sage) all the reasons why you may want to make the move.
Should your thought leadership piece also say why you may NOT want to make the move?
It depends.
Why to only discuss one point of view in a single piece of content
Perhaps the best way to attract your hungry people (target audience) is to convey a single message.
In my example, your single message may be that gray balls are so prehistoric, red balls are hot, and you should go red.
Clear. Unencumbered. Persuasive.
Why to discuss multiple points of view in a single piece of content
Alternatively, your hungry people may want to consider all the facts.
Returning to my example, your thought leadership piece may list all the reasons to switch from gray to red rubber balls, then list all the reasons why NOT to make the switch.
Now this is a REALLY sage-like move.
You could still recommend to go red, but at least your hungry people were exposed to the alternative (and ultimately rejected) view.
Did you see what I did here in this post? I could have written a straightforward post that said to only talk about one point of view. But then I chose to include this section that advocates a second point of view.
Why to discuss multiple points of view in multiple pieces of content
Why not do both? Why not write one piece with one point of view, and a second with the opposite point of view?
In my example, you would write focused pieces about “going red” and “staying gray.” Each self-contained piece is clear, unencumbered, and persuasive. Yet the totality of your thought leadership embodies the complex nuances of cases where there is no one right answer.
And there’s an added benefit for content marketing consultants who write thought leadership pieces for their clients.
If you write two pieces of content rather than one, you (may) collect two fees.
Follow the money.
Speaking of which, Bredemarket can write one or two thought leadership pieces for YOUR firm.
Well, Anthony Kimery of Biometric Update provided a…well, update. According to Thomas Shedd, who heads the GSA’s Technology Transformation Services (the organization in which the former 18F resided), we have nothing to worry about:
“‘“I can assure you that Login.gov’s work carries forward as a critical part of government-wide efforts to promote efficiency and fight fraud,’ Shedd wrote in a Monday email. ‘To that end we are working to accelerate Login’s roadmap. More to come on that soon.’”
This is a remote education post, but not an educational identity post.
I have previously discussed online test taking, and I guess the State Bar of California reads the Bredemarket blog because it decided that an online bar exam would be a great idea, since it would reduce the costs of renting large halls for test taking purposes.
“The online testing platforms repeatedly crashed before some applicants even started. Others struggled to finish and save essays, experienced screen lags and error messages and could not copy and paste text from test questions into the exam’s response field — a function officials had stated would be possible.”
No surprise, but the remote bar exam debacle was so bad that students are filing…lawsuits.
“Some students also filed a complaint Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accusing Meazure Learning, the company that administered the exam, of “failing spectacularly” and causing an “unmitigated disaster.””
As I mentioned earlier, I don’t know if Login.gov is affected by the abrupt shutdown of GSA’s 18F. Was 18F still maintaining Login.gov code, or had the Login.gov folks established their own code maintenance, independent of the now-deprecated 18F?
Perhaps we will find out Monday.
But what if 18F were still responsible for Login.gov, which therefore is nearly impossible to update or maintain?
No, Mark Cuban, DOGE will not contract with the ex-18F workers. DOGE doesn’t need them. Look at what they’ve already done with verifying identities.
IDV via SMS
For example, at the private sector company X, you cannot get a paid X Premium subscription unless you have a confirmed phone number. Because everybody knows that confirming identities via an SMS text message is a foolproof method.
“According to information provided by Google, the decision to move away from SMS verification stems from numerous security vulnerabilities associated with text message codes. These include susceptibility to phishing attacks, where users might inadvertently share codes with malicious actors, and dependence on phone carriers’ security practices, which can vary widely in effectiveness.”
“X will provide a voluntary ID verification option for certain X features to increase the overall integrity and trust on our platform. We collect this data when X Premium subscribers optionally choose to apply for an ID verified badge by verifying their identity using a government-issued ID. Once confirmed, a verified label is added to the user’s profile for transparency and potentially unlocking additional benefits associated with specific X features in the future.”
But the public sector needs IDV
Identity verification isn’t mandatory on X because some people plain do not want it. Not because they’re crooks, but because they don’t want to hand their PII over to anyone if they don’t have to.
Of course, the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration, and many other government agencies HAVE to implement identity verification from Login.gov, ID.me, or some other provider.
“For over 11 years, 18F has been proudly serving you to make government technology work better. We are non-partisan civil servants. 18F has worked on hundreds of projects, all designed to make government technology not just efficient but effective, and to save money for American taxpayers.
“However, all employees at 18F – a group that the Trump Administration GSA Technology Transformation Services Director called “the gold standard” of civic tech – were terminated today at midnight ET.”
If you are a government agency who uses Login.gov, or if you are a U.S. citizen who has a Login.gov account, I’m not sure about the future of the service.
Back in November 2023, I wrote a post that included the three letters “18F.” Specifically:
Obviously there are a number of private companies (over 80 last I counted) that provide secure access to information, but Login.gov is provided by the government itself—specifically by the General Services Administration’s Technology Transformation Services. Agencies at the federal, state, and local level can work with the GSA TTS’ “18F” organization to implement solutions such as Login.gov.
Now perhaps I’m, um, biased, but I happen to think that identity verification, whether performed by a public entity, is kinda sorta important.
This is from the executive director of the 18F, the digital services agency within the General Services Administration (GSA) that develops open-source tools to improve digital services across the federal government.
“I am the Executive Director of 18F and 18F’s longest running employee- I have been at 18F for 10 years. You may not have heard of us, but last night proved that we are powerful. The way the administration ran to get rid of us under the cover of night and shut us down without warning proves that they were scared. They are too afraid to even speak to us.”
The General Services Administration has eliminated its 18F program, an internal team of tech consultants and engineers that develops open-source tools to improve digital services across the federal government.
The announcement, which came overnight, is the latest in the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to slash the federal workforce. It was foreshadowed weeks ago when Elon Musk, who’s become a highly influential and controversial voice in the White House, tweeted that the decade-old program had been “deleted.”
At this point I am not sure how this affects future updates to Login.gov. As far as I know the service itself remains operational.
I’m a member of a local Facebook “news” group, and the group just emphatically stated that expression of opinions is NOT allowed in that group.
Because facts are free of bias. (Supposedly. I should address that topic in another post.)
Because this post includes two contentious opinions, it’s no surprise that I will NEVER share this post in that local news group. Their loss.
Actually the post is off-topic for the news group anyway. But as you will see, it is entirely on-topic for Bredemarket. I’ll explain, after I discuss a couple of songs and their singers.
Two Facts and One Opinion About “Girl from the North Country”
“Girl from the North Country” is a Bob Dylan song, which he started writing in 1962 while in England. The song was recorded in New York in 1963 and released that same year on the album “The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan.”
I care about Dylan’s cover of his own song, released several years later on the 1969 album “Nashville Skyline.” But Dylan had a special guest on this album: Johnny Cash.
Here are two facts about the 1969 version:
Bob Dylan has a distinctive voice.
Johnny Cash has a distinctive voice.
These are facts, not opinions, since I am not casting a value judgement on whether they are any good at singing. For the record, I love Bob Dylan’s solo songs, and I love Johnny Cash’s solo songs.
Now my opinion: the 1969 version of “Girl from the North Country” is an unmitigated disaster, because the distinctive voices do not blend at all.
If you’ve never heard this version of the song, let me provide a play-by-play account.
The song begins with Dylan and Cash strumming their guitars, accompanied by a backing band of Nashville stars. (Not Starrs.)
Dylan then sings the first verse, in a lower key than his original version, and the listeners were introduced to the newest version of Bob Dylan. Shed of a rock band, he has not returned to his early folk days, but appears in a new version of a peaceful, satisfied country crooner. More versions of Dylan were to follow.
Then we get the second verse, in which Johnny Cash picks up the story about the girl. Cash himself appears in a new guise, having moved beyond the Memphis rockabilly sound and the horn-infused “Ring of Fire” sound. Cash now entered a period in which he associated with people such as Dylan who were leap years away from both traditional country and the newer countrypolitan sound. Cash, like Dylan, would continue to travel all over the musical map, gaining fame at the end of his life by covering Nine Inch Nails.
Back to 1969. After Cash sings the second verse, Dylan returns to sing the third. Everything is going fine so far.
Then (again, in my opinion) all hell breaks loose at the 1:52 mark in the song, because now the two sing together.
Sort of.
Cash starts singing the fourth verse, Dylan joins in a second later, and then they kinda sorta sing the words of the fourth and fifth verses at kinda sorta the same time, with some harmonizing—some intentional, some unintentional when they couldn’t hit the notes. Hear the result on YouTube.
Now I will admit that my negative opinion of the Dylan-Cash duet on “Girl of the North Country” is not universal. A high school friend who shall remain anonymous (just call her “Editor Extraordinaire” and old school Rick Dees fan) thinks this version is charming. I find it amusing in a not-so-good way.
As far as I’m concerned, this collaboration didn’t work.
Which brings us to Christina Aguilera.
Three Facts and One Opinion About “Birds of Prey”
In 2010 Aguilera released her sixth album, “Bionic,” a massive 18-track album featuring a more electronic sound and numerous collaborations with Nicki Minaj, Sia, Linda Perry, and others.
I care about the Deluxe edition, with an even more massive total of 23 tracks.
One of which was co-written and produced by the (then) four members of the UK band Ladytron. As OC Weekly (R.I.P.) documented at the time, Aguilera was a fan of the quartet:
Ladytron followers were startled to learn that Christina Aguilera was not only a fan, but had also already worked with the band on a variety of songs to be released in the near future.
“We went in with no expectations; the whole thing was a massive surprise,” explains Wu. “But it was incredible. She was so musically talented, a vocalist who really knows her voice. The first takes sounded really amazing, and while we’d made demos, it was only when her voice was on them that it all came to life.
One of the songs was “Birds of Prey.” Not to be confused with “Bird of Prey” or “Sunset (Bird of Prey),” the Aguilera-Ladytron version builds upon the usual Ladytron vocal delivery from Helen Marine and Mira Aroyo by adding Christina Aguilera to the mix.
Which brings me to my three facts about this song:
Christina Aguilera has a distinctive voice, with a four-octave range that she frequently exercises to the fullest.
Helen Marnie has a distinctive voice, featured as the light “singing voice” of Ladytron.
Mira Aroyo has a distinctive voice, whose spoken word delivery blends with Marnie’s in many classic Ladytron songs. (For example, “Seventeen.”)
In my opinion, this vocal collaboration—unlike the Dylan-Cash one mentioned earlier—works out beautifully. Aguilera naturally opens the song (it’s her album after all), but as the song progresses you hear Marnie lightly chiming in and Aroyo whispering, building up to the closing of the song. Hear it here.
Again, this opinion is not universal—Aroyo in particular is an acquired taste—but the combination seems to work.
But what do “Girl from the North Country” and “Birds of Prey” have to do with B2B sales—whoops, I mean collaboration? And Bredemarket?
The art of collaboration
Bredemarket’s services are built upon the principle that I work together with my clients. My process includes a lot of references to “Bredemarket and you,” because we are both involved in every step, from the seven questions I address at the beginning to the iterative drafts and reviews that occur throughout.
But that isn’t the only way to manage a project, as I noted in June 2023. There are two others.
The first approach is to yield all control to the expert. You sit back, relax, and tell your content marketing consultant to do whatever they want. They provide the text, and you pay the consultant with no questions asked. The content marketing consultant is the pilot here.
The second approach is to retain all control yourself. You tell the content marketing consultant exactly what you want, and exactly what words to say to describe your best-of-breed, game-changing, paradigm-shifting, outcome-optimizing solution. (That last sentence was painful to write, but I did it for you.) The content marketing consultant follows your exact commands and produces the copy with the exact words you want. You are the pilot here.
So which of these two methods is the best way to create content?
Bredemarket 