When You Don’t Use Voter ID, Don’t Use Signatures

I’ve previously commented that the precinct workers in voter ID states have neither the knowledge nor the equipment to tell a fake voter ID from a real one.

But what if you rely on things other than voter ID to determine identity?

This goodie came from a thread from cherielynn89.

“My vote didn’t count against prop 50 because my signature didn’t match ? I voted in person !! With ID that no one asked for !! Make it make sense !! I’m sure I’m not the only vote they didn’t count !!”

So my state of California, which does not require voter ID, uses signature verification. If you view cherielynn69’s original thread, you will see a letter from the Butte County Clerk-Recorder stating “signature does not match.”

I’d like to know who made that determination, and what training they had.

As it turns out, I have never discussed signatures as a biometric in detail. But the Biometrics Institute has, distinguishing between static and dynamic signatures. You obtain more information with the latter:

“The physical actions involved in writing a signature are captured, usually on a screen sensitive device like a tablet, and recorded electronically. Consequently different characteristics are used rather than just those found in the image of the signature. This involves a three dimensional (X, Y & Z axes) evaluation of the time taken, rhythm and varying velocities of forming each letter and the overall signature, pen/stylus pressure and the direction of the strokes, including free strokes, for example crossing a ‘T’ or dotting an ‘I’.”

Which is nice…except that when comparing the signature on a mail-in ballot to the signature on a voter roll, only static signature comparison is available.

And static signatures are not all that accurate.

In 1971, publisher McGraw-Hill scored the rights to Howard Hughes’ life story, accompanied by a letter from Howard Hughes affirming that he had authorized writer Clifford Irving to act on Hughes’ behalf. Experts from McGraw-Hill examined the letter and concluded that Hughes could have written it…until those troublesome postal inspectors noticed something. While the writing in the Hughes letter differed from Irving’s own writing, the two shared telltale similarities.

Because while it’s hard to change your face, and very hard to change your finger, it’s much easier to change your signature. But not easy enough, as the postal inspectors showed.

So I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t rely on signatures as proof of identity.

The California Privacy Folks Have Executed a Cool Rebrand

I previously discussed the alphabet soup that infests California privacy efforts.

“Before launching into these regulatory changes, remember that the CCPA is the California Consumer Privacy Act, while the CPPA is the California Privacy Protection Agency. (There’s also a CPRA, the California Privacy Rights Act.)”

Well, one of the entities, the agency (CPPA), is trying to extricate itself and differentiate and be cool and stuff.

“The California Privacy Protection Agency has chosen the new public-facing name of CalPrivacy. The name underscores the agency’s commitment to operationalizing privacy rights and delivering clear, consumer-friendly guidance to all Californians.”

Like…cool.

John Lennon the Blogger

Some of you have heard of Dave Winer, who started Scripting News…when?

“Scripting News was started in 1997, by me, Dave Winer. 

“Or 1994 or 1996 or whenever you think it actually started. 

“I wrote my first blog posts in 1994, that’s for sure.”

Because of his early interest in immediate and direct sharing of information without intermediaries, Winer is considered as one of the first bloggers. And he has undeniable longevity, still publishing today.

But there is a blogger that preceded Winer, Justin Hall, Jorn Barger, Peter Merholz, and others. 

Going off on a tangent

And me. 

For the record, I didn’t write my first blog post until October 14, 2003.

“Why did synthetica start with fake bluegrass sounds? Why not? This is the Ontario Empoblog, or the blog for Ontario Emperor, which has nothing and everything to do with Canada, New Mexico, and Texas, but also California, which is a location in California. It exists in cyberspace, which is also synthetic.

“The Ontario Empoblog may or may not touch on a variety of subjects, including music, poetry, poker, the supposed familial relationship between Brian Eno and Slim Whitman, the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop (1,121 – I checked), various comments about frogs, and the nature of nature.”

So back then I discussed synthetic music and frogs. Today I discuss synthetic identities and wildebeests. Not much has changed.

What were we talking about?

Back to the first blogger

Oh yeah, the first blogger, predating everyone else by decades.

And blogging on a physical medium, seven inch wide circles of vinyl.

Because I maintain that the first blogger was John Lennon.

Although he didn’t start out that way.

Early Lennon couldn’t “blog”

When Lennon and his band signed a recording contract with a subsidiary of EMI in 1962, the four of them became cogs in a monstrous machine. 

They had to report to EMI’s studio, record for an EMI producer, and were almost forced to record someone else’s songs. After they recorded multiple takes (some with a session drummer), their first EMI recording was processed through the EMI sausage system and released in the UK. (EMI’s U.S. subsidiary didn’t want it.)

The September 4, 1962 recording of “Love Me Do” (with Ringo Starr drumming) was released as a single about a month later, on October 5, 1962. 

September 4 version. Andy White would come later.

(Most subsequent releases of the song used the September 11 version with Andy White drumming.)

Of course, some later Beatles releases took longer than a month to travel from the studio to the record shops. For example, “When I’m Sixty-Four” was recorded on December 6, 20, and 21, 1966, but was not released on record until May 26, 1967 (in the U.K.; June 2 in the U.S.).

But the times, they were a’changing.

Later Lennon “blogging”

Within the year, the Beatles would have their own record label. Apple was still distributed by EMI, but the Beatles now had more control over the process, especially for their solo releases.

And John Lennon had things he wanted to say…now.

His first chance to practice immediacy was on a song formally credited to The Beatles, but actually recorded by Lennon with Paul McCartney’s help on piano, bass, and drums. Lennon and Yoko Ono married in March 1969. Lennon (with McCartney) recorded “The Ballad of John and Yoko” on April 14, and Apple released it on May 30. Quickly.

“In his biography, McCartney states that Lennon had a sudden inspiration for the song and had suggested that the two of them should record it immediately, without waiting for the other Beatles to return.”

Then Lennon turned to his solo career, which up to this point had consisted of two solo albums with Yoko Ono. Now Lennon started releasing singles.

  • On June 1, 1969, Lennon recorded “Give Peace a Chance” in Montreal and released it in the U.K. on July 4.
  • “Cold Turkey” was recorded September 30 and released October 20.
  • “Instant Karma!” lived up to its name: recorded January 27, 1970 and released February 6. Even with Phil Spector producing.
A mostly-mimed “Top of the Pops” performance.

Lennon subsequently re-focused on albums rather than singles and didn’t release songs as quickly. But those four singles achieved Lennon’s goal of getting something out quickly.

Like a blogger.

Google Gemini. This is not real.

Lennon died before technology allowed musicians (or pirates) to post music files directly on the World Wide Web for immediate download. You can, um, imagine what Lennon could have done if those capabilities had existed in 1969.

Or in 1962.

June 1962, when Ringo Starr was still playing at Butlins with Rory Storm.

“Love Me Do,” Pete Best version.

Your Thoughts on Gary Kroeger’s Spectrum

Gary Kroeger has written a Substack post entitled “The Spectrum Policy.”

His primary thesis:

“‘Spectrum Thinking’…is the opposite of ‘Binary Thinking’ which forces thought into a binary option only; ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ ‘right’ or ‘wrong,’ ‘Unknown equals threat.’”

Kroeger does not argue that we abandon binary thinking altogether. Instead he asserts that we have prioritized binary thinking and that we need to strive “an equal counterbalance” between binary and spectrum thinking.

“Binary thinking is not a lack of gray matter or even education, but is a way that human beings adapt to ever-changing, evolving, myriad complexities of existence. It is a way to protect ourselves. There are, however, disastrous downsides when there is not an equal and opposite counterbalance…”

Read Kroeger’s entire piece on Substack:

https://open.substack.com/pub/gary261401/p/the-spectrum-policy

Incidentally, I resisted the temptation to begin this with the statement “Yeah, THAT Gary Kroeger” because (1) it’s irrelevant to his argument, and (2) many readers are too young to know who THAT Gary Kroeger is anyway.

Who is Signing That Docusign Document?

Many of us have been using Docusign for years to electronically sign documents. But how does Docusign know that the person applying John Bredehoft’s signature is really John Bredehoft?

Enter Docusign’s implementation of Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2).

As reported by Biometric Update, Docusign published a November 6 post outlining how Docusign has incorporated identity verification technology into its document workflows.

“The Docusign ID Verification for IAL2 Compliance workflow is easy to add to workflows within eSignature and Maestro, part of the Docusign Intelligent Agreement Management (IAM) platform. 

“Before a recipient can access an agreement, they will be required to verify their identity using their existing ID.me or CLEAR account. If needed, they can create a free account with either provider from within the same Docusign workflow. Once verified, they can securely sign and complete their agreement, all in a single, seamless experience.”

So Docusign has integrated with proven IAL2 vendors. See the Kantara Initiative trust status list of certified full service providers, which includes both CLEAR and ID.me for IAL2 and AAL2 (Authenticator Assurance Level 2).

But I have one teeny quibble with whoever writes Docusign’s headlines. The November 6 announcement was entitled “Identity Verification at the Highest Level: Docusign ID Verification for IAL2 Compliance.”

From the Docusign blog, November 6.

As you and I well know, IAL3 (rather than IAL2) is the highest level of identity verification.

But Docusign isn’t ready to jump to THAT level of identity verification…yet.

When Fraud Is Too Obvious, the TSA Edition

On Tuesday I will write about a way to combat document signature fraud, but today I will focus on extremely obvious fraudulent activity.

You probably haven’t tried to alter your appearance before going through an airport security checkpoint, but it’s hard to pull off.

Um…no.

The most obvious preventive measure is that airport security uses multi factor authentication. Even if the woman in the video encountered a dumb Transportation Security Administration (TSA) expert who thought she truly was Richard Nixon, the driver’s license “Nixon” presented would fail a security check.

But not all fraud is this easy to detect. Not for job applicants, not for travelers.

Introducing Bredemarket’s Services, Process, and Pricing All Over the Series of Tubes

I confess that I love my promotional videos. After all, someone has to.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, my current super-sweet saccharine crush is “Bredemarket: Services, Process, and Pricing,” originally shared here on the Bredemarket blog last Wednesday.

= = reel

Bredemarket: Services, Process, and Pricing.

But I’m forced to admit that there are billions of people who never read the Bredemarket blog, and therefore will never see this post or the original one. Their loss. Thank you to those of you who do stop by; it’s appreciated.

But I can catch a few of them by sharing my video on other social platforms.

If you want to lose 15 minutes of your life, redundantly watch all of them.

So here’s my ask, if you are so inclined. Share this video with your friends on one of the platforms to help me get the word out about how Bredemarket can help technology marketing leaders…um, get the word out.

Or share the direct WordPress video link instead: https://bredemarket.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/cftm-serviceprocesspricing-2511a.mp4. Helps with the analytics.

And even if you’d prefer not to share, thank you for watching.

Postscript for those of you unfamiliar with Ted Stevens’ phrase “series of tubes”: watch this video. https://youtu.be/mHpA4dkP1j8?si=gm-3StEgFVBZTyM7

The Department of War Brand…Guides

I’ve never written a formal brand guide for Bredemarket, but I probably should. Not that outside agencies are citing the Bredemarket brand or the proper use of a wildebeest, but I probably should provide helpful consistency hints. (No “Brede Market,” people.)

But larger organizations obviously have brand guides and enforce them.

Including the United States Department of War.

Note that I said Department of War, not the Department of Defense. There is an official “DOW Brand Guide” posted on the Department of War website. And as we’ll see in a minute, it’s important to note that this is on the Department’s website.

The DOW Brand Guide and Mission Statement

A government agency needs to brand just like private agencies. Here are the opening overview of the DOW Brand Guide:

The Department of War Brand Guide was developed to ensure a shared visual experience that reinforces DOW’s identity and core priorities.

The foundation of the department’s brand is the DOW Mission Statement:

The Department of War provides the military forces needed to deter war and ensure our nation’s security.

Without getting into the politics and showmanship of the whole thing, let’s note that the Department has a critical need to communicate its mission. And that’s what it has done here.

Use of Name

I’m not going to cover the entire DOW Brand Guide, which is like any other brand guide with logos and colors and stuff. The picture illustrating this post is the “dark stacked” logo.

But considering the background of the Deparrtment renaming, I do want to concentrate on the name itself, from the “Use of Name” section of the DOW Brand Guide.

In Executive Order 14347, issued Sept. 5, 2025, President Donald J. Trump directed the U.S. Department of Defense “be known as the Department of War,” a secondary title for this cabinet-level department. The order permits the use of this secondary title for official correspondence, public communications and ceremonial contexts within the executive branch.

How many of you caught a particular word that was repeated in that paragraph? The word that caught my eye is “secondary.” So for all this ballyhoo, apparently we can still use the D-word “Defense.” In fact, if you look at the tags to this post, I continue to use the tag “department of defense.” I may have to change it later. The people in the Department have guns and can be very persuasive. More persuasive than the cartographers who don’t want us to use the M-word “Mexico” when referring to a body of water south of Texas and west of Florida.

The “Use of Name” section continues.

Use “War Department” in most cases on first reference, reserving “Department of War” for quoted matter, or situations that require that level of formality.

But that isn’t the part that interested me. When you talk about government agencies, no one cares about the name. They care about…the ACRONYM.

The correct acronym for “War Department” as used on the War.gov flagship website, which uses the AP Style as standard, is “DOW” with an uppercase “O” in the center; use on second reference after “War Department” or when the standalone acronym suffices depending upon use. Do NOT use “DoW.”

Which goes to show you that even military officials cower before style guide enforcers.

Except…

Use of Name, Part Two

The “Use of Name” section continues with one more paragraph.

The correct acronym for “War Department” in official written department communications, including but not limited to news releases, speeches, transcripts etc., including those published on War.gov, is “DoW” with a lowercase “o”, Do NOT use “DOW” in these types of products.

Talented editors can parse this, but the rest of us need to think through this a bit.

  • A style guide on War.gov is referred to as a “DOW” style guide.
  • But a news release that’s published on War.gov refers to “DoW.”

But what if the Associated Press (which presumably follows the AP Style) refers to a news release that is posted on War.gov? Does the writer use “DOW” or “DoW”?