Bredemarket

The other public safety agencies that we sometimes forget

I’ve been working with law enforcement agencies for a long time now, and have interacted with several federal law enforcement agencies, a number of state agencies, and a number of county/parish/city agencies.

(I really shouldn’t do this again. I really shouldn’t do this again. I really shouldn’t do this again.)

In fact, as Ed McMahon would say, those interactions mean that I have interacted with all of the levels of law enforcement in the United States.

By photo by Alan Light, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3048124

And, as can be expected, Johnny Carson steps in to correct this mistaken assumption.

By Johnny_Carson_with_fan.jpg: Peter Martorano from Cleveland, Ohio, USAderivative work: TheCuriousGnome (talk) – Johnny_Carson_with_fan.jpg, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12750959

Because, you see, there are other law enforcement agencies in the United States that are outside of the jurisdiction of the states.

By Presidentman – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=81296942

Forensic Magazine recently reminded us of this in its article “DOJ Gives Nearly $1 M to NamUs to Support American Indians, Alaska Natives Cases.” But before I get into these other law enforcement agencies, let’s look at why the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) work with Native Americans is important.

“Our research tells us that American Indians and Alaska Natives experience violence at rates well above those of many other groups, a disparity that is sadly reflected in reports of missing and unidentified Native Americans,” said Jennifer Scherer, Acting Director of the National Institute of Justice, the division of the Justice Department’s Office of Justice Programs that manages NamUs.

So about a million dollars is going to the NamUs system. But like other federal systems, the DOJ doesn’t work alone.

Since 2017, NamUs staff have provided training and outreach to American Indian and Alaska Native communities through more than 50 events and webinars. To encourage tribal law enforcement participation…

Allow me to pause right here.

Yes, there are over 200 tribal law enforcement agencies that are outside of the control of the states.

Tribally operated law enforcement agencies provide a broad range of public safety services. They respond to calls for service, investigate crimes, enforce traffic laws, execute arrest warrants, serve process, provide court security, and conduct search and rescue operations.

So let’s go back to NamUs and see how it works with these agencies.

To encourage tribal law enforcement participation, the NamUs system is pre-loaded with information on more than 300 federally-recognized tribal law enforcement agencies so officers can quickly access cases and share information.

(Over 200, over 300, we’ll figure the real number out later.)

In many cases, the relevant federal agencies merely operate as clearinghouses so that tribal, state, or other agencies can seamlessly work together to solve crimes. Because crime often crosses state (or reservation) borders, this collaboration is crucial. It lets the relevant law enforcement agencies achieve their common purpose:

…to increase the chances of case resolution.

The difference between biometrics and biometrics

(Part of the biometric product marketing expert series)

By Dina Regine – https://www.flickr.com/photos/divadivadina/465006384/, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8022602

We’ll get to Bob a little later. But let me start off by telling you something.

AAABWTCI.

That stands for “acronyms are a bad way to convey information.”

But you didn’t know that.

Many of us like to use acronyms to quickly convey information, but we need to remember that different people use acronyms in different ways.

For example, in my circles, people generally understand “FBI” to refer to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.

By I, Aude, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2438142

But try telling that to the Faith Bible Institute, or to an employee of Frontier Booking International. (I’ll admit that the founder of the latter company, Ian Copeland, chose the company name deliberately. After all, his brother Miles founded I.R.S. Records, and their father worked for the Central Intelligence Agency.)

It’s best not to use acronyms at all and instead use full words. Because if you use full words, then (as Ed McMahon would say) you will ensure that EVERYONE knows exactly what you mean.

Allow me to play the Johnny Carson role and say that Ed was WRONG.

After all, the great English philosopher Robert Plant (I told you we’d get to Bob eventually) noted,

“You know sometimes words have two meanings.”
“Stairway to Heaven.” https://genius.com/Led-zeppelin-stairway-to-heaven-lyrics

Take the word “biometrics.” In my circles, people generally understand “biometrics” to refer to one of several ways to identify an individual.

By Dawid Weber – Praca własna, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=102148689

But for the folks at Merriam-Webster, this is only a secondary definition of the word “biometrics.” From their perspective, biometrics is primarily biometry, which can refer to “the statistical analysis of biological observations and phenomena” or to “measurement (as by ultrasound or MRI) of living tissue or bodily structures.” In other words, someone’s health, not someone’s identity.

From https://www.biometricsociety.org/home

Fun fact: if you go to the International Biometric Society and ask it for its opinion on the most recent FRVT 1:N tests, it won’t have an answer for you.

The terms “Biometrics” and “Biometry” have been used since early in the 20th century to refer to the field of development of statistical and mathematical methods applicable to data analysis problems in the biological sciences.

Recently, the term “Biometrics” has also been used to refer to the emerging field of technology devoted to the identification of individuals using biological traits, such as those based on retinal or iris scanning, fingerprints, or face recognition. Neither the journal “Biometrics” nor the International Biometric Society is engaged in research, marketing, or reporting related to this technology. Likewise, the editors and staff of the journal are not knowledgeable in this area.
From https://www.biometricsociety.org/about/what-is-biometry

This can confuse people when I refer to myself as a biometric proposal writing expert or a biometric content marketing expert. I’ve been approached by people who wanted my expertise, but who walked away disappointed that I had never written about a clinical trial.

Despite this, there are some parallels between biometrics and biometrics. After all, both biometrics and biometrics take body measurements (albeit for different reasons), and therefore some devices that can be used for biometry can sometimes also be used for identification, and vice versa.

But only sometimes. Your run-of-the-mill optical fingerprint reader won’t contribute to any medical diagnosis, and I’m still on the fence regarding whether brain waves can be used to identify individuals. I need a sample size larger than 50 people before I’ll claim brain waves as a reliable biometric.

Of course, a biometric device such as an Apple Watch can not only measure your biometrics, but also your geolocation, which is another authentication factor.

By iOS, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33398892

Technological rapidity and #COVID19 #Omicron responses

So I took almost a week off from “bredemarketing,” but it’s not like anything happened.

Well, except for a new COVID-19 variant and the attending travel shutdowns and other changes.

From https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus

And now people are wondering when Omicron will hit the United States. Frankly, it’s probably already here.

But as we become more familiar with things, and as our technology improves, our responses are quicker.

Take this Thermo Fisher Scientific press release.

Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. (NYSE:TMO)…today confirmed that its polymerase chain reaction (PCR) TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit*, and TaqPath COVID-19 CE-IVD RT-PCR Kit*, which test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2, are not impacted by the emerging B.1.1.529, or Omicron variant, enabling accurate test results.
https://thermofisher.mediaroom.com/2021-11-29-Thermo-Fisher-Scientific-Confirms-Detection-of-SARS-CoV-2-in-Samples-Containing-the-Omicron-Variant-with-its-TaqPath-COVID-19-Tests

That’s quick.

But test results are one thing; minimization of harm is another.

Moderna is already at work on a treatment to address the Omicron variant. Within the next few weeks, he said the company will know whether the new strain will require an altogether new vaccine, a specially formulated booster, or simply a higher dose of vaccines currently available.
From https://www.newsweek.com/moderna-estimates-weeks-before-omicron-vaccine-resistance-understood-variant-spreads-1653983

Considering how long it took to develop the first vaccines (which were already developed at a breakneck pace), that’s quick also.

FindBiometrics didn’t find THIS biometric

On Monday, FindBiometrics posted its annual “year in review” survey of biometrics professionals, asking a number of questions.

FindBiometrics asked about face and finger, the most commonly used biometric modalities. But there were also questions that touched upon voice biometrics, behavioral biometrics, and several other biometric modalities.

You could echo the late Ed McMahon and say that FindBiometrics covered EVERY meaningful biometric modality in its 2021 year in review survey.

Allow me to play the Johnny Carson role and say that Ed was WRONG.

Or let me play the role of Steve Jobs and say that there’s ONE MORE THING.

By mylerdude – Flickr, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=182423

So, what did FindBiometrics miss in its year in review? Only the “one more thing” that will revolutionize law enforcement forever.

Two announcements that changed law enforcement booking (in some states, anyway)

By Mauroesguerroto – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=35919357

I’ve written about rapid DNA before (for example, after the Surfside building collapse). Rapid DNA is a process that automatically generates a DNA profile in less than two hours, as opposed to more manual-intensive procedures that could take much longer, especially when huge backlogs result in many months’ wait before DNA can be processed.

Rapid DNA cannot be used for every DNA application (commingled DNA is “an extremely critical challenge” and very difficult to process automatically), but there’s one instance in which DNA can technically be used, and that’s in the arrest/booking process.

By U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Department of Homeland Security) – http://www.ice.gov/news/galleries/index.htm#tab_stories, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20745424

What if, at the same time that an arrested person provides the state with his or her fingerprints, the person also provides a DNA sample?

Then, at the same time that the fingerprints are searched against local, statewide, and national databases to verify the person’s identity and (via “reverse searches”) see if the person is responsible for additional crimes, the DNA can also be searched against various databases.

However, even in states that authorized DNA collection for some arrests, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation wouldn’t allow rapid DNA profiles collected in a booking environment (as opposed to a crime laboratory) to be searched against its database.

Until February 2021.

Effective February 1, 2021, ANDE received approval from the FBI for its technology to be deployed in booking stations to support processing of DNA samples from qualifying arrestees and the automatic upload and searching of these DNA IDs against the National DNA Index System (NDIS).

ANDE (formerly NetBio) is one of two manufacturers of rapid DNA systems. The other manufacturer, Thermo Fisher Scientific (formerly the independent company IntegenX), followed with its own announcement in July.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has approved Thermo Fisher Scientific’s Applied Biosystems RapidHIT ID DNA Booking System for use by law enforcement booking stations to automatically process, upload and search DNA reference samples from qualifying arrestees against the U.S. National DNA Index System (NDIS) CODIS database.

This means that today’s multimodal booking environments, which already support capture of friction ridges (fingerprints and palmprints), faces, and occasionally irises, can now also capture DNA.

Now I’ll grant that the continued expansion of mobile driver’s licenses to more states, as well as the final approval of the ISO/IEC 18013-5 standard, will have a greater impact on society at large. After all, the number of people with driver’s licenses is much larger than the number of people who get arrested. (Currently.)

But quadmodal booking biometrics deserves a mention. If we’re going to talk about quadmodal learning, let’s talk about quadmodal biometrics (finger, face, iris, DNA) also.

Maybe FindBiometrics will devote more time to DNA in its 2022 year in review.

OK, two MORE things

By the way, if you want more information about when the FBI authorizes rapid DNA and when it does not, as well as the standards that apply, check this page.

The FBI did not have anything to do with this video, which is tangential to the topic at hand, but I’m sharing it because Bob Mothersbaugh not only has a tasty guitar solo, but also a prominent singing part.

What are you creating in December to generate January sales?

How many of you are thinking about 2022?

By Anthony Quintano from Hillsborough, NJ, United States – Working New Years Eve Social Media for NBC, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37961644

How many of you are ALREADY working toward accomplishing your 2022 goals?

I recently sent an email to someone…actually more than one email to more than one someone…that listed some of the things that some companies are already doing in November 2021 to ensure that they start 2022 on the right foot. I happen to know what these companies are doing, because Bredemarket is helping them to do these things.

13 service descriptions
A library of standard RFP responses
Two case studies
Two statements of work
A response to an RFI
A white paper
An article featuring a technology partner
Analyses of NIST test results
An unsolicited proposal letter template
A pitch deck

As Bredemarket completes these projects (some of them are already completed), these companies are positioning themselves for increased business in 2022. Perhaps one of those two case studies, or that unsolicited proposal letter template, will help a company win a new customer.

What about your firm? What content does your firm need to get out your message?

Yes, it’s the town crier again. I like the guy. By Unknown author – postcard, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7691878

November is almost gone, but there’s still time in December to prepare your 2022 content. And as your regular staff takes holiday vacations, perhaps a contractor may prove useful to you.

That’s where Bredemarket can help you. Whether you need a case study, a white paper, a proposal response, or something else (look at “what I do“), Bredemarket can provide you with that important holiday season assistance to get ready for 2022. If you can use Bredemarket’s assistance:

Send me an email at john.bredehoft@bredemarket.com.
Or go to calendly.com/bredemarket to book a meeting with me.
Or go to bredemarket.com/contact/ to use my contact form.

But as for me, I have a statement of work to write.

Anthony Muñoz Community Center Grand (Re)opening

Here’s the second of two videos that I filmed at the grand reopening of the Anthony Muñoz Community Center in Ontario, California. If you don’t like politician speeches, skip the first 15 minutes and go right to the facility tour.

https://fb.watch/9p0gWq02Lb/

Another reason to repurpose old content

Earlier this week I was asked about one of the posts that I wrote in the Bredemarket blog. I had to confess that I hadn’t thought about the topic much recently.

After this conversation, I realized that the referenced post was written back in July.

Because I’ve written over 200 posts in the Bredemarket blog over the past year-plus, some of them kind of get merged together in my mind.

And in this particular case, my thoughts on the original topic have evolved since the summer.

So if you see a future post that revises and updates something I wrote about four months ago, now you know why.

I hope that the new post won’t be dramatically different from the old one.

Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5515632

The dangers of removing facial recognition and artificial intelligence from DHS solutions (DHS ICR part four)

And here’s the fourth and final part of my repurposing exercise. See parts one, two, and three if you missed them.

This post is adapted from Bredemarket’s November 10, 2021 submitted comments on DHS-2021-0015-0005, Information Collection Request, Public Perceptions of Emerging Technology. As I concluded my request, I stated the following.

Of course, even the best efforts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will not satisfy some members of the public. I anticipate that many of the respondents to this ICR will question the need to use biometrics to identify individuals, or even the need to identify individuals at all, believing that the societal costs outweigh the benefits.

By Banksy – One Nation Under CCTV, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3890275

But before undertaking such drastic action, the consequences of following these alternative paths must be considered.

Taking an example outside of the non-criminal travel interests of DHS, some people prefer to use human eyewitness identification rather than computerized facial recognition.

By Zhe Wang, Paul C. Quinn, James W. Tanaka, Xiaoyang Yu, Yu-Hao P. Sun, Jiangang Liu, Olivier Pascalis, Liezhong Ge and Kang Lee – https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00559/full, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=96233011

However, eyewitness identification itself has clear issues of bias. The Innocence Project has documented many cases in which eyewitness (mis)identification has resulted in wrongful criminal convictions which were later overturned by biometric evidence.

Archie Williams moments after his exoneration on March 21, 2019. Photo by Innocence Project New Orleans. From https://innocenceproject.org/fingerprint-database-match-establishes-archie-williams-innocence/

Mistaken eyewitness identifications contributed to approximately 69% of the more than 375 wrongful convictions in the United States overturned by post-conviction DNA evidence.
Inaccurate eyewitness identifications can confound investigations from the earliest stages. Critical time is lost while police are distracted from the real perpetrator, focusing instead on building the case against an innocent person.
Despite solid and growing proof of the inaccuracy of traditional eyewitness ID procedures – and the availability of simple measures to reform them – traditional eyewitness identifications remain among the most commonly used and compelling evidence brought against criminal defendants.”
Innocence Project, Eyewitness Identification Reform, https://innocenceproject.org/eyewitness-identification-reform/

For more information on eyewitness misidentification, see my November 24, 2020 post on Archie Williams (pictured above) and Uriah Courtney.

Do we really want to dump computerized artificial intelligence and facial recognition, only to end up with manual identification processes that are proven to be even worse?

Biometrics enhances accuracy without adversely impacting timeliness (DHS ICR part three)

DHS asked respondents to address five questions, including this one:

(2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;

Here is part of my response.

I am answering this question from the perspective of a person crossing the border or boarding a plane.

During the summer of 2017, CBP conducted biometric exit facial recognition technical demonstrations with various airlines and airports throughout the country. Here, CBP Officer Michael Shamma answers a London-bound American Airlines passenger’s questions at Chicago O’Hare International Airport. Photo by Brian Bell. From https://www.cbp.gov/frontline/cbp-biometric-testing

From this perspective, you can ask whether the use of biometric technologies makes the entire process faster, or slower.

Before biometric technologies became available, a person would cross a border or board a plane either by conducting no security check at all, or by having a human conduct a manual security check using the document(s) provided by an individual.

Unless a person was diverted to a secondary inspection process, automatic identification of the person (excluding questions such as “What is your purpose for entering the United States?”) could be accomplished in a few seconds.
However, manual security checks are much less accurate than technological solutions, as will be illustrated in a future post.

With biometric technologies, it is necessary to measure both the time to acquire the biometric data (in this case a facial image) and the time to compare the acquired data against the known data for the person (from a passport, passenger manifest, or database).

The time to acquire biometric data continues to improve. In some cases, the biometric data can be acquired “on the move” as the person is walking toward a gate or other entry area, thus requiring no additional time from the person’s perspective.
The time to compare biometric data can vary. If the source of the known data (such as the passport) is with the person, then comparison can be instantaneous from the person’s perspective. If the source of the known data is a database in a remote location, then the speed of comparison depends upon many factors, including network connections and server computation times. Naturally, DHS designs its systems to minimize this time, ensuring minimal or no delay from the person’s perspective. Of course, a network or system failure can adversely affect this.

In short, biometric evaluation is as fast if not faster than manual processes (provided no network or system failure occurs), and is more accurate than human processes.

Automated Passport Control kiosks
located at international airports across
the nation streamline the passenger’s
entry into the United States. Photo Credit:
James Tourtellotte. From https://www.cbp.gov/travel/us-citizens/apc

A world without biometric collection is a world with increased bias and less security and privacy (DHS ICR part two)

By Cleanup by Andrew_pmk (talk · contribs); straightened and cropped by Holek (talk · contribs) – http://www.9-11commission.gov/press/911report_cover_HIGHRES.jpg, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2376314

Because of many factors, including the 9/11 tragedy that spurred the organization of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) itself, DHS has been charged to identify individuals as a part of its oversight of customs and border protection, transportation security, and investigations. There are many ways to identify individuals, including:

What you know, such as a password.
What you have, such as a passport or token.
What you are, such as your individual face, fingers, voice, or DNA.
Where you are.

Is it possible to identify an individual without use of computerized facial recognition or other biometric or AI technologies? In other words, can the “what you are” test be eliminated from DHS operations?

Some may claim that the “what you have” test is sufficient. Present a driver’s license or a passport and you’re identified.

However, secure documents are themselves secured by the use of biometrics, primarily facial recognition.
Before a passport is issued, many countries including the U.S. conduct some type of biometric test to ensure that a single person does not obtain two or more passports.
Similar tests are conducted before driver’s licenses and other secure documents are issued.

In addition, people attempt to forge secure documents by creating fake driver’s licenses and fake passports. Thus, all secure documents need to be evaluated, in part by confirming that the biometrics on the document match the biometrics of the person presenting the document.

In short, there is no way to remove biometric identification from the DHS identification operation. And if you did, who knows how each individual officer would judge whether a person is who they claim to be?