Bredemarket

Bredemarket’s four goals for 2021 (the 12/4/2020 11:00 am edition)

These goals were subsequently revised on 1/8/2021 at 9:30am.

This is the time of year when companies and people publish end of year posts. Frankly, I don’t really feel like writing an end of year post for 2020, so instead I will share my goals for Bredemarket for 2021.

Goal 1: Help my clients to communicate and reach (and understand) their goals. My chief goal, of course, is to help my clients reach THEIR OWN goals. Bredemarket aims to thoughtfully and strategically provide marketing and writing services that align with client needs.

If I may briefly look back at 2020 in a positive light, I have helped clients establish themselves as subject matter experts, I have helped them to attract customers in the best possible way, and I have helped them to win business. I’m not sure how much additional business I’ve won for any of these firms, but hopefully I’m helping them lay the groundwork for securing future opportunities.

Part of my services involves determining WHAT clients actually need. Some of my clients simply ask for a blog post, but there’s often a need to dig deeper. For example, several small businesspeople and I were recently discussing how to use the “five whys” to elicit underlying needs from clients. What is this deliverable (white paper, blog post on 2021, whatever) supposed to accomplish?

Goal 2: Pursue multiple income streams. This is really an internal goal for Bredemarket, but it affects my approach.

While I know WHAT I want to do—I’m not going to quit marketing and writing and start selling nutritional supplements—I’m exploring HOW I want to do it. In some cases I’m approaching potential clients directly, while in others I’m using one of several intermediaries to do it.

There are advantages and disadvantages to direct vs. intermediary solicitation, but it’s wise to have multiple options. Some options may perform better at some times, while others perform better at other times. We’ll see what happens.

Goal 3: Eat my own iguana food. This very post originated from this particular goal. I’m preparing to pitch clients on writing 2021 blog posts for them, so I thought it best if I wrote my own.

Some of my other recent activities, such as my establishment of LinkedIn Showcase Pages for identity and technology, also satisfy this goal (and originated from another pitch idea).

Goal 4: Have fun. Years ago, when I was working for a large company (it might have been the original pre-Solutions/Mobility Motorola), I told a group of people at work that I was going to “play” with something. Use of the term “play” in relation to work did not sit well with some of the group, who thought I wasn’t taking things seriously. Others in the group knew exactly what I was talking about.

When work is fun, and you can approach it with a sense of play, it not only isn’t work, but you’re more energized about doing it. Obviously not everything can be play, but when there are opportunities to enjoy what I do, I’m going to take advantage of them.

Goal 5: Be prepared to change. This is the point where perceptive readers interject, “But John, the title only mentions FOUR goals! You goofed!”

Consider this fifth goal an added bonus! (And I’m, um, playing with your perceptions…)

If I can briefly refer back to 2020 again, it has been a year of pivots for most of us. For me, I had to pivot early in 2020 when COVID forced my employer to re-evaluated its business lines, then I pivoted again a month later when I had to start working from home, and then I pivoted three months after that, etc., etc. You’ve probably had to pivot a few times yourself.

So I recognize that these goals as of December 4, 2020 at 11:00 am may change as soon as December 5, 2020 at 9:00 am. “But,” as Stuart Smalley would say, “that’s…OK.”

What are YOUR goals for 2021? Oh, and can I help you express them? And what do you want to accomplish by expressing them?

Why?

Identity assurance levels (IALs) and digital identity

(Part of the biometric product marketing expert series)

There is more and more talk about digital identity, especially as COVID-19 accelerates the move to contactless and remote transactions. However, there are many types of digital identity, ranging from a Colorado, Louisiana, or Oklahoma digital driver’s license to your Facebook, Google, or Microsoft ID to the online equivalent of my old Radio Shack Battery Club card.

All of these different types of digital identities suggest that some identities are more rigorous than others. For example, I’ve lost track of how many digital identities I’ve created with Google over the years, but if California ever gets around to implementing a digital driver’s license, I’ll only have one of them. (And I won’t be able to get another license in Nevada.)

In this particular case, the government IS here to help.

The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology has defined “identity assurance levels” (IALs) that can be used when dealing with digital identities. It’s helpful to review how NIST has defined the IALs. (I’ll define the other acronyms as we go along.)

Assurance in a subscriber’s identity is described using one of three IALs:

IAL1: There is no requirement to link the applicant to a specific real-life identity. Any attributes provided in conjunction with the subject’s activities are self-asserted or should be treated as self-asserted (including attributes a [Credential Service Provider] CSP asserts to an [Relying Party] RP). Self-asserted attributes are neither validated nor verified.

IAL2: Evidence supports the real-world existence of the claimed identity and verifies that the applicant is appropriately associated with this real-world identity. IAL2 introduces the need for either remote or physically-present identity proofing. Attributes could be asserted by CSPs to RPs in support of pseudonymous identity with verified attributes. A CSP that supports IAL2 can support IAL1 transactions if the user consents.

IAL3: Physical presence is required for identity proofing. Identifying attributes must be verified by an authorized and trained CSP representative. As with IAL2, attributes could be asserted by CSPs to RPs in support of pseudonymous identity with verified attributes. A CSP that supports IAL3 can support IAL1 and IAL2 identity attributes if the user consents.

Interestingly, the standard assumes that pseudonymous identity can be proofed…but this requires that SOMEONE know the actual identity.

And in practice, the “physical presence” requirement of IAL3 can be met by either being “in-person,” or in a “supervised remote” case. (This is needed to make sure that I don’t register with someone else’s face, for example.)

So when considering the robustness of any digital identity scheme, it’s necessary to ascertain whether the digital identity can reliably be mapped to a real life identity. This doesn’t necessarily mean that IAL1 is bad per se; in some cases, such as my old Radio Shack Battery Club example, a robust mapping to a real life identity is NOT necessary.

But in other cases, such as a need to gain entrance to a nuclear power plant, that reliable mapping IS essential.

Someone once said that I look like this guy. By US Embassy London – https://www.flickr.com/photos/usembassylondon/27595569992/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49663171

Biometric writing, and four ways to substantiate a claim of high biometric accuracy

I wanted to illustrate the difference between biometric writing, and SUBSTANTIVE biometric writing.

A particular company recently promoted its release of a facial recognition application. The application was touted as “state-of-the-art,” and the press release mentioned “high accuracy.” However, the press release never supported the state-of-the-art or high accuracy claims.

By Cicero Moraes – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=66803013

Concentrating on the high accuracy claim, there are four methods in which a biometric vendor (facial recognition, fingerprint identification, iris recognition, whatever) can substantiate a high accuracy claim. This particular company did not employ ANY of these methods.

The first method is to publicize the accuracy results of a test that you designed and conducted yourself. This method has its drawbacks, since if you’re administering your own test, you have control over the reported results. But it’s better than nothing.

The second method is for you to conduct a test that was designed by someone else. An example of such a test is Labeled Faces in the Wild (LFW). There used to be a test called Megaface, but this project has concluded. A test like this is good for research, but there are still issues; for example, if you don’t like the results, you just don’t submit them.

The third method is to have an independent third party design AND conduct the test, using test data. A notable example of this method is the Facial Recognition Vendor Test series sponsored by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Yet even this test has drawbacks for some people, since the data used to conduct the test is…test data.

The fourth method, which could be employed by an entity (such as a government agency) who is looking to purchase a biometric system, is to have the entity design and conduct the test using its own data. Of course, the results of an accuracy test conducted using the biometric data of a local police agency in North America cannot be applied to determine the accuracy of a national passport system in Asia.

So, these are four methods to substantiate a “high accuracy” claim. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages, and it is possible for a vendor to explain WHY it chose one method over the other. (For example, one facial recognition vendor explained that it couldn’t submit its application for NIST FRVT testing because the NIST testing design was not compatible with the way that this vendor’s application worked. For this particular vendor, methods 1 and 4 were better ways to substantiate its accuracy claims.)

But if a company claims “high accuracy” without justifying the claim with ANY of these four methods, then the claim is meaningless. Or, it’s “biometric writing” without substantiation.

Why I created a LinkedIn Showcase Page for Bredemarket

It was Sunday, and I was thinking about something that I wanted to communicate to a potential client in the coming week. The potential client performs work in multiple areas, and had inquired about my assisting in one of those areas.

As I thought about solutions for that one section of the potential client’s website, I began wondering how that material could be repurposed in other channels, including LinkedIn. One solution, I realized, was for the client to set up a special “showcase page” on LinkedIn that was dedicated to this one area. Content from the website could then be repurposed for the showcase page.

If you are unfamiliar with LinkedIn Showcase Pages, they “are extensions of your LinkedIn Page, designed to spotlight individual brands, business units and initiatives.”

A notable example of the use of showcase pages is Adobe. Adobe has a company page, but since Adobe provides a plethora of products and services, it would be a firehose to cover EVERYTHING on the main Adobe page. So Adobe established showcase pages, such as its page for Adobe Experience Cloud, that allowed the company to go into greater detail for that particular topic.

But this doesn’t explain why I just created a showcase page for a Bredemarket customer segment. Actually, there are two reasons.

While Bredemarket provides its services to identity firms, technology firms, general business, and nonprofits, it’s no secret that Bredemarket’s most extensive experience is in the identity industry. Because of my experience in biometrics and secure documents, I know the messages that identity firms need to communicate to their customers and to the public at large. Because of this, I thought I’d create a showcase page dedicated solely to the services that Bredemarket can provide to identity firms.
There’s another reason why I created the showcase page – the “eating your own dog food” reason. If I’m going to talk about the use of LinkedIn Showcase Pages, wouldn’t it make sense for me to create my own?

So on Sunday I created the Bredemarket Identity Firm Services page on LinkedIn; you can find it at the https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/bredemarket-identity-firm-services/ URL.

And if your interest is specifically in identity, be sure to click the Follow button.

(Past illustrations) Improving a disjointed company Internet presence

(This past illustration describes something that I performed in my career, either for a Bredemarket client, for an employer, or as a volunteer. The entity for which I performed the work, or proposed to perform the work, is not listed for confidentiality reasons.)

By Takeaway – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33157634

PROBLEM

A single company offered multiple products in multiple markets. Each product had its own web page, and the company itself had a web page.

The company requested that I analyze the products and recommend any necessary revisions to the marketing of the products.

SOLUTION

I analyzed the products and divided them into two groups based upon customer characteristics.

For one group, I recommended that the products in the group be marketed at the company level, and provided specific recommendations regarding how the products in this group be marketed.

For the second group, I recommended that the products in this group continue to be marketed at the product level. Again, I provided specific marketing recommendations for the products in this group.

RESULTS

The company thanked me for my thorough analysis. Unfortunately, due to external events, the company was unable to act on my recommendations at the time that I provided them.

Quantifying the costs of wrongful incarcerations

As many of you already know, the Innocence Project is dedicated to freeing people who have been wrongfully incarcerated. At times, the people are freed after examining or re-examining biometric evidence, such as fingerprint evidence or DNA evidence.

The latter evidence was relevant in the case of Uriah Courtney, who was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for kidnapping and rape based upon eyewitness testimony. At the time of Courtney’s arrest, DNA testing did not return any meaningful results. Eight years later, however, DNA technology had advanced to the point where the perpetrator could be identified—and, as the California Innocence Project noted, the perpetrator wasn’t Uriah Courtney.

I’ve read Innocence Project stories before, and the one that sticks most in my mind was the case of Archie Williams, who was released (based upon fingerprint evidence) after being imprisoned for a quarter century. At the time that Williams’ wrongful conviction was vacated, Vanessa Potkin, director of post-conviction litigation at the Innocence Project, stated, “There is no way to quantify the loss and pain he has endured.”

But that doesn’t mean that people haven’t tried to (somewhat) quantify the loss.

In the Uriah Courtney case, while it’s impossible to quantify the loss to Courtney himself, it is possible to quantify the loss to the state of California. Using data from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office 2018-19 annual costs per California inmate, the California Innocence Project calculated a “cost of wrongful incarceration” of $649,624.

One can quibble with the methodology—after all, the 2018-19 costs presumably overestimate the costs of incarcerating someone who was released from custody on May 9, 2013—but at least it illustrates that a cost of wrongful incarceration CAN be calculated. Add to that the costs of prosecuting the wrong person (including jury duty daily fees), and the costs can be quantified.

To a certain extent.

Positioning a sole proprietorship

I shared something on the Bredemarket LinkedIn page, and I also shared it on the Bredemarket Facebook page, but there are billions of people who don’t subscribe to either, so I thought I’d share it here too to VASTLY increase its reach.

“It” is an Andrea Olson article published this morning entitled “Why Positioning Is More Important Than Ever.” Olson believes that company positioning is mostly a lost art, and that some attempts to establish a unique company marketing position don’t really work in practice. For example, a Company X claim that it is “customer-focused” will only be effective if Company Y says that it is “not customer-focused.” (This doesn’t happen.)

I’m going to advance the hypothesis that it’s easier for very large companies and very small companies to establish unique market positions, but harder for medium sized firms.

Medium sized firms often do not have an established presence in our minds. Let’s say that you’ve just moved to a new city and you’re deciding where you’re going to buy a car. How do you tell one car dealer from another? Does one of them have a better coffee machine in its customer lounge? Is one of them customer-focused?

The very large companies DO conjure images in our minds. On one level, there’s no huge difference between what Walmart sells, what Target sells, and what Kmart sells. But if you read the names “Walmart,” “Target,” and “Kmart,” positive and/or negative images immediately pop into your brain.

Which brings us to the very small companies, and the question that I asked on LinkedIn and Facebook—what is MY company’s unique market position?

This is something that I’m working on enunciating, both in public forums such as this one and in more private ones such as emails to potential clients. There are certain things about the Bredemarket offerings that are clearly NOT unique:

Many writing companies offer a specified number of review cycles to their clients.
Many writing companies offer experience in writing about biometric technology.
Many writing companies offer experience in writing proposals.

But there’s one advantage that very small companies (sole proprietorships) offer—the uniqueness of the sole proprietor. This uniqueness is sometimes difficult to convey, especially in the current pandemic environment. But it’s there.

Although it’s more difficult to convey if you’re one of a set of twins.

(Past illustrations) Standard text

PROBLEM

Companies need to respond to questions from their potential customers. Often the company crafts a specific response to each potential customer, even when multiple potential customers are asking the exact same questions.

SOLUTION

As many people already know, the solution is to create a database of standard text.

By John Willis Clark – http://www.ib.hu-berlin.de/~wumsta/Milkau/109-2.jpg: Fritz-Milkau-Dia-Sammlung, erstellt in der Photographischen Werkstatt der Preußischen Staatsbibliothek von 1926-1933originally from The Care of Books by John Willis Clark (Fig 94, p132), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=135286

In some cases, companies can create standard text by adapting previous text submitted to potential customers in the past. In other cases, new text must be written. Once developed, the standard text can be stored in a dedicated database designed for this purpose, or it can simply be stored in a Microsoft Word document of officially approved responses.

RESULTS

I have created (or tried to create) a lot of standard text over the years.

For two companies, I was one of the people responsible for gathering standard text from subject matter experts (SMEs), or for writing new standard text myself. This standard text had to be reviewed with SMEs at regular intervals, and any necessary updates had to be incorporated.

For a third company, I was the SME responsible for reviewing and updating the standard text.

For a fourth company, I suggested that the company create standard text, but the company chose not to act on my suggestion.

For a fifth company, I was asked to create a simple database of standard text, addressing multiple markets for a particular product line.

And, of course, I’ve created standard text for my own company, suitable for repurposing in multiple formats.

Do we need smart cities, or are “average intelligence” cities good enough?

The Thales website has an article that apparently was originally written in late 2018 or early 2019, but was (as of today) last updated in October 2020. The article is entitled “Digital identity trends – 5 forces that are shaping 2020.”

For purposes of this post (and yes, “for purposes of this post” is a common phrase I use when encountering a listicle), I’m going to focus on the third of the five forces, an accelerating shift towards smart cities.

I first encountered smart cities six years ago, when MorphoTrak’s Vice President of Sales sent a colleague and myself to a smart cities conference. Inasmuch as MorphoTrak was a biometric company, I was obviously paying attention to the presentations that related to biometric identity, but I also paid attention to one of the speakers from my area – Acquanetta Warren, then (and now) mayor of the city of Fontana, California. I wasn’t able to find any accounts of her 2014 presentation, but Warren spoke about smart city needs in 2017.

Fontana (Calif.) Mayor Acquanetta Warren said that Smart City developments can be particularly important in light of natural disasters and emergencies, such as the destruction Hurricane Harvey caused in Texas.
“What happens when that happens?” Warren said. “Does everything stop? Are we able to text or email each other to let each other know ‘we’re trapped, we’re in these positions, come and help us?’ ”

Mayor Warren’s comments illustrate that there is clearly a continuum on the smart city spectrum. When you read some smart city concepts and implementations, you get a view of systems of systems tracking automobiles and parking spaces, calculating anticipated carbon monoxide levels, and doing other “smart” stuff.

Mayor Warren is interested in more basic needs, such as the ability of a Fontana citizen to get help if the San Andreas Fault does its thing.

Or, perhaps, less pressing needs, such as graffiti removal.

https://iframe.publicstuff.com/#?client_id=156 as of November 23, 2020.

This is a much simpler model than what Thales envisions in its article. In Fontana, I can report a graffiti violation anonymously. In the Thales model, “digital identity is the key that unlocks the individual’s access to a rich array of services and support.” And no, your Facebook or Google login doesn’t count.

Smarter cities worry privacy advocates, Back in 2018, the ACLU was urging public discussion about proposals in Portland, Maine to outfit street lights with wi-fi hotspots – and other monitoring sensors.

Proponents said there was nothing to worry about.

“We are very interested in deploying a variety of sensors that may be able to help with vehicle counts in intersections, numbers of pedestrians or bikes using a trail or bike path,” said Troy Moon, the city’s sustainability coordinator. “Some of these may look like a camera but only detect shapes.”

Opponents were not reassured.

“I always figured Big Brother was going to be some giant face on a wall, not a tiny camera hidden inside a light bulb,” said Chad Marlow, advocacy and policy counsel for the ACLU. “But what is particularly troubling here is the stealthy way in which the product is being marketed and pitched to the press; to wit, as an energy-efficient light bulb with built-in monitoring technology.”

And those who have followed the topic know that concerns have only accelerated since 2018. Just to cite one example, San Francisco has passed a strict ordinance regulating introduction of any surveillance technology.

This has resulted in a near-bifurcation in the adoption of smart city technologies, as countries such as India adopt a leading role in smart city adoption, while countries with greater privacy concerns such as the United States are slower to adopt the technologies.

I guess you can call these latter countries leaders in the “average intelligence” city movement. These countries will adopt some digital measures to improve city management, but will not go all out and do everything that is technologically possible. For example, a municipality may use technology such as Adobe Experience Manager Forms to enable digital form submission – but they’re not going to track your movements after you submit the form.

Because of the debate and the concerns, these latter countries will continue to be “average intelligence” cities in the future, while cities in other parts of the world will become smarter, for better or worse.

(Past illustrations) Improving a physical workflow

By Paweł Janczaruk – received by e-mail, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15446830

PROBLEM

In an unused conference room, a company had multiple stacks of pages that needed to be collated. Each person had to visit each stack, in order, to collate the documents. Because of the arrangement of the stacks, it was taking forever to collate the documents.

SOLUTION

I recommended that the stacks be arranged, in order, on a table. Each person would then walk around the table, deposit the collated document at the end, and simply walk around the table again and assemble a new document.

RESULTS

The documents were collated much more quickly.

When the entity was able to designate its own dedicated workspace, replacing the unused conference room, the workspace was designed with tables at the ideal height to assemble documents.