Uncategorized – Page 164

Why isn’t there a Pharmaceutical Justice League?

In case you missed it, Blake Hall of ID.me recently shared an article by Stewart Baker about “The Flawed Claims About Bias in Facial Recognition.”

As many of you know, there have been many claims about bias in facial recognition, which have even led to the formation of an Algorithmic Justice League.

By Jason Fabok and Alex Sinclair / DC Comics – [1], Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=54168863

Whoops, wrong Justice League. But you get the idea. “Gender Shades” and stuff like that, which I’ve written about before.

Back to Hall’s article, which makes a number of excellent points about bias in facial recognition, including the studies performed by NIST (referenced later in this post), but I loved one comparison that Baker wrote about.

So technical improvements may narrow but not entirely eliminate disparities in face recognition. Even if that’s true, however, treating those disparities as a moral issue still leads us astray. To see how, consider pharmaceuticals. The world is full of drugs that work a bit better or worse in men than in women. Those drugs aren’t banned as the evil sexist work of pharma bros. If the gender differential is modest, doctors may simply ignore the difference, or they may recommend a different dose for women. And even when the differential impact is devastating—such as a drug that helps men but causes birth defects when taken by pregnant women—no one wastes time condemning those drugs for their bias. Instead, they’re treated like any other flawed tool, minimizing their risks by using a variety of protocols from prescription requirements to black box warnings.
From https://www.lawfareblog.com/flawed-claims-about-bias-facial-recognition

As an (tangential) example of this, I recently read an article entitled “To begin addressing racial bias in medicine, start with the skin.” This article does not argue that we should ban dermatology because conditions are more often misdiagnosed in people with darker skin. Instead, the article argues that we should improve dermatology to reduce these biases.

In the same manner, the biometric industry and stakeholder should strive to minimize bias in facial recognition and other biometrics, not ban it. See NIST’s study (NISTIR 8280, PDF) in this regard, referenced in Baker’s article.

In addition to what Baker said, let me again note that when judging the use of facial recognition, it should be compared against the alternatives. While I believe that alternatives should be offered, even passwords, consider that automated facial recognition supported by trained examiner review is much more accurate than witness (mis)identification. I don’t think we want to solely rely on that.

Because falsely imprisoning someone due to non-algorithmic witness misidentification is as bad as kryptonite.

By Apparent scan made by the original uploader User:Kryptoman., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11736865

Tech5: Updating my contactless fingerprint capture post from October 2021

I’ve worked in the general area of contactless fingerprint capture for years, initially while working for a NIST CRADA partner. While most of the NIST CRADA partners are still pursuing contactless fingerprint technology, there are also new entrants.

In the pre-COVID days, the primary advantage of contactless fingerprint capture was speed. As I noted in an October 2021 post:

Actually this effort launched before that, as there were efforts in 2004 and following years to capture a complete set of fingerprints within 15 seconds; those efforts led, among other things, to the smartphone software we are seeing today.
From https://bredemarket.com/2021/10/04/contactless-fingerprint-scanning-almost-software-at-connectid/

By 2016, several companies had entered into cooperative research and development agreements with NIST to develop contactless fingerprint capture software, either for dedicated devices or for smartphones. Most of those early CRADA participants are still around today, albeit under different names.

Of the CRADA partners, MorphoTrak is now IDEMIA, Diamond Fortress is now Telos ID, Hoyos Labs is now Veridium, AOS is no longer in operation, and 3M’s biometric holdings are now part of Thales. Slide 10 from the NIST presentation posted at https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2016/12/14/iai_2016-nist_contactless_fingerprints-distro-20160811.pdf

I’ve previously written posts about two of these CRADA partners, Telos ID (previously Diamond Fortress) and Sciometrics (the supplier for Integrated Biometrics).

But these aren’t the only players in the contactless fingerprint market. There are always new entrants in a market where there is opportunity.

A month before I wrote my post about Integrated Biometrics/Sciometrics’ SlapShot, a company called Tech5 released its own product.

T5-AirSnap Finger uses a smartphone’s built-in camera to perform finger detection, enhancement, image processing and scaling, generating images that can be transmitted for identity verification or registration within seconds, according to the announcement. The resulting images are suitable for use with standard AFIS solutions, and comparison against legacy datasets…
From https://www.biometricupdate.com/202109/tech5-contactless-fingerprint-biometrics-for-mobile-devices-unveiled

This particular article quoted Tech5 Co-founder/CEO Machiel van der Harst. A subsequent article quoted Tech5 Co-Founder/CTO Rahul Parthe. Both co-founders previously worked for L-1 Identity Solutions (now part of IDEMIA).

Parthe has noted the importance of smartphone-based contactless fingerprint capture:

“We all carry these awesome computers in our hands,” Parthe explains. “It’s a perfectly packaged hardware device that is ideal for any capture technology. Smartphones are powerful compute devices on the edge, with a nice integrated camera with auto-focus and flash. And now phones also come with multiple cameras which can help with better focus and depth estimation. This allows the users to take photos of their fingers and the software takes care of the rest. I’d just like to point out here that we’re talking about using the phone’s camera to capture biometrics and using a smartphone to take the place of a dedicated reader. We’re not talking about the in-built fingerprint acquisition we’re all familiar with on many devices which is the means of accessing the device itself.”
From https://www.biometricupdate.com/202202/contactless-fingerprinting-maturation-allows-the-unification-of-biometric-capture-using-smartphones

I’ve made a similar point before. While dedicated devices may not completely disappear, multi-purpose devices that we already have are the preferable way to go.

For more information about T5-AirSnap Finger, visit this page.

Tech5’s results for NIST’s Proprietary Fingerprint Template (PFT) Evaluation III, possibly using an algorithm similar to that in T5-AirSnap Finger, are detailed here.

About THAT Reuters article

I intentionally chose an obscure title for this post.

I could have entitled the post “Ricardo Montalban.” Just because.

In a more relevant way, I could have entitled the post “Former IDEMIA employee weighs in on Advent’s possible sale of the company.” That would have got some clicks, to be sure.

But it would have misled the reader, because the reader would have gotten the idea that I have some expertise in corporate acquisitions, and an abillity to predict them.

And as past history has shown, I do not have any such expertise.

In 2000, I was completely and totally surprised when I learned that Printrak wanted to sell itself to Motorola. I didn’t have a clue that any such thing was going to happen.
In 2008, I was reading online late one evening and was completely and totally surprised when I learned that Motorola wanted to sell off half of Printrak to the French company Safran, the Sagem Morpho folks. Yes, Motorola was in trouble, but I didn’t have any idea that we would be sold off.
Years later, I was kinda sorta surprised when Safran decided that it wanted to get rid of its entire identity and security business, and was completely and totally surprised when the buyer was an American investment firm that owned Oberthur Technologies.

So my record on really understanding these acquisitions is pretty low.

With that caveat, I’ll go ahead and use a really eye-catching SUBtitle. Better late than never.

Former IDEMIA employee weighs in on Advent’s possible sale of the company

Impressive, isn’t it?

But before proceeding, I should let you know about THAT Reuters article that I referenced in the real post title.

On Friday, Reuters published an exclusive article entitled “Advent gears up for $4.6 bln sale of French biometrics firm IDEMIA – sources.”

So who is Advent?

Advent (actually, Advent International) is the American investment firm that I mentioned earlier. As an investment firm, its purpose in life is to buy businesses, improve them, and sell them for a profit.

Back in 2011, Advent bought Oberthur Technologies with this intent. To that end, Advent announced in 2015 that Oberthur Technologies planned an Initial Public Offering. Within a month, those plans were shelved. Advent determined that an Oberthur IPO wouldn’t do so well.

So Advent began thinking about ways to make Oberthur more attractive.

At the same time, Safran was trying to decide what to do with its identity and security business. The purchase of Printrak was just a blip in Safran’s plans, as it acquired L-1 Identity Solutions (renamed MorphoTrust) and other businesses. But Safran is not an identity and security company. It’s a “de plane” company.

By ABC Television – eBay itemphoto frontphoto back, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20143137

And Safran is also a defense company to protect France and other countries from evil forces.

By TrekCore: [1], Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=24107020

The identity part of the business was clearly the odd one out. Heck, rich Corinthian leather would have fit better into the Safran product line.

By dave_7 – originally posted to Flickr as Chrysler Cordoba, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6890171

OK, I’ll stop now.

Anyway, in the end Advent announced in 2016 that it had entered into an agreement to negotiate the purchase of Safran’s identity and security business. The purchase was completed on May 31, 2017, and Advent combined Oberthur (OT) and the portion of Safran (Morpho) into OT-Morpho, which was quickly renamed IDEMIA.

I was an employee of IDEMIA at the time, and I don’t think I’m spilling any company secrets if I reveal that Advent wanted IDEMIA to do really really well, so that it could make a profit on the two acquisitions. I wasn’t at the highest executive level that was setting the high-level strategy, but I was often working on initiatives to help realize Advent’s profitability goal.

The possibility of an IDEMIA IPO or sale receded somewhat in early 2020. Among other things, COVID adversely affected two of IDEMIA’s core businesses in the United States, TSA PreCheck (nobody was flying) and driver’s licenses (the DMV offices were all closed).

Back to THAT Reuters article

Fast forward to 2022 and Reuters’ exclusive revelations.

Advent International is looking to sell its French biometrics and fingerprint identification firm IDEMIA in a deal worth up to $4.6 billion as it seeks to capitalise on growing demand for cybersecurity assets in Europe, two sources told Reuters.
The U.S. buyout fund is reviewing a series of options to sell IDEMIA, including a possible break-up of the company which was formed in 2016 by combining Safran’s identity and security business with Oberthur Technologies, the sources said.
From https://www.reuters.com/business/exclusive-advent-gears-up-46-bln-sale-french-biometrics-firm-idemia-sources-2022-02-04/

As you, the wise reader, know, Reuters goofed here.

IDEMIA was NOT formed in 2016. The formation of IDEMIA was ANNOUNCED in 2016, but the deal wasn’t actually COMPLETED until 2017. Hey, at least Biometric Update got it right.

Anyway, if you read either Reuters or Biometric Update, you’ll learn that nothing is going to happen immediately (France is holding an election in April, and the composition of the new government could impact any sale), and that the possible split-up may separate the part of the business that sells to governments from the part that sells to commercial firms.

Of course, the big question about any sale of IDEMIA would be the identity of the buyer. Would Advent try (again) to issue an IPO, or would Advent look for one or more existing companies to purchase IDEMIA?

Both Reuters and Biometric Updare speculate that Thales could be a potential buyer. While Safran was slimming down to concentrate on its aircraft business, Thales has been beefing to to diversify its business, most notably in its purchase of Gemalto. (As people in my industry know, that purchase provided Thales with the technology of the old Cogent Systems.)

However, there are two possible issues with a Thales purchase of all or part of IDEMIA.

Antitrust issues. Automated fingerprint identification systems isn’t the only product that Thales and IDEMIA have in common. For example, both companies provide driver’s licenses in the United States. As any Thales purchase of IDEMIA is considered by the United States, France, and dozens of other countries, the deal could be opposed on antitrust grounds. This can be mitigated by limiting what Thales can buy, but it could complicate matters.
Thales is French. Some of the driver’s license and biometric technology that IDEMIA sells was developed in the United States, and is used by many government agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security. At present, while IDEMIA is headquartered in France, it is primarily owned by Americans, so there’s a teeny bit of comfort in that. But what if a French firm were to own IDEMIA? The horror! (Many years ago, when Cogent Systems first sold itself, it intentionally chose a U.S. buyer, 3M, for this very reason.) Never mind that the U.S. government has been using French (and Japanese) technology for years, and that some very specific arrangements have been set up to mitigate the risks of foreign ownership. Some Senator or another is guaranteed to raise a big stink if U.S. government institutions are dependent upon a French company.

So perhaps Thales could buy all or part of IDEMIA, or perhaps it may pass. But if Thales passes, are there any U.S.-owned companies that may have an interest in IDEMIA’s technology?

Because of my biometric bias, the first thing that I would consider would be American companies that are active in the biometric market. However, many of the U.S. companies are small, and don’t have a few billion dollars lying around to buy IDEMIA. So don’t look for Aware, Clearview AI, Paravision, Rank One Computing, or the like to be a buyer.

There are of course much bigger U.S. firms in high tech that have dipped their fingers into the biometrics market. Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft all come to mind. However, those same customers that are of prime concern to U.S. Senators are also or prime concern to the employees of some of those firms, who don’t want their employers to do business with the “evil” Department of Homeland Security or even the “evil” local police departments that should all be defunded. (Amazon quit selling Rekognition to police agencies, for example.) Even Apple, which is developing its own digital driver’s license technology, is probably reluctant to own IDEMIA.

But there’s one tech company that intrigues me as possibly having an interest in IDEMIA.

Oracle.

It’s big enough to make the purchase, certainly likes to make acquisitions, and has no hesitation about working with government agencies.

ANY government agency.

After all, the name “Oracle” came from a database project that Ellison worked on before founding the company with the same name.

His client was the Central Intelligence Agency.

If you’ve paid attention to this article, then you already know that since I have speculated that Oracle could purchase IDEMIA, that puts the chances of Oracle actually purchasing IDEMIA at zero.

And for all we know, Reuters’ two sources might be unreliable, or something else might happen (another COVID variant?) that could cause Advent to hold on to IDEMIA for a few more years.

So we’ll have to see what happens.

The Māori relationship between digital identity and collective identity

I live in the United States in a fairly industrialized society with a heavy focus on individual rights, and a (general) preference toward a focus on the brain and body rather than the soul.

This view shapes how I approach a number of topics, including biometrics and digital identity. For example, if my biometrics are encoded on a physical card or in some type of digital representation, I merely think of this as a way to individually identify myself from other individuals.

Frank Hersey of Biometric Update notes that my attitude is not universal. Hersey cites an article in New Zealand’s Gisborne Herald entitled “Maori experts call for closer involvement in creation of taonga.”

Yes, taonga. As you can see, the Maori people have their own language. (And their own views on the individual, society, and identity.) While there is no direct translation of “taonga” to English, the word has been described to mean a treasured possession.

A woman with *tā moko*. By Mike van Dalen – https://www.flickr.com/photos/134607247@N08/21538822496/, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46534088

I don’t know about you, but when I look at the ridges on the tips of my fingers, “treasured possession” is not the first thought that comes to mind.

And that’s the problem.

Maori data experts say there has been a lack of undertsanding about te ao Māori (Māori world view) and data sovereignty principles by the Government in the process of making two new data laws.
From https://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/local-news/20220128/taking-charge-of-data/

The Gisborne Herald quotes Dr. Warren Williams regarding how the two data laws (The Digital Identity Services Trust Framework and The Consumer Data Right) could affect the Maori.

Data is a taonga (treasured possession) for me. It is something to be cherished, protected and cared for. And with that comes responsibility….
Māori want to be able to protect our data. We want to have real ownership of our data. We want to understand where it has been stored.
Where there is physical storage of data, can we access that? Or those who hold our data, are they looking after it in a way that is respectful?
Sovereignty is not just ownership but also how it’s cared for, how it’s looked after, how it’s shared. If I say I give you permission to share data about myself to a certain group, sometimes the holder of that data can refuse because it’s private.
From https://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/local-news/20220128/taking-charge-of-data/

This data perspective is literally foreign to many government bureaucrats and policy advocates in North America, the European Union, and other more industrialized societies. Can you imagine someone in Brussels, Belgium or Springfield, Illinois talking about being “respectful” while “caring” for data?

So now let’s move to another Maori word, “tikanga,” which leads us to discuss a profound difference between Western individual perspectives and Maori collective perspectives. This was discussed in that great cultural publication Computerworld, in its description of the “Tikanga in Technology” project.

The project’s focus is on how tikanga Māori (customary protocols) and Mātauranga Māori (indigenous knowledge) inform “the construction of digital identities and relational responsibilities to data. … The world is undergoing disruptive change as rapid advances in data linkage and powerful digital technologies converge. For Indigenous peoples, these innovations are a double-edged sword, creating vast potential for improved well-being as well as major risks of group exploitation and harm. The current narrow focus on individual data rights and protection is failing us. We need a profoundly different approach—one that recognises collective identities and allows data to be understood through a wider set of ontological realities.”
From https://www.computerworld.com/article/3575393/indigenous-data-sovereignty-and-how-maori-are-leading-the-way.html

Even in our society, identification is not a completely individualistic activity. One common example is how an individual’s DNA can be used to identify a relative who may have engaged in criminal activity, or who may have been a victim of an untimely death (criminal or otherwise). We as a society are struggling with the ramifications of this, and trying to balance the need to satisfy a public good with the need for privacy, including how I can inadvertently (or purposely) reveal something that may violate the privacy of another person.

Another example is when the needs of a biometric modality such as facial recognition are affected by religious or societal needs that cause people to shield that particular biometric. Religious mandates in certain groups to veil one’s face have recently been joined by medical mandates in certain groups to mask one’s face, causing uproars and changes in the biometric world.

Sometimes, the biometric rules adjust, such as Apple’s allowance to use a different identification method (such as something you know) when a face is obscured.

Sometimes, the biometric rules don’t adjust, and your local driver’s license bureau declares, “if you shield your face, you can’t get an identification card.”

The Maori are taking this concern with the collective (vs. the individual) a step further, with their concern about “group exploitation and harm.”

So how do these views of the collective impact people such as myself, who toss out phrases such as “identification of individuals” from decades of habit?

Who said something about marketing channels that lack content?

Good evening, loyal readers. Although I’ve tested your loyalty lately.

This is my first post on the Bredemarket blog since December 24.

As in nearly a month ago.

Now who was it that said “If your marketing channels lack content, your potential customers may not know that you exist”?

Oh, yeah. That was me.

So what happened? Why haven’t I been posting anything here in nearly a month?

Well, business picked up considerably, and I haven’t had the spare time to conceive and write new blog posts.

(Incidentally, it turns out that the “(non-identity) proposal consulting contract” that I referenced in my December 10 post will extend beyond Tuesday, January 25. The end customer granted an extension to the proposal due date, and we’re taking advantage of the extension.)

And I already have two new projects lined up, as well as some continuing work.

Now I just have to figure out a way to continue my own marketing efforts.

Because as someone once said, “If your channels lack content, your potential customers may forget about you. And that’s NOT good for business.”

Perhaps I should hire myself to create content for myself. That would result in some interesting entries in my accounting system. And would I issue a 1099 to myself?

The “market” is closed until Monday

The market is closed.

By FuriousGeorge1 from (optional) – Flickr, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2488362

Bredemarket just took care of some final items, and is now on vacation/holiday.

Well, until Monday. Proposal work is proposal work.

But until then, I hope those who celebrate Christmas have a happy one, and those who don’t have a happy weekend.

From defund the police to fund the police. But what about technology?

There’s been a tactical reversal by some cities.

Defund the police, then re-fund the police

In November, the Portland Oregon City Council unanimously voted to increase police funding, a little over a year after the city reduced police funding in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.

Now this month, Oakland California has also decided to increase police funding after similarly defunding the police in the past. This vote was not unanimous, but the City Council was very much in favor of the measure.

By Taymaz Valley – https://www.flickr.com/photos/taymazvalley/49974424258, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=91013003

Not that Oakland has returned to the former status quo.

[Mayor Libby] Schaaf applauded the vote in a statement, saying that residents “spoke up for a comprehensive approach to public safety — one that includes prevention, intervention, and addressing crime’s root causes, as well as an adequately staffed police department.”
From https://www.police1.com/patrol-issues/articles/oakland-backtracks-votes-to-add-police-as-crimes-surge-MDirxJZAHV41wyxg/

So while Oakland doesn’t believe that police are the solution to EVERY problem, it feels that police are necessary as part of a comprehensive approach. The city had 78 homicides in 2019, 109 in 2020, and 129 so far in 2021. Granted that it’s difficult to compare year-over-year statistics in the COVID age, but clearly defunding the police hasn’t been a major success.

But if crime is to be addressed by a comprehensive approach including “prevention, intervention, … addressing crime’s root causes, … (and) an adequately staffed police department…

…what about police technology?

What about police technology?

Portland and Oakland have a lot in common. Not only have they defunded and re-funded the police, but both have participated in the “facial recognition is evil” movement.

Oakland was the third U.S. city to limit the use of facial recognition, back in July 2019.

A city ordinance … prohibits the city of Oakland from “acquiring, obtaining, retaining, requesting, or accessing” facial recognition technology….
From https://www.vice.com/en/article/zmpaex/oakland-becomes-third-us-city-to-ban-facial-recognition-xz

Portland joined the movement later, in September 2020. But when it did, it made Oakland and other cities look like havens of right-wing totalitarianism.

The Portland City Council has passed the toughest facial recognition ban in the US, blocking both public and private use of the technology. Other cities such as Boston, San Francisco, and Oakland have passed laws barring public institutions from using facial recognition, but Portland is the first to prohibit private use.
From https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/9/21429960/portland-passes-strongest-facial-recognition-ban-us-public-private-technology

The Mayor of Portland, Ore. Ted Wheeler. By Naval Surface Warriors – 180421-N-UK248-023, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=91766933

Mayor Ted Wheeler noted, “Portlanders should never be in fear of having their right of privacy be exploited by either their government or by a private institution.”

Coincidentally, I was talking to someone this afternoon about some of the marketing work that I performed in 2015 for then-MorphoTrak’s video analytics offering. The market analysis included both government customers (some with acronyms, some without) and potential private customers such as large retail chains.

In 2015, we hadn’t yet seen the movements that would result in dampening both market segments in cities like Portland. (Perpetual Lineup didn’t appear until 2016, while Gender Shades didn’t appear until 2018.)

Flash – ah ah, robber of the universe

But there’s something else that I didn’t imagine in 2015, and that’s the new rage that’s sweeping the nation.

Flash!

By Dynamite Entertainment, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=57669050

Normally I add the music to the end of the post, but I stuck it in the middle this time as a camp break before this post suddently gets really serious. From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfmrHTdXgK4

Specifically, flash mobs. And not the fun kind, but the “flash rob” kind.

District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who is facing a recall election in June, called this weekend’s brazen robberies “absolutely unacceptable” and was preparing tough charges against those arrested during the criminal bedlam in Union Square….
Boudin said his office was eagerly awaiting more arrests and plans to announce felony charges on Tuesday. He said 25 individuals are still at large in connection with the Union Square burglaries on Friday night….
“We know that when it comes to property crime in particular, sadly San Francisco police are spread thin,” said Boudin. “They’re not able to respond to every single 911 call, they’re only making arrests at about 3% of reported thefts.”
From https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/11/23/smash-and-grab-embattled-san-francisco-district-attorney-chesa-boudin-prosecution/

So there are no arrests in 97% of reported thefts in San Francisco.

To be honest, this is not a “new” rage that is sweeping the nation.

In fact, “flash robs” were occurring as early as 2012 in places like…Portland, Oregon.

If only there were a technology that could recognize flash rob participants and other thieves even when the police WEREN’T present.

A technology that is continuously tested by the U.S. government for accuracy, demographic effects (see this PDF and the individual “report cards” from the 1:1 tests), and other factors.

From https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/face-recognition-vendor-test-frvt

Does anyone know of any technology that would fill this need?

Perhaps Oakland and Portland could adopt it.

The probability of determining the probability of matching fingerprints

I’m on the periphery of the forensic science/law enforcement world.

By CBS Television – eBay itemphoto frontphoto back, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74918903

Yes, I have completed training on forensic face recognition, but that doesn’t qualify me as an expert in courtroom testimony. (Forensic face recognition expert testimony isn’t admissible in court anyway, but you get the idea.)

But even I am well aware that the forensic world changed dramatically in 2009.

Before 2009, the dialog below only represents a slight exaggeration.

Question: Why do you say that these two fingerprints belong to the same person?
Answer: Because I said so.

After 2009, specifically after the release of what is called “the NAS report,” there has been an effort to make forensic science…a science.

Ideally, this means that when a fingerprint expert testifies in court, the expert can state that there is a 99.9978% probability that two fingerprints belong to the same person. Or something like that.

Ideally.

We’re not there yet, as this 2017 IAI position paper implicitly states.

It is the position of the IAl that examiners are encouraged to articulate conclusion decisions as specifically as possible, as to not overstate decisions regarding source attribution. In addition to stating conclusions, examiners are encouraged to state the basis for resulting conclusions; including the associative strength and limitations. The strength and limitations of conclusions may include the quality and quantity of data, the validity of method/mathematical model used, and the repeatability of the conclusion. Examiners are encouraged to continually reassess methods and/or mathematical models used to arrive at the best conclusions possible.
International Association for Identification, Position Statement on Conclusions, Qualified Opinions, and Probability Modeling, February 5, 2017.

In other words, while the IAI discourages the use of the old “Because I said so” articulation, the conclusions stated in court lean more toward qualitative rather than quantitative criteria. There’s not a probabilistic model for fingerprints.

Or, as Mike French notes, there’s not a publicly available probabilistic model.

As organizations like the Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence (CSAFE) explore the viability of statistical modeling in pattern evidence disciplines, they will probably notice that AFIS (automated fingerprint identification system) vendors have already done decades of research, and those vendors have fielded operational systems, to solve the same type of problem forensic researchers are now investigating.
From https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/do-afis-vendors-hold-key-measuring-latent-print-probative-mike-french-1e/

French notes a number of challenges to using AFIS vendor data to derive probabilistic models for fingerprints, but the chief challenge is the fact that the AFIS vendor data is proprietary and therefore carefully guarded. After all, AFIS vendors understandably don’t want their competitors to be able to reverse engineer their algorithms.

If you read French’s article, you’ll see that even if the AFIS vendors made all of the relevant data available, significant testing would still have to take place before reliable, fit for purpose probabilistic models can be created.

Are there other ways to develop a probabilistic fingerprint model? Maybe, but these would require (among other things) access to a lot of fingerprints, and considering the resistance of privacy advocates to biometric collection—even when such collection can mitigate privacy advocate concern about biometric inaccuracy—the chances of collecting a bunch of fingerprints for a probability study are approximately 23 (and me?) in 7 billion.

The positive (?) correlation between consulting success and meeting count

If you saw my post from December 6, I mentioned that I have a scheduling conflict at the time of Jay Clouse’s Friday, December 17 Annual Planning Workshop. In my time zone, the workshop takes place between 7:00 am and 9:00 am, and I have a meeting during part of that time.

Come to think of it, I also have a meeting conflict at that time on Thursday, December 16.

And on Monday, December 20.

And a bunch of other days.

On Monday, December 6, I started a (non-identity) proposal consulting contract that will require a significant number of hours until the proposal is submitted on approximately Tuesday, January 25.

This is by far the biggest consulting contract that I have ever landed. I’d throw a party for myself, but I’m pretty busy. Between this proposal consulting contract, my other continuing consulting work, end of year health care enrollment. and other tasks, I can’t exactly party all the time.

No this, isn’t a selfie. For one, I’ve never owned leather pants. Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=14872497

The “significant hours” that I’m spending on this particular proposal are roughly equivalent to the hours that I spent every week as an employee before I started consulting.

Actually, it’s not exactly the same as being an employee. For example, there won’t be a holiday party this month attached to this consulting gig. (Although because of budget cuts, my former employer had stopped the annual holiday parties anyway.)

This proposal contract has one big similarity to my former employee lifestyle.

A ton of meetings.

Now I’ve had meetings for my other consulting gigs, but for most projects there’s only one or two meetings for the entire project.

I’m only a week into this consulting gig, and I’m already averaging three meetings per day.

Not representative of my meetings, which take place online rather than in an oval shaped office. By Series: Reagan White House Photographs, 1/20/1981 – 1/20/1989Collection: White House Photographic Collection, 1/20/1981 – 1/20/1989 – https://catalog.archives.gov/id/12013683, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=92513242

None of these thrice-daily meetings lasts longer than an hour, and I bet that some of you have many more than three meetings per day. But the meeting time does add up.

Luckily I organize a number of these meetings myself, so I can ensure that my meetings never last longer than an hour.

(I don’t like meetings. The best person to arrange a meeting is a person who doesn’t like meetings. Such a person will get the meeting business done as soon as possible, before people fall asleep or run away screaming in agony.)

And the two people who (so far) have arranged the remainder of my meetings for this proposal project feel the same way.

Now I can’t guarantee that all of the meetings for this proposal will be short and sweet, and in fact expect that the meetings between Christmas and New Year’s may be longer than an hour. (Yes, meetings between Christmas and New Year’s. It’s proposal work.)

But at least the meetings keep me out of trouble.

By http://bp0.blogger.com/_S3pmq_z7OmM/RtBWfNYSsMI/AAAAAAAAAd0/sjmU7H1H0qM/s1600-h/rick_james-super_freak_s.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20057448

Bredemarket’s three goals for 2022 (the 12/6/2021 5:35 pm edition)

It’s goal time again.

But before setting goals for 2022, let’s take a look back.

How did I do in 2021?

Long-time readers will recall that as of January 8, 2021, I had five (actually six) goals for Bredemarket. So how did I do?

Goal 1: Help my clients to communicate and reach (and understand) their goals. Accomplished, and I got better at this over the year after I developed an intake form to look at my clients’ overall goals, benefits, and target audiences.

Goal 2: Pursue multiple income streams. Mostly accomplished, including income streams from new sources, although I’m still working on the local income stream.

Goal 3: Pursue multiple communication streams. Mostly accomplished, including a new LinkedIn showcase page, a new Instagram account, and a budding commitment to video. The podcast isn’t as active as it could be, though.

Goal 4: Eat my own iguana (actually wildebeest) food. Accomplished in a variety of ways, including submitting my own Request for Information (RFI) responses on behalf of Bredemarket.

Goal 5: Have fun. Accomplished (perhaps too much). I’m not sure how many people enjoy the YouTube music videos that are appended to more and more of my posts these days.

Goal 6: Be prepared to change. Accomplished so far, as I’ve rolled with the changes that took place in 2021.

But am I prepared for perhaps even greater changes in 2022?

What will I do in 2022?

The first tweak that I made to my goals for next year is that I’m defining fewer of them. I recently heard a suggestion that it’s best to only set two or three goals, rather than a slew of goals. Therefore some of my older goals, such as “have fun” and “be prepared to change,” are going to fall by the wayside.

The second tweak that I made is to make the goals SMARTer. While my 2021 goals were time-bound, they lacked specificity or measurability.

The third tweak…well, you’ll see it in a minute.

So what will I do in 2022?

Goal 1: Realize Bredemarket revenue from biometrics/identity, technology, and local business clients, as well as one other category to be determined. This goal encourages me to continue to realize biometrics/identity and technology revenue, start to realize local revenue, and to pursue revenue from a source that I haven’t even thought of yet.

Now the person who suggested that a business should only set two or three goals also stated that the business should define steps to realize each of these goals. I’m not going to share these steps here, in part because I haven’t figured then out yet. But I’m going to need to pursue some specific actions to continue established business and start new business.

And I obviously can make this goal smarter by targeting specific revenue amounts, which I’ve done in Goal 3.

Goal 2: Establish Bredemarket as a recognized authority in its market segments. Now I’m not talking about self-proclamation here (I’ve already done that for biometric content marketing and biometric proposal writing; I’m talking about having others recognize me in some substantive way. References from others are more powerful anyway.

Again, I need to figure out how to do this, and may even need to revise the goal to make it SMARTer once I figure this out.

Goal 3: This one’s a secret. I’ve set another goal that I’m not sharing publicly, but that clearly fits the SMART criteria. Now I have to see if I can do it.

OK, my goals are set. (Unless I change them.) Let’s see if I can meet them.

But if YOU need more robust goals…

If you think that my goal-setting process is too simple for you, and you would like to commit to a more robust process with annual and quarterly goals, as well as definition of the tasks that will help you accomplish the goals, you might want to sign up for Jay Clouse’s Annual Planning Workshop on Friday, December 17.

I will not be joining you, however. Not because I don’t think Jay Clouse’s workshops are of value; they certainly are (I created action items after attending his Invisible Selling workshop).

I won’t be joining you because I have a scheduling conflict.

(I may say more about my scheduling conflict in a future post.)