Printrak and Morpho Acquired Companies. You Won’t Believe What Happened Next! (And what of…?)

Why do I have a sudden interest in things that happened at Morpho nearly 10 years ago, and at Printrak over 20 years ago? I’ll explain at the end of this post.

Printrak acquires…

Let’s start by looking at my former employer Printrak. In the summer of 1996 Printrak became a publicly traded company, and had secured the four-letter ticker “AFIS” back when an automated fingerprint identification system was THE biometric solution. (Face schmace. Iris schmiris. Voice schmoice.)

But then Printrak began to get bigger.

  • In April 1997 Printrak acquired a Greenville, South Carolina company, TFP Inc., that manufactured mugshot systems.
  • Later that same year Printrak acquired SunRise Imaging of Fremont, California, a provider of microfiche scanning services.
  • Printrak finished the year by acquiring the computer aided dispatch (CAD) and records management systems (RMS) unit of SCC Communications Corp., thus launching activities in Boulder, Colorado.

These acquisitions, costing millions of dollars each, increased the capabilities of Printrak. Several years later, I would be part of creating a “digital justice solution” that married AFIS, CAD, RMS, mugshot, and other services.

But not yet. Before that could happen, Printrak changed dramatically.

Printrak is acquired!

There used to be an online document that listed the entire negotiation history of what happened after these acquisitions, but I can no longer access that document. Instead, I found a document that lists the final results:

“ITEM 5. OTHER EVENTS On August 28, 2000, Printrak International Inc. (the “Registrant”) issued a press release regarding an agreement (the “Merger Agreement”) among Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola”), the Registrant, Panther Acquisition Corp., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Motorola (“Acquisition Sub”) and the Giles Living Trust UDT dated December 17, 1993, The Giles Family Foundation, and The Smith Family Revocable Trust dated October 2, 1992 (collectively referred to herein as the “Registrant’s Majority Stockholders”) pursuant to which Acquisition Sub will be merged (the “Merger”) with and into Registrant, with Registrant surviving the Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Motorola. On August 28, 2000 the Registrant’s Majority Stockholders executed a written consent of stockholders approving the terms and authorizing the execution of the Merger Agreement by the Registrant. Under the Merger Agreement, Motorola has agreed to pay $12.1406 per share for all the outstanding common stock and common stock equivalents of Registrant for an aggregate merger consideration of approximately $160 million.”

In the language above, the two “Giles” entities were controlled by Richard Giles, who had joined De La Rue Printrak and then purchased the Printrak part from De La Rue. The Smith Family Revocable Trust was controlled by Charles Smith, another Printrak employee. While Printrak was a publicly traded entity, Richard Giles held over half the shares, and therefore had the power to sell, provided that the deal received the proper approvals from the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Romania, and other countries.

Why did Motorola want to acquire Printrak? Because Motorola needed a CAD product to pair with its significant business in police radios. And among Printrak’s acquisitions was a division with a CAD product, making that acquisition by far the most significant of the three acquisitions from 1997. Microfiche went nowhere, and the fact that the present company DataWorks Plus was founded in 2000 in Greenville, South Carolina is no accident.

But returning to Printrak, its growth through acquisitions made Printrak itself an acquisition target.

SCC, Sunrise Imaging, Printrak…and Motorola.

Morpho acquires…

Fast forward a few years, and a lot had happened at the Motorola company that Printrak joined. I won’t go into the history of Motorola during that decade, but by 2008 the company was shedding businesses that weren’t critically important. The CAD and RMS business was critically important, but the fingerprint business—the original pre-1997 Printrak—was not.

Which naturally attracted the attention of a large French aerospace/defense company, Safran. This company, itself the merger of two firms, had its own fingerprint identification technology, but I’ll let Ken Moses and his co-authors (including Scott Swann) tell this part of the story:

“In the late 1970s, a computer engineering subsidiary of France’s largest financial institution responded to a request by the French Ministry of Interior to work on automated fingerprint processing for the French National Police. Later, this company joined with the Morphologic Mathematics Laboratory at the Paris School of Mines to form a subsidiary called Morpho Systems that went on to develop a functioning [AFIS].”

Morpho Systems and its North American subsidiary were acquired by several companies in succession, the last being Safran.

And Safran thought that Motorola’s “Biometric Business Unit” would complement its existing biometric activities. So Safran purchased the unit (including me) from the willing seller Motorola, which became part of MorphoTrak.

But Safran wasn’t done acquiring. As I previously noted:

“By 2011, Safran decided that it needed additional identity capabilities, so it acquired L-1 Identity Solutions and renamed the acquisition as MorphoTrust.”

Along the way Safran also acquired a controlling stake in GE Homeland Protection, which it renamed Morpho Detection.

These various acquisitions strengthened Safran’s identity and biometric capabilities, which was good because Safran’s competitors were also busy. Eventually the entire identity and security business was renamed “Morpho” after the little old French company from the 20th century. This was a major division within Safran’s empire…

Morpho is acquired!

…but Safran remained an aerospace/defense company, and Morpho was a distraction.

A distraction that attracted the attention of Advent International. Advent had acquired a company called Oberthur Technologies in 2011, with the intent of improving it and selling it for a profit. Advent decided that an Initial Public Offering (IPO) would be a way to realize this profit, but Oberthur withdrew its IPO in 2015.

Would Oberthur be a more attractive IPO if it was combined with another entity, such as the non-aerospace/defense part of Safran?

The upshot was that Advent and Safran started talking, resulting in a sale that created the combined (mostly) Advent-controlled entity OT-Morpho. But a name change happened a few months later.

I watched this from a conference room in Anaheim, California.

I won’t get into the subsequent history of IDEMIA, in which Advent has spun off one part of IDEMIA, and may be spinning off another.

The point I want to make? Morpho’s growth through acquisitions made Morpho itself an acquisition target.

Motorola’s Biometric Business Unit, L-1 Identity Solutions, Morpho…and Advent International.

Incode acquires…

Now before someone slams me, I’m not making any predictions, just some observations.

Now let’s look at my former employer Incode. Unlike Printrak, Incode is not a publicly-traded firm. Like IDEMIA, Incode is held by private investors, although in Incode’s case there are multiple investors, not just one. Incode’s investors include General Atlantic, Softbank, J. P. Morgan, and others.

Lately Incode has been on an acquisition spree of its own.

Now remember that Incode’s investors didn’t invest just because they want to see cool technologies. They invested because they want to make money. And these moves potentially strenghthen Incode so that its investors may make a profit through an Incode IPO…

…or an acquisition of Incode by another entity, which would continue the consolidation of the identity/biometric industry.

???

Do Your Technology Prospects Know the Critical Importance of “Continuous” Access Evaluation?

Today’s word is continuous. A word that your technology solution prospects need to understand.

The problem

The Identity Jedi just shared the dirty little secret that we all know but aren’t willing to admit.

[A]ccess reviews aren’t inherently about security — they’re about satisfying auditors.”

The Jedi’s assumption is that the access review is a periodic one, completely satisfied by manually checking boxes.

Because it’s easier to evaluate whether a box is checked than to evaluate whether the system is truly secure, and people who no longer deserve access don’t have it.

The solution

But companies move beyond check boxes anyway, because they realize the other point that the Identity Jedi made.

“Instead of waiting for quarterly reviews, implement continuous access evaluation that flags high-risk or out-of-policy access the moment it happens — not months later.”

Many cybersecurity and TPRM vendors have implemented continuous access evaluation. Has yours?

For the continued access evaluation vendors

And if you are a vendor of a continued access evaluation solution, do your prospects know about why it’s critically important, and the benefits that such a solution provides?

If you haven’t told your prospects about the benefits of continuous access evaluation, it’s time.

And I can help.

Famous Person Image Reverse Engineering

(Imagen 4)

So I just engaged in a reverse engineering exercise in Facebook’s Bredemarket Picture Clubhouse.

Let me explain.

Google Gemini imposes severe restrictions against creating pictures of famous figures. You can’t create a picture of President Taylor Swift, for example. But Woody Guthrie is fair game, which is no surprise to anyone who knows of JibJab’s tussle with the Richmond Organization. But I digress.

But what if I uploaded a Wikipedia picture of a famous figure to Google Gemini, asked Gemini to describe it, then had Gemini create a picture based upon its own description?

Unfortunately it doesn’t always perform a perfect recreation, and I bet none of you can figure out the original famous figure depicted here.

The description, excluding her attire:

“The person in the image is a woman with fair skin and light-colored hair, possibly blonde or light brown. Her hair is styled with a slight wave and a side part. She appears to be of a mature age, with some wrinkles visible on her face, particularly around her eyes and mouth. Her eyes are light, likely blue or grey. Her nose is straight and her lips are thin. She has a serious or neutral expression.”

How to (Almost) Sell Anything to Anyone

Marketers, have you ever used someone else’s marketing as an opportunity to market your own solution?

I’ll confess that I’m haunting online conversations about the Kettering Chick-fil-A age assurance issue and adding a technical spin to the conversations.

But I’m not the only one doing this.

I admire the effort of this person who recently emailed me:

“Hi John,

“Your recent post about the 22 types of content product marketers create caught my eye. It echoes what we’ve been seeing with global teams – managing diverse content across borders can be as complex as handling cross-border payroll.”

The emailer then launched into a pitch for his cross-border payroll solution.

While I give the emailer an A+ for effort, the emailer didn’t do his research on his prospect. His prospect, me:

  • Focuses his business on the U.S. (with one exception that you may have seen me mention).
  • Is a sole proprietor, and therefore does not handle payroll in any country.

Good effort though, even though I’m not one of the emailer’s hungry people (target audience).

And if you want to know about the 22 types of content product marketers create, NOW ENDORSED BY A CROSS-BORDER PAYROLL EXPERT, read my post here.

Why retail needs biometrics – the cameras aren’t working, and the people aren’t working either

(Imagen 4)

In a recent post on Biometric Update, “Why retail needs biometrics – the cameras aren’t working,” Professor Fraser Sampson, former UK Biometrics & Surveillance Camera Commissioner made several points about the applicability of biometrics to retail. Among the many points he addressed, he dealt with algorithmic inaccuracy and the proper use of facial recognition as an investigative lead:

“It’s true that some early police algorithms were poor, but the biometric matching algorithms offered by some providers is over 99.99% – that’s as close to perfect as anyone has ever got. That’s NASA-level accuracy, better than some medical or military procedures and light years away from people staring at CCTV monitors. What about errors and misidentification? Used properly, LFR is a decision support tool, it’s not making the identification itself. Ultimately, it’s helping shopkeepers make their decisions and that’s where the occasional misidentification happens – by human error, not technical.”

I offered an additional comment:

“One other point: for all those who complain about the lack of perfection of automated facial recognition, it’s much better than manual facial recognition. The U.S. Innocence Project recounts multiple cases of witness MISidentification, where people have been imprisoned due to faulty and inaccurate identification of suspects as perpetrators. I’d much rather have a top tier FR algorithm watching me than a person who knows nothing about facial recognition at all.”

In case you missed it, I’ve written several Bredemarket blog posts on witness MISidentification: two on Robert Williams’ misidentification alone.

Heck, I addressed the topic back in 2021 in “The dangers of removing facial recognition and artificial intelligence from DHS solutions (DHS ICR part four).” This post covers the misidentification of Archie Williams (no relation).

So don’t toss out the automated facial recognition solution unless you have something better. I’ll wait.

Just Change The Song

“And don’t worry about how it looks to others. It doesn’t matter if no one else hears the music or understands it. What matters is that it belongs to you. Some of the most beautiful dances are the ones no one sees—the moments when you close your eyes, sway to your own inner melody, and remember that you are more than your obligations, more than the expectations placed upon you.”

Georgi Kisyov, “Just Change The Song”:

http://georgikisyov.com/2025/08/19/just-change-the-song/

The Buca di Beppo in Claremont is Closing

(Imagen 4)

The Buca di Beppo in Claremont is closing, along with a host of other locations nationwide.

I learned about this from an Utah source, which was shocked because 100% of the Buca di Beppos in Utah are closing. All two of them.

As of tonight the Claremont location remains open, and I haven’t been able to find a closure date.

Back here, other Southern California Buca di Beppo locations closing include:

  • Brea
  • Carlsbad
  • Claremont
  • Encino
  • Garden Grove
  • Huntington Beach
  • Pasadena
  • Redondo Beach
  • San Diego
  • Santa Clarita
  • Thousand Oaks

Age Assurance Moves to Fast Food at a Chick-fil-A in Kettering, Ohio

(Imagen 4)

How old are you? The question that’s been asked at bars, pornography sites, and social media sites is now being asked at…a fast food restaurant in Kettering, Ohio.

I’ve talked about age assurance, age verification, and age estimation in a variety of use cases, including:

  • alcohol
  • tobacco
  • firearms
  • cannabis
  • driver’s licenses
  • gambling
  • “mature” adult content
  • car rentals
  • social media access

But what about fast food?

Anti-teen dining policies are nothing new, but this particular one is getting national attention.

The Kettering Chick-fil-A Teen Chaperone Policy

The Chick-fil-A in Kettering, Ohio (which apparently is a franchise and not company owned) posted the following last week:

“With school starting, we wanted to make sure that everyone is aware of our Teen Chaperone Policy. We are grateful for your support and want to make sure Chick-fil-A Kettering is a safe and enjoyable place for everyone! Thank you so much!”

From the Chick-fil-A Kettering Facebook page. (LINK)

Chick-fil-A Kettering Teen Chaperone Policy

To ensure a safe and respectful environment for all guests:

Guests 17 and under must be accompanied by a parent, guardian, or adult chaperone (age 21+) to dine in.

Unaccompanied minors may be asked to leave.

Thank you for helping us keep Chick-fil-Afamily-friendly!

Chick-fil-A Kettering

    For the moment let’s admit that the Chick-fil-A worker (who may or may not be 17 years old themselves) tasked with enforcing the rule will probably just eyeball the person and decide if they’re old enough.

    And let’s also ignore the business ramifications of this franchise’s actions, not only for the franchise location itself, but for all Chick-fil-A restaurants, including those who welcome people of all ages at all times.

    Brick-and-mortar, underage

    But there are some ramifications I want to address now.

    This is definitely a brand new use case unlike the others, both because

    • it affects a brick-and-mortar establishment (not a virtual one), and
    • it affects people under the age of 18 whose ages are difficult to authenticate.

    The last point is a big one I’ve addressed before. People under the age of 18 may not have a driver’s license or any valid government ID that proves their age. And if I’m a kid and walking to the Chick-fil-A, I’m not taking my passport with me.

    In a way that’s precisely the point, and the lack of a government ID may be enough to keep the kids out…except that people over the age of 18 may not have a driver’s license either, and thus may be thrown out unjustly.

    Enforcing a business-only rule without government backing

    In addition, unlike alcohol or cannabis laws, there are very few laws that can be used to enforce this. Yes, there are curfew laws at night, and laws that affect kids during school hours, but this franchise’s regulation affects the establishment 24 hours a day (Sundays excluded, of course).

    So Chick-fil-A Kettering is on its own regarding the enforcement of its new rule.

    Unless Kettering modifies its municipal code to put the rule of law behind this rule and force ALL fast food establishments to enforce it.

    And then what’s next? Enforcement at the Kettering equivalent of James Games?