Europeans generally do not celebrate the U.S. Thanksgiving, unless they spent time in this country and like the food.
But for most Europeans this will be another Thursday. Actually it’s already Thursday in Europe. Good morning.
And Europe is also ahead of the U.S. in biometric entry AND exit. Just ask the Swiss.
“Switzerland’s busiest international hub, Zurich Airport is swept up in the EU-wide upgrade to how third-country nationals are registered at Schengen borders, with the rollout of the EU Entry/Exit System.”
I’ve previously commented that the precinct workers in voter ID states have neither the knowledge nor the equipment to tell a fake voter ID from a real one.
But what if you rely on things other than voter ID to determine identity?
“My vote didn’t count against prop 50 because my signature didn’t match ? I voted in person !! With ID that no one asked for !! Make it make sense !! I’m sure I’m not the only vote they didn’t count !!”
So my state of California, which does not require voter ID, uses signature verification. If you view cherielynn69’s original thread, you will see a letter from the Butte County Clerk-Recorder stating “signature does not match.”
I’d like to know who made that determination, and what training they had.
As it turns out, I have never discussed signatures as a biometric in detail. But the Biometrics Institute has, distinguishing between static and dynamic signatures. You obtain more information with the latter:
“The physical actions involved in writing a signature are captured, usually on a screen sensitive device like a tablet, and recorded electronically. Consequently different characteristics are used rather than just those found in the image of the signature. This involves a three dimensional (X, Y & Z axes) evaluation of the time taken, rhythm and varying velocities of forming each letter and the overall signature, pen/stylus pressure and the direction of the strokes, including free strokes, for example crossing a ‘T’ or dotting an ‘I’.”
Which is nice…except that when comparing the signature on a mail-in ballot to the signature on a voter roll, only static signature comparison is available.
And static signatures are not all that accurate.
In 1971, publisher McGraw-Hill scored the rights to Howard Hughes’ life story, accompanied by a letter from Howard Hughes affirming that he had authorized writer Clifford Irving to act on Hughes’ behalf. Experts from McGraw-Hill examined the letter and concluded that Hughes could have written it…until those troublesome postal inspectors noticed something. While the writing in the Hughes letter differed from Irving’s own writing, the two shared telltale similarities.
Because while it’s hard to change your face, and very hard to change your finger, it’s much easier to change your signature. But not easy enough, as the postal inspectors showed.
So I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t rely on signatures as proof of identity.
Do you want to skip the book and watch the movie version? Thanks to Google’s NotebookLM, you can.
I used the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Electronic Biometric Transmission Specification (EBTS) for this exercise.
What should you NOT upload to NotebookLM?
But there’s two things I need to say about the EBTS:
First, the EBTS is a public document and not a top secret document. You can download the EBTS yourself from the https://fbibiospecs.fbi.gov/ebts-1/approved-ebts-1 URL. For my test I used version 11.3 of the EBTS from earlier this year.
Second, the EBTS is a public domain document and is not copyrighted. This is something I need to emphasize. If you’re going to take a magazine article and make a movie out of it, the copyright holder may have something to say about that.
Both points are important. If you want to upload your employer’s confidential report into NotebookLM for analysis…well, you probably shouldn’t. But the public, non-copyrighted EBTS is safe for this exercise.
Uploading the EBTS to NotebookLM
So I uploaded the EBTS into NotebookLM, and as expected, I received a short text sumnmary of the document.
“This document outlines the technical specifications for the electronic exchange of biometric and biographic information between various law enforcement agencies and the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Next Generation Identification (NGI) System. It details the Transaction Offense Types (TOTs), which are the standardized requests and responses used for services such as identification, verification, investigation, and data management. Furthermore, the text specifies the precise data fields, formats, and codes required for the submission and retrieval of diverse biometric data, including fingerprints, palm prints, facial images, and iris scans, while also setting forth image quality specifications for scanner and printer certification.”
Now I could continue to query NotebookLM about the document, but I chose to request a video overview instead. This feature was introduced a few months ago, but I missed it.
“Video Overviews transform the sources in your notebook into a video of AI-narrated slides, pulling images, diagrams, quotes, and numbers from your documents. They distill complex information into clear, digestible content, providing a comprehensive and engaging visual deep dive of your material.”
So I launched the video overview creation feature, and waited. As I waited, I mused upon the time it would take me to create this video manually, and I also mused on the usual LLM warning that the result may contain inaccuracies.
I didn’t have to wait that long, maybe 15 minutes, and Google delivered this 7-minute video.
Inside the FBI’s EBTS. Created by Google NotebookLM based upon EBTS Version 11.3.
Not too bad…especially considering that the video was created based upon a single source. Imagine if I had provided multiple sources, such as an old version of the Electronic Fingerprint Transmission Specification (EFTS); then the video may have covered the evolution of the standard.
Unpacking the EBTS standard. Created by Google NotebookLM based upon EBTS Version 11.3.
In an environment where many people like to watch or listen rather than read, this helps provide a quick overview. But you still have to dive into the document and read it to truly understand it.
Identity/biometric marketing leaders continuously talk about how their companies have reduced bias in their products. But have they reduced bias in their own marketing to ensure it resonates with prospects?
“Marketers are driven to accentuate the positive about their companies. Perhaps the company has a charismatic founder who repeatedly emphasizes how ‘insanely great’ his company is and who talked about ‘bozos.’ (Yeah, there was a guy who did both of those.)
“And since marketers are often mandated to create both external and internal sales enablement content, their view of their own company and their own product is colored.”
Let’s look at two examples of biometric marketing internal bias…and how to overcome it.
Google Gemini.
Internal bias at Company A
Company A does not participate in the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Face Recognition Technology Evaluation (FRTE) for technical reasons.
As a result, the company’s marketing machine constantly discredits NIST FRTE, and the company culture is permeated with a “NIST is stupid” mentality.
All well and good…until it runs into that one prospect who asks, “Why are you scared to measure yourself against the competition? Does your algorithm suck that bad?”
Internal bias at Company B
Company B, on the other hand, participates in FRTE, FATE, FRIF (previously FpVTE), and every other NIST test imaginable.
This company’s marketing machine declares its superiority as a top tier biometric vendor, supported by outside independent evidence.
All well and good…until it runs into that one prospect who declares, “That’s just federal government test data. How will you perform in our benchmark using our real data and real computers?”
Internal bias at Bredemarket
Well, I have my admittedly biased solution to prevent companies from tumbling into groupthink, drinking of Kool-Aid, and market irrelevance.
Contract with an outside biometric product marketing expert. (I just happen to know one…me.)
Google Gemini.
I haven’t spent 30 years immersed in your insular culture. I’ve heard all the marketing-speak from different companies, and I’ve written the marketing-speak for nearly two dozen of them. I can ensure that your content resonates with your external customers and prospects, not only with your employees.
All well and good…until…
Reducing internal bias at Bredemarket
“But John, what about your own biases? IDEMIA, Motorola, Incode, and other employers paid you for 25 years! You probably have an established process that you use to prepare andouillette at home, based upon a recipe from 2019!”
Google Gemini.
I don’t…but point taken. So how do I minimize my own biases?
My breadth of experience lessens the biases from my past. Look at my market-speak from 1994 to 2023, in order:
We are Printrak, a nimble private company that will dominate AFIS with our client-server solution.
We are Printrak (stock symbol AFIS) a well-funded public company that will dominate AFIS, mugshot, computer aided dispatch, and microfiche.
We are Motorolans, and our multi-tier Digital Justice Solution has a superior architecture to that of Sagem Morpho and others.
We are MorphoTrak, bringing together the best technologies from MetaMorpho and Printrak BIS, plus superior French technology for secure credentials and road safety…unencumbered by the baggage that weighs down MorphoTrust.
We are IDEMIA North America, bringing together the best technologies from MorphoTrust and MorphoTrak for ABIS, driver’s licenses, and enrollment, coupled with the resources from the rest of IDEMIA, a combined unbreakable force.
We are Incode, not weighed down with the baggage of the old dinosaurs, and certainly not a participant in the surveillance market.
Add all the different messaging of Bredemarket’s clients, plus my continuous improvement (hello MOTO) of my capabilities, and I will ensure that my content, proposals, and analysis does not trap you in a dead end.
Reducing internal bias at your company
Are you ready to elevate your company with the outside perspective of a biometric product marketing expert?
Let’s talk (a free meeting). You explain, I ask questions, we agree on a plan, and then I act.
Whether you are a human or a non-person entity (NPE) with facial recognition capability, you rely on visual cues to positively identify or authenticate a person. Let’s face it; many people resemble each other, but specific facial expressions or emotions are not always shared by people who otherwise look alike.
All pictures Google Gemini.
But in one of those oddities that fill the biometric world, you can have TOO MUCH expression. Part 3 of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Document 9303, which governs machine readable travel documents, mandates that faces on travel documents must maintain a neutral expression without smiling. At the time (2003) it was believed that the facial recognition algorithms would work best if the subject were expressionless. I don’t know if that holds true today.
But once the smile is erased, any other removal of expression or emotion degrades identification capability significantly. For example, closing the eyes not only degrades facial recognition, but is obviously fatal to iris recognition.
And if you remove the landmarks upon which facial recognition depends, identification is impossible.
While expression or lack thereof does not invalidate the assumption of permanence of the biometric authentication factor, it does govern the ability of people and machines to perform identification or authentication.
Biometric marketing leaders, do your firm’s product marketing publications require the words of authority?
John E. Bredehoft of Bredemarket, the biometric product marketing expert.
Can John E. Bredehoft of Bredemarket—the biometric product marketing expert—contribute words of authority to your content, proposal, and analysis materials?
I offer:
30 years of biometric experience, 10 years of product marketing expertise, and complementary proposal and product management talents.
Success with numerous biometric firms, including Incode, IDEMIA, MorphoTrak, Motorola, Printrak, and over a dozen biometric consulting clients.
In late 2019 and early 2020 I was working on a project promoting biometric entry at sports facilities and concert venues…until a teeny little worldwide pandemic shut down all the sport and concert venues.
Some of you may remember that a pivotal day during that period was March 11, 2020. Among many many other things, this was the day on which basketball fans awaited the start of a game.
“8 p.m. [ET; 7 p.m. local time]: In Oklahoma City, it was just another game day for Nerlens Noel and his Thunder teammates, who were warming up to play the visiting Utah Jazz.”
The day soon became abnormal after a meeting between NBA officials and the two coaches. Unbeknownst to the crowd, the officials and coaches were discussing a medical diagnosis of Rudy Gobert. (That’s another story.)
“8:31 p.m. [ET]: Teams were sent back to their locker rooms but the crowd at Chesapeake Energy Arena weren’t informed of the cancellation immediately. Instead, recording artist Frankie J, the intended halftime entertainment, put on his show, while officials decided how to break the news.”
Eight minutes later, the crowd was instructed to leave the arena.
Twenty minutes after that, the NBA suspended all games.
Imagen 4.
A little over a month later, on April 19, millions of people were huddled in their homes, glued to the opening episode of a TV series called The Last Dance…the only basketball any of us were going to get for a while. And of course, these games were on decades-long tape delay, and we already knew the outcome. (The Chicago Bulls won.)
And that was our basketball…until the suspended season resumed on July 30 under very bizarre circumstances.
Anyway, all of that was a very long time ago.
Imagen 4.
Games and concerts have been back in business since 2021, and identity verification and authentication of venue visitors with biometrics and other factors is becoming more popular every year.
I’m conducting an experiment in which an AI bot, “Bredebot,” is writing on the Bredemarket blog and on LinkedIn with almost no restrictions.
Don’t do this at home. It’s not a good idea.
This post describes an example in which Bredebot misses a critically important point about Bredemarket’s target audience in the identity/biometric industry.
“The true competitive advantage isn’t the Al tools themselves but how you use them. Your unique processes for data capture, knowledge management, and building trust are the real ‘moat.’ Al becomes powerful when it’s integrated with your proprietary insights and context, making your approach impossible to replicate.”
Moat. I like that. Imagen 4 (via Bredebot.)
Mabry also advocates including a human in the loop: his firm, Fast + Light, always asks at least one human (preferably two) to review all AI-generated content.
In my Bredebot experiment, I rarely edit what Bredebot says. If you know me, it’s very obvious that Bredebot wrote this and I didn’t.
“Building Trust: In the identity and biometrics space, trust isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s paramount. If customers don’t trust you with their most sensitive data, you simply don’t have a business. Your processes for privacy, security, transparency, and ethical AI usage are not just compliance requirements; they are fundamental differentiators. How you communicate these efforts, how you manage data breaches (heaven forbid!), and how you constantly reinforce your commitment to security are all part of this trust-building moat. This is where your wombat customers, usually burrowing away, will emerge to praise (or criticize) your efforts.”
While I certainly agree with the sentiment, and obviously don’t mind the reference to wombats, I would have made one change.
The t word
I would have modified Bredebot’s use of the T word. Just because Mabry used it doesn’t mean that Bredebot has to do the same.
“Now perhaps some of you would argue that trust is essential to identity verification in the same way that water is essential to an ocean, and that therefore EVERYBODY HAS to use the t-word in their communications.
Bredemarket 