Help me reach my 2026 tactical goals by watching these three videos.
The playlist:
Identity/biometrics/technology marketing and writing services
An interesting item popped up in SAM.gov. According to a Request for Information (RFI) due February 20, the FBI may have interest in a system for secret biometric searches.
“The FBI intends to identify available software solutions to store and search subjects at the classified level. This solution is not intended to replace the Next Generation Identification System Functionality, which was developed and implemented in collaboration with the FBI’s federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial partners. The solution shall reside at the Secret and/or Top-Secret/SCI level with the ability to support data feeds from external systems. The solution must allow the ability to enroll and search face, fingerprint, palmprint, iris, and latent fingerprints, and associated biographic information with a given set of biometrics.”
Now remember that the Next Generation Identification (NGI) system is protected from public access by requiring all users to adhere to the CJIS Security Requirements. But the CJIS Security Requirements aren’t Secret or Top Secret. These biometric searches, whatever they are, must REALLY be kept from prying eyes.
The RFI itself is 8 pages long, and is mysteriously numbered as RFI 01302025. I would have expected an RFI number 01152026. I believe this was an editing error, since FBI RFI 01302025 was issued in 2025 for a completely different purpose.
Whatever the real number is, the RFI is labeled “Classified Identity-Based Biometric System.” No acronym was specified, so I’m self-acronyming it as CIBS. Perhaps the system has a real acronym…but it’s secret.
If your company can support such a system from a business, technical, and security perspective, the due date is February 20 and questions are due by February 2. See SAM.gov for details.
Each person has certain immutable attributes associated with them, such as their blood type. And other attributes, such as their fingerprints and iris characteristics, which are mostly immutable. (Although I defy anyone to change their irises.)
But other things associated with us are all too mutable. If we use these for identification, we’ll end up in trouble.
Let’s take one of the many attributes associated with Elvis Presley. If you haven’t heard of Presley, he was a popular singer in the mid 20th century. He’s even in Britannica.
(As a point of clarification, the song “Radio Radio” is associated with a DIFFERENT Elvis.)
Among many other songs, Presley is associated with the song “Don’t Be Cruel.”
Presley was not only the performer, but also the credited co-songwriter.
After all, that’s what BMI says when you search its Songview database. See BMI work ID 317493.

So if BMI says Presley co-wrote it, it must be true. Right?
Um, no. In reality, the song was written by Otis Blackwell alone.

So what’s the deal? The deal was this:
“…he listened to a selection of acetate demos provided by Freddy Bienstock, the new song representative assigned to Elvis by his publishers, Hill and Range. He chose “Don’t Be Cruel” by an obscure Brooklyn-born r&b singer and songwriter, Otis Blackwell. As per Hill and Range’s contractual requirement, it came with the assignment of half the publishing to Elvis Presley Music and half the writer’s share to Elvis Presley, but as Blackwell, the first of Elvis’ great “contract” writers, was always quick to point out, it was the best deal he ever made.”

Many songs are credited to Presley as a songwriter, but in reality he wrote few if any of them. Yet the “songwriter” attribute is assigned to him. Do we simply accept what BMI says and move on?
But there are other instances in which there are no back room deals, yet a song is strongly associated with a musical entity who never wrote it.
Take BMI Work ID 542061. The credited songwriters for this particular song are Robert Valentine Braddock and Claude Putnam, more commonly known as Bobby Braddock and Curly Putnam. According to RolandNote, Braddock and Putnam began writing this song on March 4, 1977 and finished it on October 18, 1977.
It was recorded by Johnny Russell on either March 7, 1978 (RolandNote), or January 18, 1979 (Second Hand Songs), or both (Classic Country Music Stories). But no recording was released.
Then George Jones recorded the song on February 6, 1980 with subsequent overdubs (“You know she came to see him one last time”) when he was more sober. His reaction?
“I looked [producer] Billy [Sherrill] square in the eye and said ‘nobody’s gonna buy that thing, it’s too morbid.’”
And morbid it was. Although popular music in general and country music in particular has never shied away from morbid songs.
Released the next month on March 18, the song was never associated with Braddock, Putnam, Russell, or Sherrill ever again. “He Stopped Loving Her Today” is completely associated with George Jones.

I am moved by the lyrical and emotional build-up, beginning with the very first line.
He said, “I’ll love you ’til I die”
After additional lines regarding a man’s unrequited love, the narrator enters the picture.
I went to see him just today
Oh but I didn’t see no tears
All dressed up to go away
First time I’d seen him smile in years
As for what happened next…listen to the song.
Now there’s a particular article that I wrote for a Bredemarket client a couple of years ago that used a slow reveal “reverse timeline” effect. Starting with 2022 and moving back in time to 2019, I slowly dropped the details about a missing person who was identified via biometric technology, finally solving the mystery of the person’s identity (Connerjack Oswalt).
But I’m no Braddock/Putnam.
And I’m no George Jones.
(Part of the biometric product marketing expert series)
I previously mused about an alternative universe in which a single human body had ten (different) faces.
Facial recognition would be more accurate if biometric systems had ten faces to match. (Kind of like you-know-what.)
Well, now I’m getting ridiculous by musing about a person with one hundred faces for identification.
When I’m not musing about alternative universes with different biometrics, I’m helping identity/biometric firms market their products in this one.
And this frivolous exercise actually illustrates a significant difference between fingerprints and faces, especially in use cases where subjects submit all ten fingerprints but only a single face. The accuracy benefits are…well, they’re ten times more powerful.
Are there underlying benefits in YOUR biometric technology that you want to highlight? Bredemarket can help you do this. Book a free meeting with me, and I’ll ask you some questions to figure out where we can work together.
I made this available to someone else, so I’m making it available to you. If you’re interested in a non-branded clip of the ten faces, here it is below.
The complete branded version remains at https://bredemarket.com/2026/01/12/1012/
The question again: if a human body had ten faces, how accurate would facial recognition be?
And the companion question…well, you’ll have to go to the branded version to see that.
(Part of the biometric product marketing expert series)
Bredemarket reserves the right to revisit topics I visited before.
Imagine an alternative universe in which a single human body had ten (different) faces and only one finger.
Think about the ramifications.
Credit for this thought, not original to me, must still remain anonymous.
But if you would like to discuss your biometric marketing and writing needs with a biometric product marketing expert, fill out the “free 30 minute content needs assessment” form on the page linked below to schedule a free conversation.
Help me reach my 2026 tactical goals by watching these videos.
(Part of the biometric product marketing expert series)
Continuing in my series of looks at biometric accuracy in an alternative universe.
If you need to market a biometric product that handles challenging conditions, book a free meeting with me at https://bredemarket.com/mark/
Hillsborough County, Florida seeks bidders for “the continuation of an anti-human trafficking media campaign and related services.”
Bredemarket is not expert in anti-human trafficking campaigns, but several of Bredemarket’s clients and former clients have used biometrics to combat human trafficking and rescue the victims.
Contribute however you can.
Francesco Fabbrocino of Dunmor presented at today’s SoCal Tech Forum at FoundrSpace in Rancho Cucamonga, California. His topic? Technology in FinTech/Fraud Detection. I covered his entire presentation in a running LinkedIn post, but I’d like to focus on one portion here—and my caveat to one of his five rules of fraud detection. (Four-letter word warning.)
In the style of Fight Club, Fabbrocino listed his five rules of fraud detection:
1. Nearly all fraud is based on impersonation.
2. Never expose your fraud prevention techniques.
3. Preventing fraud usually increases friction.
4. Fraud prevention is a business strategy.
5. Whatever you do, fraudsters will adapt to it.
All good points. But I want to dig into rule 2, which is valid…to a point.
If the fraudster presents three different identity verification or authentication factors, and one of them fails, there’s no need to tell the fraudster which one failed. Bad password? Don’t volunteer that information.
In fact, under certain circumstances you may not have to reveal the failure at all. If you are certain this is a fraud attempt, let the fraudster believe that the transaction (such as a wire transfer) was successful. The fraudster will learn the truth soon enough: if not in this fraud attempt, perhaps in the next one.
But “never” is a strong word, and there are some times when you MUST expose your fraud prevention techniques. Let me provide an example.
One common type of fraud is time card fraud, in which an employee claims to start work at 8:00, even though he didn’t show up for work until 8:15. How do you fool the time clock? By buddy punching, where your friend inserts your time card into the time clock precisely at 8, even though you’re not present.
Enter biometric time clocks, in which a worker must use their finger, palm, face, iris, or voice to punch in and out. It’s very hard for your buddy to have your biometric, so this decreases time clock fraud significantly.
Unless you’re an employer in Illinois, or a biometric time clock vendor to employers in Illinois.

And you fail to inform the employees of the purpose for collecting biometrics, and obtain the employees’ explicit consent to collect biometrics for this purpose.
Because that’s a violation of BIPA, Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act. And you can be liable for damages for violating it.
In a case like this, or a case in a jurisdiction governed by some other privacy law, you HAVE to “expose” that you are using an individual’s biometrics as a fraud prevention techniques.
But if there’s no law to the contrary, obfuscate at will.
Now there are a number of companies that fight the many types of fraud that Fabbrocino mentioned. But these companies need to ensure that their prospects and clients understand the benefits of their anti-fraud solutions.
That’s where Bredemarket can help.
As a product marketing consultant, I help identity, biometric, and technology firms market their products to their end clients.
And I can help your firm also.
Read about Bredemarket’s content for tech marketers and book a free meeting with me to discuss your needs.
More information: