department of defense Archives

Put a Human in the Loop Before Starting a War

Despite many pressures to use AI without restraint, we should always insert a human in the loop. Or we will pay the price.

The “AI almost started a war” claim

This is highlighted in a report in The Intercept, sourced from a story at CNN. While there’s always the possibility of exaggeration (or human hallucination), here’s what we do know.

There was a Chinese ship in the waters of the Middle East.
There was an associated report that said Chinese ship contained “components of a nuclear weapons program.”
Based upon this report, the U.S. military launched planes and prepared to board the ship.
The military investigated further, and found that a chatbot originated the claim. As CNN phrased it, “The bot fused together open-source intelligence with secret signals intelligence in government holdings and reached its fateful conclusion about the material the ship was carrying.”
The chatbot’s information was faulty.
The planes were called off.

And according to the sources, we barely avoided a U.S.-China war. Because something was misinterpreted.

Without a human in the loop, AI can yield faulty intelligence. Google Gemini.

Humans can start a war just as easily

But before I automatically jump to the conclusion that AI is days from killing us all, let me add one caveat.

You don’t need AI to reach a faulty conclusion.

Remember all the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein held in Iraq? And that literally DID start a war, although Iraq wasn’t capable of annihilating us like China can.

But AI can do it faster

But what CAN AI do? This quote from the CNN article is instructive.

“AI allows you to get to a bad idea faster,” one of the sources said.

It’s true. In the same way that AI allows Bredebot to write a blog post within minutes, AI can create an intelligence report within minutes. And that report, or that wildebeest-infused blog post, may be accurate or inaccurate.

Add a human in the loop

You prevent this by adding a human in the loop.

As clients are more likely to ask Bredemarket to use artificial intelligence…and as some clients INSIST that I use it…I still hold to the three principles I initially established in June 2023. These principles establish human governance of the use of AI.

A human should always write the first draft. (I intentionally break this for Bredebot posts, but otherwise I don’t.)
Only feed bits to the generative AI tool. (OK, I’ve relaxed that one a bit.)
Don’t share confidential information with the tool. (This is still critical.)

The intent behind all of these is to preserve the human in the loop. And controlling the output.

The Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities is a Nothingburger

If you thought IAL1 was a nothingburger, what about the Joint Commitment on Frontier Responsibilities, which is receiving criticism from outside AND INSIDE the U.S. Government?

The commitment

Let’s review what the commitment is.

First, the signatories include President Trump, Google’s Sundar Pichai, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, OpenAI’s Greg Brockman, XAI’s Elon Musk, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang, and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei. We’ve talked about Anthropic before. We’ll return to Anthropic later.

Second, the “commitment” (also known as the “White House Accord on Super Intelligence”) touts “robust internal processes and controls,” promotes empowering “an internal team” to monitor safety, calls for independent external auditors/evaluators, and also discusses setting up an independent committee of each company’s board of directors to oversee things. The document also discusses future meetings of the participants and possible legislation.

Well, I guess we got super intelligence out of the deal. Yes. Sí.

Google Gemini.

What commitment?

Some are not impressed.

“Critics contend those measures are inadequate given the commercial and geopolitical pressure on companies to build capable models…

“Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the administration has ‘resisted meaningful safeguards without offering a serious alternative’ and questioned whether the task force will establish safety standards or review advanced models….”

And no federal commitment either

Of course you could argue that this was all the art of the deal (perhaps you’ve heard the phrase before). The techies give President Trump a platform and use his preferred phrase “super intelligence” instead of “artificial intelligence.” In return, the President gives the techies lots of money and doesn’t put roadblocks in their way. Tit-for-tat, as it were.

Except that Trump’s own Department of Defense—I mean, Department of War (check the brand guide), refuses to play along. Remember how one of the signatories on the Joint Commitment was Anthropic? Well…

“A US Department of Defence official has told the BBC the Pentagon ‘has ceased the use of Anthropic products,’ months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated the AI company a ‘national security supply-chain risk’ and set a six-month phase-out.

“The February designation followed Anthropic’s refusal to lift safety guardrails on autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance. “

So let’s follow along. One of the participants in the government’s Super Intelligence event, touting how wonderful Sí is, is BANNED from use by a major government department because it is a “risk.”

Why is it a risk?

Because it includes guardrails.

So apparently the Joint Commitment DOES have teeth. Specifically, to let the federal government use AI—whoops, Sí—in any way it sees fit. And those who don’t agree get punished, even if they appear in the photo op.

It’s October 6, and this supposedly historic commitment is dead on arrival.

Does Your Firm Need Biometric Translations…or Other Translations?

When I talk about translation, I’m usually not talking about language translation. Trust me, my French, German, or Spanish isn’t good enough for that type of translation.

But I excel at other types of translation that help my client businesses run more smoothly.

Biometric translations

Bredemarket knows how different biometric systems “talk” differently…and how they can talk to each other.

I’m often talking about translating between different NIST-based biometric interchange standards. Because the FBI system doesn’t exchange biometric data in the same way as the DoD system, or the DHS system, or the RCMP system, or others.

As I stated in July 2025:

“Luckily all the different standards have some basic similarities, but if you have a mobile biometric device that must submit to DOJ and DoD and DHS, you need to switch to the proper profile for each submission….

“But I’ve overcome this frustration over 30 years of immersing myself in all things biometric-translation related.”

And I may immerse myself some more. One of Bredemarket’s clients distributes software that submits to one system. What if that software has to submit to two systems? Or 20? Or 200?

But I deal with other translations too.

Stakeholder translations

Bredemarket knows the players in an identity, biometric, or technology system…and how they can talk to each other.

Any complex project will have a variety of stakeholders, each of whom speak their own “language.” My job at Bredemarket often entails allowing these people to communicate with each other.

To illustrate this, let me share a simplified example of something I shared before.

Engineers develop a biometric application.

The application has to conform to forensic standards.

The application is used by people in the field who may not know engineering or forensics, but who know conditions in the field better than engineers or forensic experts.

By FBI – http://www.fbi .gov/news/photos, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18500900.

OK. Now write the user guide so that the field worker understands what the engineers created and captures what the forensic folks need.

This is where the inexperienced writer suffers from a failure of courage.

Let me tell you a little secret.

Most engineers can’t write the user manual. They’ll go into great detail about how the SDK references this particular process, but they can’t tell the field worker how to capture a fingerprint from a dead body that has been in the woods after a week of rain.

How has Bredemarket approached similar projects?

By asking the right questions of all the stakeholders—not just the three I mentioned here, but ALL of them including Ontario, California mayor Paul Leon (or whoever the political honcho is on YOUR project).

Then writing the draft. I won’t go into the “draft 0.5 – draft 1” mechanics here, since I’ve covered them elsewhere.

Then collaborating on the reviews, giving the draft to the stakeholders and insisting on getting timely feedback.

Then finalizing a document that allows the field worker to use the product in line with engineering and forensic advice (or advice from whoever) that the field worker understands.

I’ve performed this task—all the cool kids call this “cross-functional collaboration”—numerous times, working with everyone from sales to legal to a client’s own suppliers and end customers.

What do you need translated?

You know that your multi-department project won’t take off until someone glues the pieces together…and ensures that everyone is talking to each other.

At this moment Bredemarket is working on multiple client projects and delivering project management, strategy, writing, and other services.

This often involves translating between the different stakeholders. The outside business head doesn’t care what technical standards my client supports…but you can bet the outside technical head does.

Does your identity, biometric, or technology firm have a product marketing project that requires a lot of people to work together?

Let’s talk (for free) about how I can help. Set up a meeting below.

Can Your Software Capture Irises with an Android Camera?

Iris solution vendors, I hope you saw the latest and greatest from SAM.gov (PEO-TIS: Contactless Iris Collection Collaboration Event (CE)):

CONTACTLESS iris?

Now wait a minute.

Is anyone actually proposing CONTACT iris collection?

And I’m not talking about the old system of putting your iris really close to the camera. I’m talking about the iris TOUCHING the collection device, like many fingerprint systems do today.

I don’t think so.

But let’s look at the meat of the opportunity.

SOFWERX, in collaboration with USSOCOM Program Executive Office Tactical Information Systems (PEO-TIS), will host a series of events to complete a study of mobile devices (Android-based cell phones and tablets) with built-in cameras for their use in unaided iris localization and collection, including resolution testing and image distortion analysis.

Note the word “unaided.” It’s a lot easier to capture irises if the capture device does the work for you. Soldiers in the field don’t have time to precisely position the camera with an uncooperative subject.

A previous study indicated that it is possible to conduct iris localization using a mobile device camera, but a wider population pool is required to validate these results. A wider population of 500-1000 is adequate to prove the basic viability of the biometric algorithm.

Hey, it’s not a million people, but it’s not bad.

If you’re an iris solution vendor and register by August 28, here’s the timeline:

Phase 1: 30 September 2026 Collaboration Event (CE)
Phase 2 – 27 October 2026 to 27 November 2026 Submissions to the Assessment Event (AE) Open
Phase 2a – 11 November 2026 Q&A Telecon
Phase 3 – 30 November 2026 to 14 December 2026 Downselect
Phase 4 – 19 January 2026 [sic] to 21 January 2026 [sic] Assessment Event (AE)
Phase 5 – Path Forward

See the SAM.gov announcement for more details.

Since this effort is primarily technical, Bredemarket can’t drive the effort. But if you need assistance in content, proposal, or analysis materials before, during, and after the event, talk to me.

Getting in Trouble

It happens.

More later.

A Less Serious Observation of Memorial Day

Last year I wrote a very serious observation of Memorial Day, noting that it is not just a pool party and grill day.

“To be blunt about it, Memorial Day is a day about death, and if you can’t handle this truth, go back to the pool.”

I encourage you to read this to understand what Memorial Day is about.

Riverside National Cemetery picture Sigris Lopez, CC BY-SA 4.0. Source.

Since I covered the serious side of Memorial Day last year, today I will instead acknowledge that it IS a day for many to relax.

Patriotic shorts inspired by Danie Wylie, but with an Inland Empire feel. (For the IE and other tech firms that need marketing and writing services…tomorrow.)

Simplified For The Agency, Not Simplified For The Vendor

When you write something, read it first to ensure that you don’t burst out laughing after reading it.

If you read SAM.gov for fun, you may have seen Notice ID DCSA_2026_HS002126QE023 for Michigan Fingerprint Channeling. Offers are due on April 23, so if you can satisfy the requirements, get working.

As the acronym-aware probably already know, this was issued by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), part of the U.S. Department of Defense (with the secondary title the Department of War).

Why?

“DCSA has a recurring need for a simplified method of filling the anticipated repetitive needs for fingerprint channeling for the purpose of obtaining Criminal History Records Information (CHRI) from the state of Michigan.”

Because it’s a bad thing to make things hard, so DCSA needs a simplified method.

This is explained in the Performance Work Statement that is attached to the Solicitation Form. Another attachment is the Pricing Workbook.

So to make things simple for DCSA, you need to review all three of these documents and provide the approprirate responses.

And don’t forget to review ALL of the incorporated contract clauses, such as this one:

252.232-7006 Wide Area WorkFlow Payment Instructions. (Jan 2023)
WIDE AREA WORKFLOW PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS (JAN 2023)
(a) Definitions. As used in this clause-
“Department of Defense Activity Address Code (DoDAAC)” is a six position code that uniquely identifies a unit, activity, or organization.
“Document type” means the type of payment request or receiving report available for creation in Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF).
“Local processing office (LPO)” is the office responsible for payment certification when payment certification is done external to the entitlement system.
“Payment request” and “receiving report” are defined in the clause at 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports.
(b) Electronic invoicing. The WAWF system provides the method to electronically process vendor payment requests and receiving reports, as authorized by
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.232-7003, Electronic Submission of Payment Requests and Receiving Reports.
(c) WAWF access. To access WAWF, the Contractor shall-
(1) Have a designated electronic business point of contact in the System for Award Management at https://www.sam.gov; and
(2) Be registered to use WAWF at https://wawf.eb.mil/ following the step-by-step procedures for self-registration available at this web site.
(d) WAWF training. The Contractor should follow the training instructions of the WAWF Web-Based Training Course and use the Practice Training Site before
submitting payment requests through WAWF. Both can be accessed by selecting the “Web Based Training” link on the WAWF home page at https://wawf.eb.mil/
(e) WAWF methods of document submission. Document submissions may be via web entry, Electronic Data Interchange, or File Transfer Protocol.
(f) WAWF payment instructions. The Contractor shall use the following information when submitting payment requests and receiving reports in WAWF for this
contract or task or delivery order:
(1) Document type. The Contractor shall submit payment requests using the following document type(s):
(i) For cost-type line items, including labor-hour or time-and-materials, submit a cost voucher.
(ii) For fixed price line items-
(A) That require shipment of a deliverable, submit the invoice and receiving report specified by the Contracting Officer.
Invoice 2-in-1
(B) For services that do not require shipment of a deliverable, submit either the Invoice 2in1, which meets the requirements for the invoice and
receiving report, or the applicable invoice and receiving report, as specified by the Contracting Officer.
Invoice 2-in-1
(iii) For customary progress payments based on costs incurred, submit a progress payment request.
(iv) For performance based payments, submit a performance based payment request.
(v) For commercial financing, submit a commercial financing request.
(2) ) Fast Pay requests are only permitted when Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.213-1 is included in the contract.
(3) Document routing. The Contractor shall use the information in the Routing Data Table below only to fill in applicable fields in WAWF when creating payment requests and receiving reports in the system.

OK, that’s not the whole thing. I stopped copying it at the actual Routing Data Table itself.

This is of course a cost of doing business with any large entity, whether it’s the federal government or a multi-billion dollar firm. This who want money from these large organizations put up with it.

And laugh to themselves about the desire for things “simplified.”

The Benefits and Detriments of…um…Targeting

I’ve previously stated that Bredemarket is not the ideal content provider for B2C lifestyle brands. I’ve targeted a target audience of B2G/B2B identity, biometric, and technology firms instead.

Precise targeting can be very good…or it can be very bad.

A Targeted Weapon

Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It’s nice and quick and clean and gets things done

From the Dead Kennedys

Some of you may not remember the neutron bomb…and some of you do.

Since 1945, the common depiction of nuclear devastation was of catastrophic damage to people and buildings within a large area.

But then the concept of the neutron bomb was developed. Britannica explains:

“A neutron bomb is actually a small thermonuclear bomb in which a few kilograms of plutonium or uranium, ignited by a conventional explosive, would serve as a fission “trigger” to ignite a fusion explosion….

“Its blast and heat effects would be confined to an area of only a few hundred metres in radius, but within a somewhat larger radius of 1,000–2,000 metres the fusion reaction would…be extremely destructive to living tissue….”

As the popular press summarized it, neutron bombs, unlike older uranium or hydrogen bombs, would spare the buildings and kill the people.

What was missed was that the neutron bomb will kill fewer people in a smaller area.

The benefit of the neutron bomb?

The limited damage area promoted a theory in which neutron bombs could be used on the battlefield to target a limited group of enemy troops. This limited range would theoretically confine the damage to military targets without damaging “a whole civilization.”

But this benefit is also a detriment, as Britannica notes.

“However, other military strategists warned that fielding a “clean” nuclear weapon might only lower the threshold for entering into a full-scale nuclear exchange…”

And of course some opponents objected to the very idea of killing ANY people while leaving the buildings intact. Capitalist values at the forefront?

If you’ve never heard of the neutron bomb, they pretty much disappeared after the end of the Cold War.

Which is odd when you think about it, because the end of the Cold War made countries more likely to conduct small-scale wars against each other. From a military tactical perspective (ignoring the strategic or moral issues), neutron bombs seem perfect for such exchanges.

On DOJ/DoD/DHS ABIS Interoperability

The image at the top of this post was taken from the NIST website and is a from an interoperability slide in a 2016 FBI presentation. Although the reference to “IAFIS” suggests that the image was created long before 2016. No NGI, and no HART either.

Because—while this may make some uncomfortable—biometric interoperability between the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice is critically important.

For years after 9/11, the (then) systems from the three Departments were NOT interoperable.

Which made it difficult to identify if a military person or citizenship applicant was a criminal.

Today, while the three current systems use three different data interchange standards (based upon work by NIST), they CAN talk to each other.

We just have to ensure that the interoperability is legal and proper.

Yes, the “Two Presidents” Scenario Could Really Happen

My recent post about two “Presidents” with the power to launch nuclear attacks sounds technologically very difficult, but it’s not impossible. Even biometric modification can happen if an adversary has enough money.

Grok.

But as is true with anything, the technology is easy. The business part is the difficult part.

And most would argue that there is absolutely no way that a scam like this could be pulled off, especially since it would require inside cooperation.

Perhaps you’d better sit down.

August 9, 1974

Washington, DC was in a very confused state on August 9, 1974. When the day began, Richard Nixon was President and Gerald Ford was Vice President. Several hours later Ford would be President and there was no Vice President. (If Ford had suddenly died, Speaker of the House Carl Albert would have become President. If you thought the events of 1973 and 1974 were wild enough, imagine if Albert had become President.)

The morning of August 9 was carefully choreographed, but I am going to concentrate on two events involving Richard Nixon, Alexander Haig, and Henry Kissinger.

The first occurred at about 10:35 am when President Richard Nixon’s helicopter lifted off from the South Lawn, headed toward what was then Andrews Air Force Base.

The second occurred later, at about 11:35, when White House Chief of Staff walked into the office of Henry Kissinger, in Kissinger’s capacity as Secretary of State. Haig’s arrival was expected, as was the signed letter that he bore from President Nixon (en route to California). The letter was short.

“I hereby resign the Office of President of the United States.”

Kissinger indicated his receipt of the resignation and maintained communications with critical people, including Vice President Gerald Ford.

But there was one other critical person: the Secretary of Defense, James Schlesinger.

And there was one very important part of the choreography that wasn’t mentioned publicly that day.

Back to the Helicopter

I don’t know if “biscuits” existed in 1974, but footballs certainly did. And certainly the concept of continuity hadn’t yet matured to the Carter-Mondale level. But everyone agreed that according to the Constitution, on that day Richard Nixon remained President of the United States until he didn’t.

But according to reality, Nixon was…stressed.

“Schlesinger feared that the president, who seemed depressed and was drinking heavily, might order Armageddon. Nixon himself had stoked official fears during a meeting with congressmen during which he reportedly said, “I can go in my office and pick up a telephone, and in 25 minutes, millions of people will be dead.” Senator Alan Cranston had phoned Schlesinger, warning about “the need for keeping a berserk president from plunging us into a holocaust.””

And Schlesinger acted. When a liberal Democratic Senator demands action from a conservative Administration, sometimes things happen.

While some of the 1974 actions of Schlesinger, Kissinger, and Haig during the “final days” are murky, there is general agreement that Schlesinger gave a rather unusual order to the military.

“[I]n the final days of the Nixon presidency he had issued an unprecedented set of orders: If the president gave any nuclear launch order, military commanders should check with either him or Secretary of State Henry Kissinger before executing them.”

This is entirely against the Constitution. If the Vice President and Cabinet doubted the sanity of the President, the proper avenue was a 25th Amendment removal—not an inferior official disobeying the instructions of the Commander-in-Chief.

However, in those strange days, in which many things happened in secret, one can understand why Schlesinger did what he did.

But there was one other critical decision that was made on August 9.

Remember when President Nixon boarded the helicopter?

“[T]he most critical tool of the modern presidency had already been taken away from him. He never noticed it, but the nuclear “football” didn’t travel with him as he boarded the helicopter, and later, Air Force One for his flight back to California.”

Yes, the football. The thing that was ALWAYS with the President because the USSR could launch a nuclear attack at any moment.

Remember that Nixon was still President an hour after boarding the helicopter, when Kissinger received a visit from Haig. But if the U.S. had been attacked during that hour, the President couldn’t respond.

And the Vice President didn’t have the power to respond.

The football appears to have been in the custody of military aides outside the East Room, awaiting the moment that Gerald Ford would take the oath of office. (Although he was already President once Kissinger indicated his receipt of the resignation letter.)

But…who controlled the football?

Schlesinger?

Kissinger?

Carl Albert?

In the end nothing bad happened, but it could have.

And it’s therefore entirely possible that the aforementioned “two Presidents” scenario could happen.