“If you boil down the controversies about Flock Safety…and other investigative software packages, some of them come down to…data sharing issues.”
But in the end it doesn’t matter, because as long as there are still buyers for Flock Safety’s products, Flock Safety will continue to sell them.
Until they don’t.
“The Los Angeles Police Department…stopped working with [Flock Safety] over concerns about the data’s use, according to an LAPD official.”
Not cancelled entirely, but suspended temporarily.
“Dean Gialamas, LAPD’s chief information officer, told several news outlets that the LAPD is seeking more protections around the information collected by the agency.
“’The sticking point is around having very clear terms about who owns the data, what happens with the data once they collect it,’ said Gialamas.
“He said the LAPD would stop using Flock ‘until we can get those data, privacy, security and sharing concerns ironed out through a contractual relationship.’”
You will recall that in the state of Washington, those issues of ownership were murky. Jose Rodriguez requested camera data from the City of Stanwood, but Stanwood claimed they didn’t have the data but Flock Safety did. Except that Flock Safety claimed that the data was the property of Stanwood. Oh, and the relevant records had been auto-deleted. (There were also some issues regarding whether those records were “public record.”)
Will Los Angeles and Flock Safety reach a definitive agreement that clearly specifies who owns the data…and who can receive the data? From Los Angeles’ perspective, it doesn’t want its data to go to Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Vendors that develop fingerprint templates and matchers usually develop their own proprietary algorithms, but there is one instance in which the vendors work together.
ANSI INCITS 378-2009 (S2019) specifies a universal fingerprint format, and vendors can develop 378-compatible template generators and matchers.
How are these measured? By NIST’s MINEX III testing.
When sorted in NIST default order for a false negative match rate at a given false match rate (“Pooled 2 Fingers FNMR @ FMR≤10-2“), the top vendors include IDEMIA, Innovatrics, and Neurotechnology.
But remember that this only matters when using ANSI INCITS 378 templates. It doesn’t matter if you’re using a vendor’s proprietary template.
So who uses ANSI INCITS 378 templates?
Cards and systems based upon Personal Identity Verification (PIV) templates, as specified by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) and FIPS 201.
Certain cards using Match-on-Card technology.
But most systems you encounter will NOT use ANSI INCITS 378, so the standard may not matter to you at all.
Do your customers care?
But even if you are deploying systems that use ANSI INCITS 378, your customers don’t care.
They just care about complying with federal regulations for PIV cards.
Small comfort if your loved ones die in a terrorist attack, but ROC’s (Rank One Computing’s) product ROC Watch has won a special designation, as Biometric Update reports.
“ROC continues to cement its position in the U.S. biometrics market for defense and law enforcement, with the announcement that its product suite, ROC Watch, has received a Developmental Testing and Evaluation (DT&E) Designation under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies (SAFETY) Act.”
So what?
“ROC and customers deploying ROC Watch receive federal liability protections in the event of an act of terrorism.”
Testing and evaluation designations vs. full designations
Note that a Developmental Testing and Evaluation designation is not a full designation, but only applies for…drumroll…testing and evaluation.
Full designations are held by a number of critical infrastructure entities, including stadiums, the Evolv Expedite product, and CLEAR. There are expired certifications held by Lockheed Martin for the FBI’s Next Generation Identification System, and MorphoTrust for its ABIS.
Business concerns override technology concerns
Again, so what?
This illustrates a key principle in biometrics, and in other technologies: while technological concerns are important, business concerns are critically important. Even if your solution is a technological marvel, it doesn’t matter if it runs into legal, organizational, or other bottlenecks.
For this reason, you should always emphasize your prospects’ needs rather than the cool technology.
“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Caribbean Community’s (CARICOM) regional security agency, Implementation Agency for Crime and Security (IMPACS), signed an agreement to create the first multilateral biometric information sharing arrangement established by DHS, extending U.S. immigration vetting and border security checks across participating Caribbean countries.”
Because once someone has data, there is no TECHNICAL reason why they can’t share it with anyone else.
The Really Big Bunch could smash the Big Three in a heartbeat, if they wanted to.
Why haven’t they?
Because they have very active consumer sales that don’t affect IDEMIA and the like, and are terrified that any entry into biometric “surveillance” will adversely affect their lucrative consumer business. So they all concentrated on “don’t be evil.”
IDEMIA and Thales offer physical driver’s licenses, and moving into mobile driver’s licenses is a natural. I observed this during my time at IDEMIA, as (then) Gemalto pursued numerous mDL opportunities and IDEMIA responded in turn.
As part of my efforts to educate myself in the driver’s license market dominated by our new corporate overlords MorphoTrust, I attended an AAMVA regional conference several years ago. IDEMIA was obviously there, as was Gemalto. But also attending the conference was Apple. Why? I asked.
Apple wasn’t visible over the next few years as IDEMIA and Thales expanded their mobile driver’s license implementations. But all of a sudden, Apple was visible, as was Google, as was Samsung.
Why? Because these smartphone providers all had their own wallets, and they were adding mDLs to their offerings.
Which meant that someone who wanted a mobile driver’s license could use the convenient smartphone wallet they already had.
Were Apple and Google entering the surveillance state? Of course not, because Apple and Google were really nice people who were providing these wallets for our convenience and benefit. Never mind the facial recognition underpinning their use. There was nothing to worry about. Absolutely nothing.
Until they targeted the airports.
Second, TSA PreCheck
As a former IDEMIA employee, TSA PreCheck was near and dear to my heart. Well, until IDEMIA’s revenue tanked in 2020 when nobody flew or got driver’s licenses…and I lost my job.
But absent a worldwide pandemic, TSA PreCheck had been very very good to IDEMIA, since only IDEMIA offered it. Sure CLEAR had its program, but TSA PreCheck was much cheaper.
“The Transportation Security Administration today announced a new partnership with Google Wallet, introducing a more seamless way for eligible travellers to opt in to TSA PreCheck® Touchless ID. Google Wallet is the first digital wallet to offer this innovative feature, making secure, efficient travel easier than ever.”
Yup, Google and the Department of Homeland Security are now best buddies. To some civil libertarians, this is evil indeed.
What’s next?
So how long until the really big bunch prime contracts for systems such as NGI and HART? They have a responsibility to their shareholders, after all.
You’re not gonna hear this song about dry fingerprint ridges on Top 40 radio. But for a select few biometric product marketers, it highlights a critically important issue.
“Dry To The Bone #1.” Google Lyria.
Why?
Because dry fingerprint ridges, while not a common worry among the general populace, ARE a concern among law enforcement, homeland security, financial institution, and other professionals who depend on high-quality friction ridge capture to solve crimes and identify people.
And these people desperately need products that accurately capture fingerprints in challenging conditions.
And the product vendors need to communicate their product benefits to potential vendors. (Whoops, I mean prospects.)
That’s where Bredemarket comes to save the day.
Not with music.
“Tracing the Ridge.” Google Lyria.
(Thankfully.)
Through Bredemarket, I work with you to develop the customer-focused, benefits-oriented words that move your prospects toward your fingerprint capture solution.
If you want prospects to buy your identity product, schedule a free meeting with the biometric product marketing expert.
This morning I was attending a NIST webinar on mobile driver’s license use at financial institutions, and began looking at the services I could access in April 2026 with my California mobile driver’s license—financial and otherwise.
But today I learned that some services are NOT available with the mDL in my Apple Wallet, but ONLY while using the “CA DMV Wallet” app.
So I downloaded the app, which I last used in my initial unsuccessful attempt to obtain an mDL. (I finally used Apple’s facility to get one.) I assumed that since I already had my mDL in my Apple Wallet, it would automatically show up in the app.
You know what happens when you assume. My buddy Google Gemini pointed it out to me.
“It’s a common point of confusion, but the Apple Wallet and the CA DMV Wallet app are actually two separate “containers” for your digital ID. Because California uses a secure, decentralized system, your mDL doesn’t automatically sync between them. Even if it’s already in your Apple Wallet, you have to go through a separate enrollment process to “provision” it into the DMV’s official app.”
Which meant that I had to enroll again and get another decentralized mDL, which I did. (After some difficulty; it took four separate attempts to capture my facial image, which was only successful when I went into a very dark room.)
Now that my mDL is in this second wallet, I could go ahead an enroll in the TruAge program for age verification at a private retailer.
Google Gemini.
As I type this, TruAge hasn’t processed my application.
And now for a word from our sponsor
Mobile driver’s licenses are a digital form of “something you have,” which is a factor of identity verification and authentication.
Would you like to learn about all six of the identity verification and authentication factors? (Not three. Not five.)
“I think too much knowledge is actually bad in tech: you’re biased.”
Why does this quote affect me so deeply? Because with my 30-plus years of identity/biometric experience, I obviously have too much knowledge of the industry, which is obviously bad. After all, all a biometric company needs is a salesperson, an engineer, an African data labeler, and someone to run the generative AI for everything else. The company doesn’t need someone who knows that Printrak isn’t spelled with a C.
Google Gemini.
In this post I will share three of the “biases” I have developed in my 30-plus years in identity and biometrics, and how to correct these biases by stripping away that 20th century experience and applying novel thinking.
And if that last paragraph made you throw up in your mouth…read to the end of the post.
But first, let’s briefly explore these three biases that I shamefully hold due to my status as a biometric product marketing expert:
Independent algorithmic confirmation is valuable.
Process is valuable.
Artificial intelligence is merely a tool.
Biometric product marketing expert.
Bias 1: Independent Algorithmic Confirmation is Valuable
But how do prospects know that these algorithms work? How accurate are they? How fast are they? How secure are they?
My bias
My brain, embedded with over 30 years of bias, gravitates to the idea that vendors should submit their algorithms for independent testing and confirmation.
From a NIST facial recognition demographic bias text.
This could be an accuracy test such as the ones NIST and DHS administer, or confirmation of presentation attack detection capabilities (as BixeLab, iBeta, and other organizations perform), or confirmation of injection attack detection capabilities.
Novel thinking
But you’re smarter than that and refuse to support the testing-industrial complex. They have their explicit or implicit agendas and want to force the biometric vendors to do well on the tests. For example, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation’s “Appendix F” fingerprint capture quality standard specifically EXCLUDES contactless solutions, forcing everyone down the same contact path.
But you and your novel thinking reject these unnecessary impediments. You’re not going to constrain yourself by the assertions of others. You are going to assert your own benefits. Develop and administer your own tests. Share with your prospects how wonderful you are without going through an intermediary. That will prove your superiority…right?
Bias 2: Process is Valuable
A biometric company has to perform a variety of tasks. Raise funding. Hire people. Develop, market, propose, sell, and implement products. Throw parties.
How will the company do all these things?
My bias
My brain, encumbered by my experience (including a decade at Motorola), persists in a belief that process is the answer. The process can be as simple as scribblings on a cocktail napkin, but you need some process if you want to cash out in a glorious exit—I mean, deliver superior products to your customers.
Perhaps you need a development processs that defines, among other things, how long a sprint should be. A capture and proposal process (Shipley or simpler) that defines, among other things, who has the authority to approve a $10 million proposal A go-to-market process that defines the deliverables for different tiers, and who is responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed. Or maybe just an onboarding process when starting a new project, dictating the questions you need to ask at the beginning.
Bredemarket’s seven questions. I ask, then I act.
Novel thinking
Sure all that process is fine…if you don’t want to do anything. Do you really want to force your people to wait two weeks for the latest product iteration? Impose a multinational bureauracy on your sales process? Go through an onerous checklist before marketing a product?
Google Gemini.
Just code it.
Just sell it.
Just write it.
Bias 3: Artificial Intelligence is Merely a Tool
The problem with experienced people is that they think that there is nothing new under the sun.
You talk about cloud computing, and they yawn, “Sounds like time sharing.” You talk about quantum computing, and they yawn, “Sounds like the Pentium.” You talk about blockchain, and they yawn, “Sounds like a notary public.”
My bias
As I sip my Pepperidge Farm, I can barely conceal my revulsion at those who think “we use AI” is a world-dominating marketing message. Artificial intelligence is not a way of life. It is a tool. A tool that in and of itself does not merit much of a mention.
Google Gemini.
How many automobile manufacturers proclaim “we use tires” as part of their marketing messaging? Tires are essential to an automobile’s performance, but since everyone has them, they’re not a differentiator and not worthy of mention.
In the same way, everyone has AI…so why talk about its mere presence? Talk about the benefits your implementation provides and how these benefits differentiate you from your competitors.
Novel thinking
Yep, the grandpas that declare “AI is only a tool” are missing the significance entirely. AI is not like a Pentium chip. It is a transformational technology that is already changing the way we create, sell, and market.
Therefore it is critically important to highlight your product’s AI use. AI isn’t a “so what” feature, but an indication of revolutionary transformative technology. You suppress mention of AI at your own peril.
How do I overcome my biases of experience?
OK, so I’ve identified the outmoded thinking that results from too much experience. But how do I overcome it?
I don’t.
Because if you haven’t already detected it, I believe that experience IS valuable, and that all three items above are essential and shouldn’t be jettisoned for the new, novel, and kewl.
Are you a identity/biometric marketing leader who needs to tell your prospects that your algorithms are validated by reputable independent bodies?
Or that you have a process (simple or not) that governs how your customers receive your products?
Or that your AI actually does unique things that your competitors don’t, providing true benefits to your customers?
Bredemarket can help with strategy, analysis, content, and/or proposals for your identity/biometric firm. Talk to me (for free).
By the way, here’s MY process (and my services and pricing).
Don’t get violent at a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoint. If you do, you may not fly anywhere…or drive or walk anywhere either.
Here’s the story of a man named Idress Vinay Solomon who was preparing to board a Southwest Airlines flight from Dallas’ Love Field to Oakland on March 10. Somehow Mr. Solomon missed the memo that you need a REAL ID or equivalent to board a plane. Something that has been discussed for decades, since passage of the Real ID Act of 2005.
But as readers of the Bredemarket blog know, despite years of declarations that you must have a REAL ID to fly, you don’t need one. The TSA launched ConfirmID this year, an alternate identity confirmation service for those who don’t have approved identity documentation. You pay $45, and TSA confirms your identity via other methods.
“[T]he Oakland resident allegedly started reacting aggressively and attacked the officers present. During this incident, he punched a [Dallas Police Department] officer multiple times, resulting in the officer suffering an “orbital blowout fracture” in his left eye.”
“A blowout fracture is the most common type of orbital fracture. This fracture is a break along the floor or thin inner wall of your eye socket. Getting hit in the eye with something like a fist or a baseball most often causes blowout fractures.”
The Cleveland Clinic does not indicate whether iris identification is affected by blunt force trauma.
But let’s return to “Love” Field.
The police officer was hospitalized, and Solomon remains in custody. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in federal prison, as confirmed by the Department of Justice.
“Violent conduct perpetrated against TSA and law enforcement officers will never be tolerated in the Northern District of Texas,” said U.S. Attorney Ryan Raybould. “We will prosecute such offenses to the fullest extent to seek justice for the victims here and to deter others from resorting to aggressive attacks against officers responsible for ensuring the public’s safety while traveling.”
Remember when people were told that REAL ID would be mandatory? Beginning on whatever date REAL ID became mandatory…it became mandatory. If you didn’t have REAL ID, or another acceptable form of identification (AFOID), you weren’t getting on that plane. (Among other things.)
Well, that was a lie.
As I noted in December, the Transportation Security Administration was officially allowing an alternative acceptable form of identification (AAFOID???). An item ran in the Federal Register with this text:
“The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is launching a modernized alternative identity verification program for individuals who present at the TSA checkpoint without the required acceptable form of identification (AFOID), such as a REAL ID or passport. This modernized program provides an alternative that may allow these individuals to gain access to the sterile area of an airport if TSA is able to establish their identity.”
But there was going to be a fee.
“To address the government-incurred costs, individuals who choose to use TSA’s modernized alternative identity verification program will be required to pay an $18 fee.”
Well, that was a lie. (Yes, “Lyin’ Eyes” is still on my mind.)
Here’s a quote from TSA’s February 5 press release:
“Passengers without REAL IDs or other acceptable forms of identification have the option to use TSA ConfirmID by paying a $45 fee for a 10-day travel period.”
For those who are math-challenged, $45 is over twice as much as $18.
TSA’s hope of course is that if the law won’t force you to get a REAL ID, money will.
Bredemarket 