TSA Photo Requests: “The Current U.S. Government” Can Already Obtain Your Facial Image

There have been many recent stories about Transportation Security Administration (TSA) capture of the facial images of travelers, an outgrowth of the same post-9/11 concerns that resulted in REAL IDs in 2008…I mean 2025. (Maybe.)

One story from HuffPost clearly states its view on the matter. The title of the story? “Why You Can (And Should) Opt Out Of TSA Facial Recognition Right Now.”

I guess we know where HuffPost stands.

As to the “why” of its stance, here’s a succinct statement:

“Do you really want to be submitting a face scan to the current U.S. government?”

And perhaps there are good reasons to distrust the Trump Administration, or any administration. 

After all, the TSA says it only retains the picture for a limited time: “Photos are not stored or saved after a positive ID match has been made, except in a limited testing environment for evaluation of the effectiveness of the technology,”

But maybe…something happens. Someone accidentally forgot to delete the files. Oops.

And if something happens, the federal government has just captured an image of your face!

Guess what? The federal government can probably already get an image of your face, even if you don’t allow TSA to take your photo.

After all, you had to show some sort of identification when you arrived at that TSA checkpoint. Maybe you showed a passport, with a picture that the U.S. State Department received at one point. No, they don’t retain them either. But maybe…something happens.

But who does retain an image of your face?

Your state driver’s license agency. And as of 2019:

“Twenty-one states currently allow federal agencies such as the FBI to run searches of driver’s license and identification photo databases.”

So if a federal agency wants your facial image, it can probably obtain it even if you decline the TSA photo request.

Unless you strictly follow Amish practices. But in that case you probably wouldn’t be going through a TSA checkpoint anyway.

But if you are with a facial recognition company, and you want your prospects and their prospects to understand how your solution protects their privacy…

Bredemarket can help:

  • compelling content creation
  • winning proposal development
  • actionable analysis

Book a call: https://bredemarket.com/cpa/ 

(Security checkpoint picture generated by Imagen 3)

“Somewhat You Why” in Minnesota

Remember my earlier post “‘Somewhat You Why,’ and Whether Deepfakes are Evil or Good or Both”?

When I posted it, I said:

I debated whether or not I should publish this because it touches upon two controversial topics: U.S. politics, and my proposed sixth factor of authentication. 

I eventually decided to share it on the Bredemarket blog but NOT link to it or quote it on my socials.

Well, I’m having the same debate with this post, which is ironic because I learned about the content via the socials. Not that I will identify the source, because it is from someone’s personal Facebook feed.

Just a random picture of Princess Diana. Public domain.

My earlier post analyzed my assumption that deepfakes are bad. It covered the end of National Science Foundation funding for deepfake research, apparently because deepfakes can be used as a form of First Amendment free speech.

Well, the same issue is appearing at the state level, according to the AP:

X Corp., the social media platform owned by Trump adviser Elon Musk, is challenging the constitutionality of a Minnesota ban on using deepfakes to influence elections and harm candidates, saying it violates First Amendment speech protections.

As I previously noted, this does NOT mean that X believes in a Constitutional right to financially defraud people.

  • Or do I have a Constitutional right to practice my freedom of religion by creating my own biometric-free voter identification card like John Wahl did?

Again, is it all about intent? Somewhat you why?

And if your firm provides facial recognition, how do you address such issues?

If you need help with your facial recognition product marketing, Bredemarket has an opening for a facial recognition client. I can offer

  • compelling content creation
  • winning proposal development
  • actionable analysis

If Bredemarket can help your stretched staff, book a free meeting with me: https://bredemarket.com/cpa/

(Lincoln’s laptop from Imagen 3)

Know Your Political Influencer

In an article with a clickbait title, Newsweek reported on the indictment of Massachusetts state Representative Christopher Flanagan on various fraud charges. One of the allegations:

“Beyond the five wire fraud counts, the grand jury also indicted him on one count of falsifying documents related to a campaign flier. The mailer from “Conservatives for Dennis” endorsed Flanagan….[He attributed] “the source of the Mailer to a false persona, ‘Jeanne Louise,'” whom he created for the endorsement….In October 2023, he admitted to OCPF that Jeanne Louise “was fake” and he was the source of the mailer.”

There is so much effort to identify voters. What about identifying the sources of political endorsements?

Does your company have a solution to this? I can help you tell your story. Go to https://bredemarket.com/cpa/.

(Picture from Imagen 3)

If Your Identity System Only Manages People, It Is Flawed

This is painful, but it has to be done.

I’ve spent 30 years working with the identities of PEOPLE and ensuring that all PEOPLE accessing a system are properly identified.

In other words, leaving a huge GAPING security hole.

Look at what Okta is doing;

“[N]ew Okta Platform capabilities…help businesses secure AI agents and other non-human identities with the same level of visibility, control, governance, and automation as human ones. The Okta Platform will now bring a unified, end-to-end identity security fabric to organizations for managing and securing all types of identities across their ecosystem, from AI agents to API keys to employees.”

I think that “unified” will take the place of “trust” as the identity buzzword. Thankfully.

If you’re only selling biometrics, or maybe biometrics and ID cards, where will your customers go to get the rest of their systems? Or will you just be a commodity supplier to the companies that provide the REAL systems?

(Unified security AI picture from Imagen 3)

Looking at One Voter ID State

Back in 2023, I wrote “How to Vote Fraudulently in a Voter ID State.” But that only works if the voter ID state fails to protect its precincts from fake IDs.

Here is an example of voter ID legislation, this one from South Dakota.

12-18-6.1. Voters required to provide identification before voting.

When the voter is requesting a ballot, the voter shall present a valid form of personal identification. The personal identification that may be presented shall be either:

(1)    A South Dakota driver’s license or nondriver identification card;

(2)    A passport or an identification card, including a picture, issued by an agency of the United States government;

(3)    A tribal identification card, including a picture; or

(4)    A current student identification card, including a picture, issued by a high school or an accredited institution of higher education, including a university, college, or technical school, located within the State of South Dakota.

Source:  SL 2003, ch 82, § 1; SL 2004, ch 108, § 3; SL 2006, ch 71, § 1.

As most people know, legislators only define the law in broad strokes. It is up to the executive to figure out the details of how to implement the law.

So how does the South Dakota Board of Elections determine that the presented identification is valid?

Does every precinct worker in South Dakota possess a copy of a guide (such as this one) that includes, among other items:

“Explanation of what the proper alphanumeric sequencing of a South Dakota ID or Driver’s License should be (how many letters, numbers, etc.).”

In addition, does every precinct worker in South Dakota have access to software and equipment (such as this one that uses “white, infrared, ultraviolet and coaxial lights”) that detects deepfake IDs? This one has a $1,600 list price. You can get cheaper ones that only support white light and can’t detect the other security features, but such readers would violate the law.

If the state can negotiate a discount of $1,000 per reader, then you can equip almost 700 precincts for less than $1 million (excluding training and maintenance, and assuming only 1 reader per precinct). A small price to pay for democracy.

Unfortunately, I could not find Regula in the list of certified South Dakota voting equipment. Perhaps South Dakota uses a competitor.

Of course voter ID fraud doesn’t just affect South Dakota, as I previously noted. But even if South Dakota doesn’t equip its precinct workers to reject voters with fake IDs, I’m sure the other states do.

Well, maybe not Alabama.

Age Estimation is Challenging

(Part of the biometric product marketing expert series)

Two Biometric Update stories that were published on March 27, 2025 reminded me of something I wrote before.

One involved Paravision.

An announcement from Paravision says its biometric age estimation technology has achieved Level 3 certification from the Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS), the leading independent certification body for age estimation. The results make it one of only six companies globally to receive ACCS’s highest-level designation for compliance.

San Francisco-based Paravision’s age estimation tech posted 100 percent precision in Challenge 25 compliance, with 0 subjects falsely identified as over 25 years old. It also scored a 0 percent Failure to Acquire Rate, meaning that every image submitted for analysis returned a result. Mean Absolute Error (MAE) was 1.37 years, with Standard Deviation of 1.17.

Now this is an impressive achievement, and Paravision is a quality company, and Joey Pritikin is a quality biometric executive, but…well, let me share the other story first, involving a Yoti customer (not Yoti).

Fenix responded that it set a challenge threshold at 23 years of age. Any user estimated to be that age or younger based on their face biometrics is required to use a secondary method for age verification.

Fenix had set OnlyFans challenge age, it turns out, at 20 years old. A correction to 23 years old was carried out on January 16, and then Fenix changed it again three days later, to 21 years old, Ofcom says.

Now Biometric Update was very clear that “Yoti provides the tech, but does not set the threshold.”

Challenge ages and legal ages

But do challenge thresholds have any meaning? I addressed that issue back in May 2024.

Many of the tests used a “Challenge-T” policy, such as “Challenge 25.” In other words, the test doesn’t estimate whether a person IS a particular age, but whether a person is WELL ABOVE a particular age….

So if you have to be 21 to access a good or service, the algorithm doesn’t estimate if you are over 21. Instead, it estimates whether you are over 25. If the algorithm thinks you’re over 25, you’re good to go. If it thinks you’re 24, pull out your ID card.

And if you want to be more accurate, raise the challenge age from 25 to 28.

NIST admits that this procedure results in a “tradeoff between protecting young people and inconveniencing older subjects” (where “older” is someone who is above the legal age but below the challenge age).

You may be asking why the algorithms have to set a challenge age above the lawful age, thus inconveniencing people above the lawful age but below the challenge age.

The reason is simple.

Age estimation is not all that accurate.

I mean, it’s accurate enough if I (a person well above the age of 21 years) must indicate whether I’m old enough to drink, but it’s not sufficiently accurate for a drinker on their 21st birthday (in the U.S.), or a 13 year old getting their first social media account (where lawful).

Not an official document.

If you have a government issued ID, age verification based upon that ID is a much better (albeit less convenient) solution.

(Kid computer picture by Adrian Pingstone – Transferred from en.wikipedia, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=112727.)

(Fake driver license picture from https://www.etsy.com/listing/1511398513/editable-little-drivers-license.)

How Much Does Synthetic Identity Fraud Cost?

Identity firms really hope that prospects understand the threat posed by synthetic identity fraud, or SIF.

I’m here to help.

(Synthetic identity AI image from Imagen 3.)

Estimated SIF costs in 2020

In an early synthetic identity fraud post in 2020, I referenced a Thomson Reuters (not Thomas Reuters) article from that year which quoted synthetic identity fraud figures all over the map.

  • My own post referenced the Auriemma Group estimate of a $6 billion cost to U.S. lenders.
  • McKinsey preferred to use a percentage estimate of “10–15% of charge offs in a typical unsecured lending portfolio.” However, this may not be restricted to synthetic identity fraud, but may include other types of fraud.
  • Thomson Reuters quoted Socure’s Johnny Ayers, who estimated that “20% of credit losses stem from synthetic identity fraud.”

Oh, and a later post that I wrote quoted a $20 billion figure for synthetic identity fraud losses in 2020. Plus this is where I learned the cool acronym “SIF” to refer to synthetic identity fraud. As far as I know, there is no government agency with the acronym SIF, which would of course cause confusion. (There was a Social Innovation Fund, but that may no longer exist in 2025.)

Never Search Alone, not National Security Agency. AI image from Imagen 3.

Back to synthetic identity fraud, which reportedly resulted in between $6 billion and $20 billion in losses in 2020.

Estimated SIF costs in 2025

But that was 2020.

What about now? Let’s visit Socure again:

The financial toll of AI-driven fraud is staggering, with projected global losses reaching $40 billion by 2027 up from US12.3 billion in 2023 (CAGR 32%)., driven by sophisticated fraud techniques and automation, such as synthetic identities created with AI tools​.

Again this includes non-synthetic fraud, but it’s a good number for the high end. While my FTC fraud post didn’t break out synthetic identity fraud figures, Plaid cited a 2023 $1.8 billion figure for the auto industry alone, and Mastercard cited a $5 billion figure.

But everyone agrees on a figure of billions and billions.

The real Carl Sagan.
The deepfake Carl Sagan.

(I had to stop writing this post for a minute because I received a phone call from “JP Morgan Chase,” but the person didn’t know who they were talking to, merely asking for the owner of the phone number. Back to fraud.)

Reducing SIF in 2025

In a 2023 post, I cataloged four ways to fight synthetic identity fraud:

  1. Private databases.
  2. Government documents.
  3. Government databases.
  4. A “who you are” test with facial recognition and liveness detection (presentation attack detection).

Ideally an identity verification solution should use multiple methods, and not just one. It doesn’t do you any good to forge a driver’s license if AAMVA doesn’t know about the license in any state or provincial database.

And if you need an identity content marketing expert to communicate how your firm fights synthetic identities, Bredemarket can help with its content-proposal-analysis services.

Find out more about Bredemarket’s “CPA” services.

Digital Driving Licences With Two Cs

(Imagen 3)

In my country, the issuance of driver’s licenses is performed at the state level, not the national level. This has two ramifications.

REAL ID

The U.S. government wanted to tighten down on identification cards to stop terrorists from hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. 

But it couldn’t. 

When it told the states to issue “REAL ID” cards by 2008, the states said they wouldn’t be told what to do. 

Today all of them support REAL ID cards as an option, but use of REAL IDs for federal functions such as plane travel won’t be enforced until 2027…if then.

mDLs

For years there has been a move to replace physical driver’s licenses with mobile driver’s licenses, or mDLs.

Again, in my country this has been pursued in a piecemeal basis on the state level. Louisiana has its own mDL, with a separate one in Oklahoma, one in California, others in other states, and none in other states. And one state (Florida) that had one, then didn’t have one.

Some mDLs are in custom wallets, while others are or are not in wallets from Apple, Google, and Samsung.

Oh, and don’t try using your Louisiana mDL to buy a beer in Arkansas.

Meanwhile, in the UK

Things are different in other countries. Amit Alagh shared a BBC article with me.

“Digital driving licences are to be introduced in the UK as the government looks to use technology to ‘transform public services’…. The new digital licences will be introduced later this year….”

Throughout the entire United Kingdom, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, apparently.

In one fell swoop. Entire country done.

REAL ID: When Enforcement Isn’t Enforcement

Follow up to the long-standing history of REAL ID enforcement delays.

Lots of delays.

When then-President George W. Bush signed into law the “Real ID Act of 2005,” American adults initially had a May 11, 2008 deadline to ensure their identification documents met federal standards.

For those who didn’t notice, we didn’t all adopt REAL IDs in 2008.

In fact, a few years later I was working on a driver’s license proposal for a state I won’t identify, and the RFP clearly and emphatically stated that REAL ID compliance for the new driver’s license was not…um…OK.

Even during the short history of the Bredemarket blog, the REAL ID enforcement date of May 5, 2023 has been adopted and superseded. And more recently there was a report that that new date of May 7, 2025 would slip.

Well, that won’t happen.

Or will it?

The (so-called) “final” rule

The Transportation Security Administration has published a final rule which clearly states that the REAL ID enforcement date of May 7, 2025 still stands and has not been delayed.

Or perhaps it’s not so clear.

This rule ensures that Federal agencies have appropriate flexibility to implement the card-based enforcement provisions of the REAL ID regulations after the May 7, 2025, enforcement deadline by explicitly permitting agencies to implement these provisions in phases. Under this rule, agencies may implement the card-based enforcement provisions through a phased enforcement plan if they determine it is appropriate upon consideration of relevant factors including security, operational feasibility, and public impact. The rule also requires agencies to coordinate their plans with DHS, make the plans publicly available, and achieve full enforcement by May 5, 2027.

So the enforcement DEADLINE is May 7, 2025, but FULL enforcement will be achieved by May 5, 2027.

Date subject to change.

It’s not only the U.S.

But at least these decades of delays give me an excuse to share a Geico commercial.

And Europe (the continent, not the band) has its own problems with delays to its Entry/Exit System (EES)…and a graduated rollout is proposed.

From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H9FI87HK-s.