“Since launching the Gemini app, we’ve built tools to encourage creative expression through images and video. Today, we’re taking the next step: custom music generation. Lyria 3, Google DeepMind’s latest generative music model, is rolling out today in beta in the Gemini app.”
I used this prompt to generate a Lyria tune:
“Create music for a wildebeest using a laptop to compare a latent fingerprint to a tenprint fingerprint”
Google’s response:
“’I’ve created a unique atmospheric track for you that blends electronic data-processing sounds with the deep, resonant textures of a wildebeest’s world. You can play the music directly here in our chat!”
As I write this, contactless fingerprint scanners cannot submit their prints to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Next Generation Identification (NGI) system.
But the FBI does certify such scanners under a special category.
“Hungarian border police are exploring the use of contactless biometric technology made by German startup IDloop in border control and law enforcement….
“The product [CFS flats] was first introduced in 2024 and is the world’s first 3D contactless fingerprint scanner certified by the FBI, according to the firm.”
Note the last four words.
Biometric Update reports news as reported, and I don’t think it’s Biometric Update’s purpose to poke holes in vendor claims. So they just says that THE FIRM SAYS it’s certified, and it’s the first.
Well, IDloop is half right.
Is IDloop’s CFS flats FBI certified?
The way to check certification is to go to the Certified Products List web page at the FBI Biometric Specifications website. You can go there yourself: https://fbibiospecs.fbi.gov/certifications-1/cpl
And if you do, scroll down to the “Firm” area and look for IDloop in the list of firms.
Yes, it’s there, and it has a certification under the Personal Identity Verification (PIV) specification, originally dated 10/30/2024, modified 1/28/2026.
From the CPL.
Here’s the description:
“CFS flats contactless, up to 4-finger, capture device at 500 ppi (PIV-071006) (original 10/24; algorithm update 1/26) Note: Device images a 3-dimensional object, but testing was primarily 2-dimensional – Not for use with CJIS systems.”
Again, the FBI isn’t allowing contactless submissions to CJIS systems such as NGI, in part because the Appendix F specifications assume analysis of fingerprint images on a 2-dimensional object. Obviously very, very difficult with contactless devices that capture 3-dimensional objects.
“Introducing CFS flats—the world’s first FBI-certified 3D contactless fingerprint scanner.“
Um…perhaps I should share a bit of my personal history, for those who don’t know.
From 2009 to 2017 I worked for a company called MorphoTrak. Know where this is going?
But I’m not going to focus on my former employer.
Initial CPL search
Remember that unusual sentence that appears in IDloop’s description of its PIV certification?
“Device images a 3-dimensional object, but testing was primarily 2-dimensional”
I assert that if we can find ANY contactless product in the Certified Products List that uses that same language and was certified before 10/30/2024, then IDloop’s claim of being first is…somewhat inaccurate.
So I checked.
From the CPL.
Two products received PIV certification before October 2024, MorphoWave XP (July 2020) and MorphoWave TP (May 2024). The first was originally certified over 4 years BEFORE the IDloop product.
“MorphoWave XP (formerly MorphoWave Compact) contactless, up to 4-finger, livescan device at 500 ppi (PIV-071006) (alternate enrollment processing 6/23; name change 2/22; contrast stretch 9/21; original 7/20) Note: Device images a 3-dimensional object, but testing was primarily 2-dimensional – Not for use with CJIS systems.”
Subsequent CPL search
And what if you search for the word “contactless” instead and just look at the 4-finger PIV certifications?
If you do so, you can find certifications from 2019 and earlier for products from Advanced Optical Systems (October 2015 May 2017), Safran Morpho (November 2015, under the original name “Finger On The Fly”), and Thales (May 2019). All years BEFORE the IDloop product.
IDloop, meet Advanced Optical Systems
While Advanced Optical Systems is no more, let’s look at the description for that original AOS product.
“ANDI OTG
contactless, up to 4-finger, livescan capture system at 500ppi (PIV-071006). Note: Device images a 3-dimensional object, but testing was only 2-dimensional – Not for use with CJIS systems”
“Huntsville, AL, November 30, 2015 (Newswire.com) –Advanced Optical Systems, Inc made the historic announcement today that their revolutionary, zero-contact “On The Go” fingerprint technology, ANDI® OTG, is the first non-contact fingerprint system to be certified by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI added the device to the agency’s Certified Product List (CPL) on November 27th, 2015.”
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF, a legacy acronym) is part of the Department of Justice (moved from Treasury when Homeland Security was created). One of its duties is to administer the regulations from the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.
In the course of its duties, ATF fingerprints certain gun owners.
As Bayometric notes in a detailed article, there are two ways to generate the fingerprint cards required by ATF: traditional ink fingerprinting to create an FD-258 card, and live scan fingerprinting to create one or more FD-258 cards. Although the latter is more expensive (even a non-ruggedized live scan station is much more expensive than an ink pad), live scans measure quality immediately and are less suspectible to operator error.
But why even worry about FD-258 cards? ATF supports an eForms service which allows you to submit prints electronically like everyone else does.
Then again, if you’re suspicious of Big Brother, you may opt for non-electronic inked fingerprints.
As I’ve said before, there may be many different stakeholders for a particular purchase opportunity.
For the purpose of this post I’m going to dramatically simplify the process by saying there are only two stakeholders for any RFP and any proposal responding to said RFP: “business” people, and “technical” people.
Google Gemini.
The business people are concerned about the why of the purchase. What pressing need is prompting the business (or government agency) to purchase the product or service? Do the alternatives meet the business need?
The technical people are concerned about the how of the purchase. Knowing the need, can the alternatives actually do what they say they can do?
Returning to my oft-repeated example of an automated biometric identification system purchase by the city of Ontario, California, let’s look at what the business and technical people want:
The business people want compliance with purchasing regulations, and superior performance that keeps citizens off the mayor’s back. (As of January 2026, still Paul Leon.)
The technical people want accurate processing of biometric evidence, proper interfaces to other ABIS systems, implementation of privacy protections, FBI certifications, iBeta or other conformance statements, and all sorts of other…um…minutiae.
So both parties are reading your proposal or other document, looking for these points.
So who is your “target audience” for your proposal?
Both of them.
Whether you’re writing a proposal or a data sheet, make sure that your document addresses the needs of both parties, and that both parties can easily find the information they’re seeking.
If I may take the liberty of stereotyping business and technical users, and if the document in question is a single sheet with printing on front and back, one suggestion is to put the business benefits on the front of the document with pretty pictures that resonate with the readers, and the technical benefits on the back of the document where engineers are accustomed to read the fine print specs.
Google Gemini. It took multiple tries to get generative AI to spell “innovate” correctly.
Or something.
But if both business and technical subject matter experts are involved in the purchase decision, cater to both. You wouldn’t want to write a document solely for the techies when the true decision maker is a person who doesn’t know NFIQ from OFIQ.
I previously wrote about how clean data is the new oxygen (stealing a phrase from someone else), but sometimes more data is better. Sometimes.
Let me use the fingerprint example. If you have a single fingerprint from one person, you have data that you can use to match against a person’s tenprint record.
Grok.
But if you have two fingerprints, then you have twice as much data for the match. And Mister Math tells us that ten fingerprints yields much more data.
Now there are cases where you don’t have all ten search prints. Perhaps you’re taking latent prints from a crime scene and the suspect didn’t carefully leave all ten prints. Or you’re using contactless fingerprint capture and for some reason didn’t get the full tenprint record. But if you can get all ten fingerprints for search, then your match accuracy increases.
But is an abundance of data better?
Only if it’s clean.
If finger numbers are misclassified, or if fingerprints from multiple people are mixed in the same individual record, or if the minutiae are not marked correctly, then the dirty data messes up your process.
Which is why the quality of data in a fingerprint database is important.
And if you need to talk about your fingerprint product’s quality assurance measures, Bredemarket can help. Book a free meeting with me to discuss your needs.
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.
Bredemarket 