1. Collect data from a user’s device: GPS, GSM, WiFi, plus IP addresses.
2. Verify location accuracy. Our rules engine runs hundreds of location data, device integrity, and identity fraud checks on every geolocation transaction to detect suspicious activity.
3. Combine real-time and historical data to detect and flag patterns of location fraud. Our models are constantly updated with the use of machine learning and human intelligence.
In his demonstration, Matthew Boland showed an example of someone who had filed numerous chargeback requests in a short period. That’s a red flag in itself.
But when Boland combined the real-time and historical data to analyze the geolocations of the chargeback requests, he found that many of the requests were filed from the same location as the person’s mailing address. So at least that was legit, and the chargeback requests weren’t being filed from China.
In addition to first-party fraud, GeoComply handles geofencing for gambling operations. To see an example of Super Bowl 2024 attempted gambling transactions in Kansas (good) and Missouri (bad), watch this video.
Kansas City (KS, MO) activity on Super Bowl Sunday.
(Author’s preface: I was originally going to schedule this post for the middle of next week. But by the time I wrote it, the end of the post referenced a current event of astronomical proportions. Since said current event may be forgotten by the middle of next week, I am publishing it now.)
You get a message on a platform from someone you don’t know. The message may look something like this:
“John ,
“I hope this message finds you well. I came across your profile and was truly impressed by your background. While I’m not a recruiter, I’m assisting in connecting talented professionals with a startup that is working on a unique initiative.
“Given your experience, I believe you could be a fantastic fit for their senior consultant role. If you’re open to exploring this opportunity, I’d be happy to share more details and introduce you to the team directly. Please let me know if you’re interested!”
Let’s count the red flags in this message, which is one I actually received on May 30 from someone named David Joseph:
The author was truly impressed by my background, but didn’t cite any specifics about my background that impressed them. This exact same message could be sent to a biometric product marketing expert, a nuclear physicist, or a store cashier.
The author is not a recruiter, but a connector who will presumably pass me on to someone else. Why doesn’t the “someone else” contact me directly?
The whole unidentified startup working on a unique initiative story. Yes, some companies operate as stealth firms before revealing their corporate identity. Amway. Prinerica. Countless MLMs with bad reputations. Trust me, these initiatives are not unique.
That senior consultant title. Not junior consultant. Senior consultant. To make that envelope stuffing role even more prestigious.
I got the note and the note is even clearer
But I wasn’t really concerned with the message. I get these messages all the time.
So what concerned me?
The note attached to the message by the platform that hosted the message.
“Don’t know David? Ask David to verify their profile information before responding for added security.”
The platform, if you haven’t already guessed, is LinkedIn, the message a LinkedIn InMail.
Let’s follow the trail.
LinkedIn let “David” use the platform without verifying his identity or verifying that Randstad is truly his employer as his profile states.
LinkedIn sold “David” a bunch of InMail credits so that he could privately share this unique opportunity.
Now LinkedIn wants me to do its dirty work and say, “Hey David, why don’t you verify your profile?”
Now the one thing in LinkedIn’s favor is that LinkedIn—unlike Meta—lets its users verify their profiles for free. Meta charges you for this.
But again, why should I do LinkedIn’s dirty work?
Why doesn’t LinkedIn prevent users from sending InMails unless their profiles are verified?
The answer: LinkedIn makes a ton of money selling InMails to people without verified profiles. And thus makes money off questionable businesspeople and outright scammers.
Instead of locking down the platform and preventing scammers from joining the platform in the first place.
Scamicide recently talked about a “free piano scam” where the scammer gifts the victim a piano for free—if the victim pays delivery costs northwards of $600—in advance. Guess what never gets delivered?
The post goes on to say:
“A big indication that this is a scam is that the moving company asks for payment by Zelle or cryptocurrencies. No legitimate business asks for payment by Zelle or cryptocurrencies, but scammers often do because of the anonymity for these types of payments and the difficulty in tracing or reversing payments made in this manner.”
Well, Bredemarket doesn’t REQUIRE Zelle…but I take it. (No crypto.)
I never saw the text this person received, but you can tell that it claimed to be from McAfee (it wasn’t) and demanded urgent action, presumably asking the recipient to enter PII including financial information.
I generated this picture in Imagen 4 after reading an AI art prompt suggestion from Danie Wylie. (I have mentioned her before in the Bredemarket blog…twice.)
The AI exercise raises a question.
What if you are in the middle of an identity verification or authentication process, and only THEN discover that a fraudster is impersonating you at that very moment?
Because I have talked about differentiation ad nauseum, I’m always looking for ways to see how identity/biometric and technology vendors have differentiated themselves. Yes, almost all of them overuse the word “trust,” but there is still some differentiation out there.
And I found a source that measured differentiation (or “unique positioning”) in various market segments. Using this source, I chose to concentrate on vendors who concentrate on identity verification (or “identity proofing & verification,” but close enough).
Before you read this, I want to caution you that this is NOT a thorough evaluation of The Prism Project deepfake and synthetic identity report. After some preliminaries, it focuses on one small portion of the report, concentrating on ONLY one “beam” (IDV) and ONLY one evaluation factor (differentiation).
Four facts about the report
First, the report is comprehensive. It’s not merely a list of ranked vendors, but also provides a, um, deep dive into deepfakes and synthetic identity. Even if you don’t care about the industry players, I encourage you to (a) download the report, and (b) read the 8 page section entitled “Crash Course: The Identity Arms Race.”
The crash course starts by describing digital identity and the role that biometrics plays in digital identity. It explains how banks, government agencies, and others perform identity verification; we’ll return to this later.
Then it moves on to the bad people who try to use “counterfeit identity elements” in place of “authentic identity elements.” The report discusses spoofs, presentation attacks, countermeasures such as multi-factor authentication, and…
Well, just download the report and read it yourself. If you want to understand deepfakes and synthetic identities, the “Crash Course” section will educate you quickly and thoroughly, as will the remainder of the report.
Synthetic Identity Fraud Attacks. Copyright 2025 The Prism Project.
Second, the report is comprehensive. Yeah, I just said that, but it’s also comprehensive in the number of organizations that it covers.
In a previous life I led a team that conducted competitive analysis on over 80 identity organizations.
I then subsequently encountered others who estimated that there are over 100 organizations.
This report evaluates over 200 organizations. In part this is because it includes evaluations of “relying parties” that are part of the ecosystem. (Examples include Mastercard, PayPal, and the Royal Bank of Canada who obviously don’t want to do business with deepfakes or synthetic identities.) Still, the report is amazing in its organizational coverage.
Third, the report is comprehensive. In a non-lunatic way, the report categorizes each organization into one or more “beams”:
The aforementioned relying parties
Core identity technology
Identity platforms
Integrators & solution providers
Passwordless authentication
Environmental risk signals
Infrastructure, community, culture
And last but first (for purposes of this post), identity proofing and verification.
Fourth, the report is comprehensive. Yes I’m repetitive, but each of the 200+ organizations are evaluated on a 0-6 scale based upon seven factors. In listed order, they are:
Growth & Resources
Market Presence
Proof Points
Unique Positioning, defined as “Unique Value Proposition (UVP) along with diferentiable technology and market innovation generally and within market sector.”
Business Model & Strategy
Biometrics and Document Authentication
Deepfakes & Synthetic Identity Leadership
In essence, the wealth of data makes this report look like a NIST report: there are so many individual “slices” of the prism that every one of the 200+ organizations can make a claim about how it was recognized by The Prism Project. And you’ve probably already seen some organizations make such claims, just like they do whenever a new NIST report comes out.
So let’s look at the tiny slice of the prism that is my, um, focus for this post.
Unique positioning in the IDV slice of the Prism
So, here’s the moment all of you have been waiting for. Which organizations are in the Biometric Digital Identity Deepfake and Synthetic Identity Prism?
Deepfake and Synthetic Identity Prism. Copyright 2025 The Prism Project.
Yeah, the text is small. Told you there were a lot of organizations.
For my purposes I’m going to concentrate on the “identity proofing and verification” beam in the lower left corner. But I’m going to dig deeper.
In the illustration above, organizations are nearer or farther from the center based upon their AVERAGE score for all 7 factors I listed previously. But because I want to concentrate on differentiation, I’m only going to look at the identity proofing and verification organizations with high scores (between 5 and the maximum of 6) for the “unique positioning” factor.
I’ll admit my methodology is somewhat arbitrary.
There’s probably no great, um, difference between an organization with a score of 4.9 and one with a score of 5. But you can safely state that an organization with a “unique positioning” score of 2 isn’t as differentiated from one with a score of 5.
And this may not matter. For example, iBeta (in the infrastructure – culture – community beam) has a unique positioning score of 2, because a lot of organizations do what iBeta does. But at the same time iBeta has a biometric commitment of 4.5. They don’t evaluate refrigerators.
So, here’s my list of identity proofing and verification organizations who scored between 5 and 6 for the unique positioning factor:
ID.me
iiDENTIFii
Socure
Using the report as my source, these three identity verification companies have offerings that differentiate themselves from others in the pack.
Although I’m sure the other identity verification vendors can be, um, trusted.
I received a suspicious email from “Sara Romano,” a “scout” with HiveLLM who wanted me to bid on a biometric content calendar with a budget of “75000” (no currency specified).
HiveLLM has no corporate address, no LinkedIn presence, a website only a couple of months old, and an advertised business model in which you can ask a question for 10 cents.
A clear case of the need for Know Your Business (KYB).
And as you can see, HiveLLM failed a rudimentary KYB check.
But let’s ask some questions anyway.
“Sara, to confirm that HiveLLM is not a fraudulent entity, please provide your corporate address, registration information, and the identities of your owner(s) and corporate officers.”
UPDATE. At midnight Pacific Time, “Sara” sent a long response. Buried toward the end: “I’m unable to provide corporate registration or ownership details.”
“The documents were forged Labour Market Impact Assessments, or LMIAs. Employers typically receive the documents from Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) if they want to hire a foreign worker.”
Biometrics aren’t enough. The person may be who they say they are, but the documentation they are holding may be fake.
Bredemarket 