While Bredemarket only conducts business in the United States (with one exception), my clients have no such constraints.
Who are my client’s prospects?
Because of my extensive business-to-government (B2G) experience, I often work with clients that sell products and services to government agencies throughout the world. Well, except to North Korea and a few other places.
And as those clients (or their marketing and writing consultants) identify their public sector prospects, terminology becomes an issue.
And they have to answer questions such as “which government agency or agencies in Country Y potentially use biometric authentication for passengers approaching a gate in an airline terminal?”
Hint: chances are it’s NOT called the “department of transportation.”
Ministry
Add one factor that is foreign (literally) to this United States product marketing consultant.
Many of these countries have MINISTRIES.
No, not religious ministers or preachers.
Billy Graham. By Warren K. Leffler – This image is available from the United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs divisionunder the digital ID ppmsc.03261.This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=905632.
When I say “Minister” here I refer to government officials, often from the country’s legislature, who manage a portfolio of agencies that are the responsibility of a Minister.
Sisa
Let’s take one ministry as an example: Sisäministeriö. Oops, Finland’s Ministry of the Interior. This one ministry is currently headed by Mari Rantanen of the Finns Party (part of a four-party coalition ruling Finland).
“Minister Rantanen is also responsible for matters related to integration covered by the Labour Migration and Integration Unit of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment.”
Back to Interior. One huge clarification for U.S. people: other countries’ ministries of the interior bear no relation to the U.S. Department of the Interior, which concerns itself with parks and Native Americans and stuff. Minister Rantanen’s sphere of responsibility is quite different:
“Under the Government Rules of Procedure, the Ministry of the Interior is responsible for:
public order and security, police administration and the private security sector
general preconditions for migration and regulation of migration, with the exception of labour migration, as well as international protection and return migration
Finnish citizenship
rescue services
emergency response centre operations
border security and maritime search and rescue services
national capabilities for civilian crisis management
joint preparedness of regional authorities for incidents and emergencies.”
These responsibilities result in this organization…whoops, organisation.
Border Guard Department, which is the national headquarters for the Border Guard
Administration and Development Department
The units reporting directly to the Permanent Secretary are the International Affairs Unit and Communications Unit.
Directly under the Permanent Secretary are also guidance of Civilian Intelligence and the Finnish Security and Intelligence Service, Internal Audit and Advisory Staff to the Permanent Secretary
So, who’s gonna buy your biometric product or service in each of the 200 or so countries in which you may conduct business?
If you’ve read a few hundred job descriptions, one phrase that you’ll often see is “cross-functional collaboration.” The theory is that the employee (for example, a senior product marketing manager) will seamlessly work with marketing, product, R&D, customer success, sales, finance, legal, and everyone else, all working together for the good of the company.
But the world usually doesn’t work like that. YOUR department is great. The other departments are the bozos.
Google Gemini.
There’s actually a benefit to this when you look at government agencies. If you believe that “the government that governs least” is preferable to Big Brother, then the fact that multiple agencies DON’T gang up against you is a good thing. You don’t want to be chased by the FBI and the CIA and the BBC and B.B. King and Doris Day. And Matt Busby.
But there are times when government agencies work together, usually when facing a common threat. Sometimes this is good…and sometimes it isn’t. Let’s look at two examples and see where they fall in the spectrum.
The Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1972
Normally bureaucrats are loyal to their agency, to the detriment of other agencies. This is especially true when the agencies are de facto competitors.
In theory, and certainly in the 1970s, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have completely separate spheres of operation. But on the highest level they perform the same function: catch bad people. And each agency certainly wants to take the credit when a bad person is caught. Conversely, if one of the agencies has a bad person, the other one usually works to expose it.
Usually.
A few of you are old enough to remember a third-rate burglary in Washington, DC in 1972. The burglary took place at a political party office in some hotel or another. We now know with the benefit of hindsight that the FBI-CIA rivalry worked. Bob Woodward learned a few days after the break-in that two of the alleged burglars were connected to E. Howard Hunt, a former CIA operative. Who told Woodward?
“Woodward, we now know, had been tipped off by Mark Felt, the deputy director of the FBI. The Bureau had itself become involved in the investigation of a mere burglary because once the police found wiretapping equipment, the investigation fell under its remit.”
Google Gemini.
This is how it should work. Although the mere fact that Hunt knew Bernard Barker and Eugenio Martinez was not a crime, the FBI was certainly bound to investigate the matter.
Until it wasn’t.
“Richard Nixon and senior White House personnel including Chief-of-Staff Bob Haldeman and domestic policy tsar John Ehrlichman devised a strategy to block the investigation. This began to unfold as early as June 23, a mere three days after the break-in. That day, Haldeman proposed to Nixon to “have [Vernon] Walters [deputy director of the CIA] call Pat Gray [director of the FBI] and just say ‘stay the h*ll out of this’ on grounds of ‘national interest.’”
This recorded conversation would become very important two years later, but back in 1972 very few people knew about it. And very few people knew that Gray “destroyed secret documents removed from Howard Hunt’s safe.”
Think about it. If Richard Nixon hadn’t recorded his own conversations, we may have never learned that the CIA partially neutralized an FBI investigation.
But other instances of cross-functional collaboration come to light in other ways.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Transportation Security Administration before 2026
The FBI-CIA episode of 1972 was an aberration. Normally agencies don’t cooperate, even when massive amounts of effort are performed to make them work together.
One prime example was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002-2003. Because it was believed that 9/11 happened because relevant agencies were scattered all over the government, Congress and the President performed a massive reorganization. This affected the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, Transportation, and Treasury.
For our discussion:
The Department of Justice lost the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which was broken up into three separate agencies within DHS. One of these is Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
The relatively new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was moved from the Department of Transportation to DHS.
The theory, of course, is that once all these agencies were under the DHS umbrella, they would magically work together to stop the evil terrorists. However, each of the component agencies had vastly different missions. Here is the mission of the TSA:
“Protect the nation’s transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce.”
Well, “freedom of movement” is not the primary part of ICE’s mission:
“Protect America through criminal investigations and enforcing immigration laws to preserve national security and public safety.”
While these missions are not mutually exclusive, the difference in emphasis is apparent. And the agencies competed.
Some of you may remember air marshals. After 9/11, some airline flight passengers were actually air marshals, but the passengers (and any terrorists) didn’t know which flights had air marshals or who they were.
Google Gemini.
The Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) was part of the Transportation Security Administration.
“Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced [in September 2003] that the federal air marshals program will move from the Transportation Security Administration to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).”
The idea was to concentrate all enforcement operations in one agency, to protect FAMS from uncertain TSA funding, and to allow ICE agents to be cross-trained as air marshals. But this didn’t happen, so two years later FAMS moved from ICE back to TSA.
And both agencies went on their merry little ways.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Transportation Security Administration in 2026
“When Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Acting Director Ha Nguyen McNeill was pressed [by the House Committee on Homeland Security] on reports that ICE is using domestic flight passenger information to support deportation operations, she did not deny cooperation. Instead, she defended it as legitimate intra-departmental coordination and framed it as part of DHS’s overall mission set.
“In response to lawmakers’ questions, McNeill said TSA assistance to ICE is ‘absolutely within our authorities’ when it involves sharing passenger information for immigration enforcement operations.”
McNeill effectively said that TSA doesn’t dump its data on ICE, but responds to individual ICE inquiries.
“Airport travel…becomes a choke point for detentions – no longer just transportation, but a compliance checkpoint for civil enforcement, re-engineering mobility into an enforcement tool.”
I discussed the whole “defund the police” movement years ago, and now in 2026 we are still depending upon the police to protect us.
According to KARE, here is what happened when the police investigated the death of Alex Pretti…or tried to do so.
“Despite having a signed warrant from a judge, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) was denied access to the scene where a man was fatally shot by federal agents Saturday morning in south Minneapolis, according to the BCA.
“Minnesota BCA Superintendent Drew Evans said the department was initially turned away at the scene by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), so the BCA obtained a warrant from an independent judge. Evans said the judge agreed that the BCA had probable cause to investigate the scene, but DHS officials wouldn’t allow the BCA access to the scene.”
And I might as well say this also…I don’t believe in abolishing ICE either.
“The fifth annual Deloitte “Connected Consumer” survey reveals that consumers have a positive perception of their technology experiences and are increasingly embracing GenAI. However, they are determined to seek balance in their digital lives and expect trust, accountability, and transparency from technology providers.”
I originally worked with state benefits systems during my years at Printrak, and have performed analysis of such systems at Bredemarket. These systems store sensitive personal data of many Americans, including myself. And they are therefore a target for hackers.
“On December 5, the State was informed by its vendor, Deloitte, that the RIBridges data system was the target of a potential cyberattack….”
That was just the beginning.
“On December 10, the State received confirmation from Deloitte that there had been a breach of the RIBridges system based on a screenshot of file folders sent by the hacker to Deloitte. On December 11, Deloitte confirmed that there is a high probability that the implicated folders contain personally identifiable information from RIBridges. On December 13, Deloitte confirmed there was malicious code present in the system, and the State directed Deloitte to shut RIBridges down to remediate the threat.”
RIBridges is…um…a bridge from Rhode Island residents to various Federally sponsored but State administered benefits programs, including:
Medicaid,
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP),
Health coverage purchased through HealthSource RI
Rhode Island Works (RIW),
Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS), and
General Public Assistance (GPA) Program
State benefits systems such as RIBridges are complex and often hosted on old infrastructure that requires modernization. (“Modernization” is a great buzzword to use to toss around when describing aging state computer systems, as I know from my years working with driver’s license and biometric identification systems.) The older and more complex the system, the easier to hack.
The history of RIBridges
This complexity is certainly true of Deloitte’s hacked RIBridges system.
“Gov. Daniel McKee…said the state will pay the firm $99 million over the next three years to manage and build out the RIBridges computer system….The firm has been developing the software, which handles the state’s Medicaid, SNAP and other welfare programs, since 2016, though delays and errors during (previous Governor) Raimondo’s administration caused the state to overspend by at least $150 million as of 2019, the last time the state renewed Deloitte’s contract.”
“Federal agencies, including the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, had warned Rhode Island before the system’s launch that it was not ready for deployment….RIBridges proceeded despite clear operational risks, leading to immediate and widespread problems. The launch resulted in significant disruptions to benefits distribution, with thousands of residents experiencing delays in receiving critical assistance. Backlogs soared, with more than 20,000 cases piling up due to system malfunctions.”
After much time and effort the backlogs decreased, but the treasure trove of personally identifiable information (PII) remained a target.
“As a central repository for sensitive personal data, including financial information and health records, RIBridges became a potential target for cyberattacks. Security audits revealed vulnerabilities in the system’s defenses….Cybercriminals exploited weaknesses in RIBridges to access sensitive data. The attackers bypassed existing security measures, inserted malicious code, and obtained unauthorized access. The breach exposed flaws in the system’s technical defenses and highlighted issues with its oversight and vendor management.”
The consequences for RIBridges applicants
So now the system is down, applicants are using paper forms, and a cyber criminal is requesting a payout.
As my employer, I am informing you that I am no longer required to report for jury duty on Monday, February 5. I have confirmed this on the San Bernardino County Superior Court website.
Please let me know if you need any additional information.
As an independent contractor who doesn’t HAVE to keep set hours this is technically none of your business, but I’m letting you know anyway. San Bernardino County has messaged me about something…and it potentially affects you.
I may have limited availability during the week of February 5-9 due to a jury duty summons.
And because of the confidentiality of jury proceedings, that’s all that I will have to say about THAT.
Currently the Bredemarket Calendly page marks me as completely unavailable during the week of February 5-9. I will adjust this as needed.
P.S. Years ago when I received a jury duty summons that potentially involved biometric evidence, I disclosed that I worked for a company that competed with the jurisdiction’s biometric provider. In this case, the PROSECUTION excused me from service.
This coming year will be the fourth year of Bredemarket’s existence. I started in August 2020, but it took a few weeks for the city business license and other paperwork to complete.
Now while the City of Ontario (California, not Canada) business license renewal entitles me to conduct business in the city as Bredemarket (when coupled with the Fictitious Business Name statement I filed with San Bernardino County), it is not an official endorsement of my activity by the city, and is definitely NOT an endorsement of the call to action at the end of this post.
More importantly, the City of Ontario has imposed four significant restrictions on the way that Bredemarket conducts business. Do they affect how I do business with you? We’ll see.
First: I must post the business license in a conspicuous place
Done.
City of Ontario business license, posted in a conspicuous place in an undisclosed location. And no, I don’t wear my glasses all the time.
Although as we will see when we get to the third restriction, the whole meaning of “conspicuous place” is irrelevant to Bredemarket’s business.
Second: I can’t conduct just ANY business
The business license is issued “for consulting services, including marketing and writing services.” The license does NOT allow me to bake pies, perform auto maintenance, launch rockets into space, or perform heart surgery.
You won’t see the Bredemarket 33410 Aortic Valve Surgery Service any time soon. The city won’t let me offer it. (33410, by the way, is the medical code for Under Surgical Procedures on the Aortic Valve.)
Dang guvmint.
Third: No visitation from clients
Remember how the city requires that I post my license in a conspicuous place? Well, the city also prohibits me from having clients visit me at my work location. This makes sense, since residential neighborhoods aren’t really built to have a bunch of cars park outside a house where business is conducted.
No, Bredemarket clients cannot park their cars in front of my house. And no, this is not my house. (And they’re not your cars either.) Fair use. The Verge, “Multimillion-dollar Ferraris, Jaguars, Astons, and a fine cup of tea.” The cast of cars and characters from the first Goodwood press day in 1993. Lord Charles March is by the front door of the house with his light blue AC 16/80 designed by his grandfather.
This means that when I do have a person-to-person meeting (rather than a videoconference) to conduct business, the meeting has to be offsite. For example, a couple of years ago I met with an advisor at Brandon’s Diner in Upland. (And the lunch was tax deductible!)
Fourth: No signage permitted
Again, because my work location is in a residential neighborhood, I can’t put a huge neon sign in my front yard with the Bredemarket logo.
Imagine this in my front yard.
And no, I can’t put a small neon sign in my front yard.
Or any neon sign.
I wonder if the city will let me put signage on my mailbox? Actually, the UPS Store probably won’t allow that either.
Bredemarket’s mailing address is 1030 N Mountain Ave #259, Ontario CA 91762-2114. If you read my previous post, you know that “MBE” stands for Mailboxes Etc.
So what?
The reason that these city restrictions don’t matter to you is because (since we still have the Internet) Bredemarket is perfectly capable of conducting its business online.
You don’t have to look for my business sign, or a parking place in front of the place where I conduct business. Why not? Because I can meet with you via Google Meet or another videoconferencing service, or we can talk on the phone, or even exchange emails with each other.
I’ve worked from home since March 2020—first for IDEMIA, then for Bredemarket, then for Incode Technologies, then for Bredemarket again. During that time I’ve been able to meet all of the needs of Bredemarket clients remotely, despite no public parking and no signage.
Well, almost all the needs. I haven’t been able to perform aortic valve surgery for my clients.
Dang guvmint.
The city does not endorse this call to action
Do you want to use the marketing and writing services of a government-licensed consulting firm?
The Bredemarket blog has previously considered how private companies like Samsung and Adobe use generative AI. Government use is similar, yet differs in some ways. Let’s see how San Jose, California approaches it.
Privacy is also a concern, and IT advises generative AI users to assume any information entered will be exposed to the public. Materials unready for publication shouldn’t be entered, nor should private emails. Employees looking for help drafting emails should avoid copy-pasting messages into generative AI, instead prompting the tools to write a generic message they can fact-check or augment with personalized details. The guidelines advise users to fact-check with multiple credible sources, including peer-reviewed journals and official documents.
This is a big concern for private companies, also.
But there are also issues that governments need to consider that private companies may not need to address.
One consideration is that government writing requires a particular style. Senate bills, for example, are written with a certain structure and formality. The city also uses gender-neutral language and the term “resident” rather than “citizen.”
Of course private companies have their own writing styles, but the world won’t come to an end if the IBM memorandum includes the word “gnarly.” But the wrong word in a Senate bill, or the use of the term “citizen” in a blue state, could be catastrophic.
One thing is clear: San Jose Chief Information Officer Khaled Tawfik doesn’t think that general-purpose generative AI will cut it.
San Jose has talked with several vendors about the possibility of AI trained on data from government, potentially restricted to San Jose data only.
As I noted in my post about Writer.com, this also allows implementation of privacy restrictions that could help avert problems if an employee inputs confidential information into the tool.
For the moment, San Jose is asking employees and contractors to log all use of generative AI. This will be referenced as the city develops its guidelines and policies in the future. As the city says:
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a new branch of AI technology that can generate content—such as stories, poetry, images, voice, and music— at the request of a user. Many organizations have banned Generative AI, while others allow unrestricted usage. The City recognizes the opportunity for a controlled and responsible approach that acknowledges the benefits to efficiency while minimizing the risks around AI bias, privacy, and cybersecurity.
This is the first step in a collaborative process to develop the City’s overall AI policy. Registered users will be invited to join the Information Technology Department in a working group to share their experience and co-develop the City’s AI policies.
Bredemarket 