law enforcement – Bredemarket

When Your “Hungry People”…Is You

I prefer the term “hungry people” to the term “target audience” because it conveys the idea of those who really really want your product.

And therefore it stands to reason that you want to write content for your hungry people.

For example, if you’re selling automated fingerprint identification systems to cops, your content should probably talk about protecting residents by identifying bad people and keeping them off the street.

But Isabel Sterne warns that you don’t want to go overboard in this.

Why not?

“When you spend your time scanning your environment, adapting to those around you, and adjusting your communication style accordingly, you can start to lose yourself, lose sight of your message, and become forgettable.”

Let’s face it. If everyone mirrors their target audience, and they have the same target audience, how can you tell them apart?

I hope that Scott Swann and Ajay Amlani forgive me, but I’m going to use them as examples.

Years ago Ajay, Scott, and I were associated with IDEMIA and/or MorphoTrak, but we have each gone our separate ways.
Ajay Amlani is now at Aware, a U.S.-based biometric company that sells to multiple audiences, including law enforcement.
Scott Swann is now at ROC (formerly Rank One Computing), a U.S.-based biometric company that sells to multiple audiences, including law enforcement.

Aware and ROC could simply mirror the needs and desires of U.S. law enforcement and mirror them back. But if they did that, Aware and ROC would appear identical and interchangeable.

And they’re not.

Aware has been around for several decades and offers everything from components and tools to full-blown automated biometric identification systems. Amlani, a new arrival, has a background that extends back to the FIRST version of CLEAR, along with multiple roles within the federal government and the private sector (including the aforementioned IDEMIA, where we did early work on venue identity verification solutions).

ROC is a newer arrival with a laser focus on several biometric modalities. Swann joined ROC after a long career at the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and other federal government entities, followed by time in the private sector with MorphoTrak (where we worked on Morpho Video Investigator together, a potential solution for Boston Marathon bombing events) and IDEMIA National Security Solutions.

What is Sterne’s advice for Amlani, Swann, and others who don’t want to simply reflect their prospects? Here is what Sterne does:

“I write about what I’m interested in, and while I do write for all of you (and hope you get some value from what I share), I mostly write for myself, to explore ideas. In other words, I forget about the room when I write….

“When you write for yourself without considering a person or group of people, you end up writing more personally and often more universally.

“The irony is that by writing for yourself, you usually create something that others can connect to more deeply….

“And the more you write from this place, the clearer you get on your voice, priorities, and overarching ideas, the better able you are to create something that resonates.”

Personally, my hope is that my infusion of myself in my writing helps me to stand out and to better communicate what Bredemarket can provide to identity/biometric firms.

Is it working? You be the judge.

My buddies and me are getting real well known.

NIST Implements Color Coding to Visually Identify High False Positive Facial Recognition Values

With the exception of colorblind people, the use of colors in dashboards makes information more accessible, particularly in populations where green means “good” and red means “bad.”

(Even if your name IS Bamber.)

The National Institute of Standards and Technology understands the importance of consistent colors, having worked on traffic light colors since the National Bureau of Standards days (PDF).

For more modern applications such as biometrics, NIST recently incorporated a color coding display change to one of its tabs for the “Face Recognition Technology Evaluation (FRTE) 1:N Identification” results. Specifically, the “Demographics: False Positive Dependence” tab.

The change, announced in an email, is as follows:

“The false positive identification error rate tables now include color-coding to highlight anomalously high values.”

In this context, “anomalously high” is bad, or red. (Actually dark pink, but close enough.)

But let’s explain WHY and HOW NIST made this change.

Why does NIST highlight demographic false positive dependence?

NIST has of course explored the demographic effects of face recognition for years, and the “Demographics: False Positive Dependence” tab provides additional tracking for this.

Why does NIST do this?

“False positives occur when searches return wrong identities. Such outcomes have application-dependent consequences, which can be serious.”

Serious as in arresting and jailing innocent people. I previously mentioned Robert Williams.

How does NIST highlight demographic false positive dependence?

Anyway, NIST created the “Demographics: False Positive Dependence” tab.

“The table shows false positive identification rates (FPIR), the fraction of searches that should not return gallery entries above a threshold, but do. The threshold is set for each algorithm to give a FPIR of 0.002 (1 in 500) or less on searches of women born in Eastern Europe.”

And for algorithms that have “anomalously high values” in other demographic populations, NIST has added the color coding.

“A cell is shaded by how much larger FPIR is than that: yellow if FPIR is 20 times larger; pink if FPIR is 40 times larger; and dark pink if FPIR is 80 times larger.”

What does the highlighting look like?

Let me illustrate this with the results from the three algorithms Omnigarde submitted.

Omnigarde’s first two algorithms, submitted in 2023 and 2024, exhibited high FPIR values for south Asian females, and the second algorithm also exhibited a high FPIR value for east Asian females. See the color coding.
The third algorithm, submitted in 2025, had lower FPIR values for these populations and thus no yellow color coding.

Even the less-stellar algorithms show improvement over time.

Data captured April 8, 2026. Anonymized (but you can figure it out if you’re curious).

Final thoughts

Both vendors and customers/prospects can rightfully question whether this is helpful or hurtful. I lean toward “helpful,” because if the facial recognition algorithm you use provides high false positives for certain popularions, you need to know.

And as always, law enforcement in the United States should NEVER solely rely on facial recognition results as the basis for an arrest…even for Eastern European females. They should ONLY be an investigative lead.

In the meantime, take care of yourself, and each other.

Jerry Springer. By Justin Hoch, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16673259.

When is a Law Enforcement Camera a Law Enforcement Camera?

Many years ago I was driving on Holt Boulevard in Montclair, California, preparing to make a left turn on Central. I followed the vehicle behind me and made my left turn…only then noticing that the left turn light was now red.

As the registered owner of the vehicle I was driving, I received an email from the city of Montclair a few days later. Because this is when Montclair was using cameras for traffic enforcement.

Off to traffic school.

Montclair doesn’t use traffic cameras any more, but all sorts of cameras are owned by, or accessible to, law enforcement agencies.

But how should they be used?

404 Media reported that the Georgia State Patrol accesses Flock cameras, for the intended purpose of gathering information for serious crimes. But what happens when the camera captures something not serious?

“Georgia State Patrol used its system of Flock automated license plate reader (ALPR) surveillance cameras to issue a ticket to a motorcyclist who was allegedly looking at his cell phone while riding, according to a copy of the citation obtained by 404 Media….The incident happened December 26 in Coffee County, Georgia. The ticket lists the offense as ‘Holding/supporting wireless telecommunications device,’ and includes the note ‘CAPTURED ON FLOCK CAMERA 31 MM 1 HOLDING PHONE IN LEFT HAND.’”

The man went to court and the ticket was dropped, but 404 Media is still outraged that the ticket was issued in the first place. Not because of Georgia’s policies, but because of other policies.

“Many police departments go out of their way to tell community members that Flock cameras are not used for traffic enforcement. For example, the City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, states in a FAQ that “GSPD [Glenwood Springs Police Department] does not use Flock cameras for traffic enforcement, parking enforcement, or minor code violations.” El Paso, Texas, tells residents “these are not traffic enforcement cameras. They do not issue tickets, do not monitor speed, and do not generate revenue. They are investigative tools used after crimes occur.” Lynwood, Washington tells residents “these cameras will not be used for traffic infractions, immigration enforcement, or monitoring First Amendment-protected expressive activity” (Flock cameras have now been used for all of these purposes, as we have reported.)”

You will recall that I addressed another Flock Safety case, in which a citizen made public records requests from two Washington state jurisdictions. The jurisdictions said that they didn’t have the data; Flock Safety did. Flock Safety said that it had deleted the data.

Basically, Flock Safety is controversial, and some people are going to oppose ANYTHING they do. Even when Flock Safety technology protects people from dangerous drivers.

My view is that if a camera is used by a law enforcement agency, and there is no law prohibiting the law enforcement agency from using a camera for a particular purpose, then the agency can use the camera. There appears to be no such law in Georgia, so I’m not bent out of shape over this.

What are your thoughts? Is this a privacy violation?

Vertical Taxonomies: the UK Home Office Data Standards

I’ve talked about taxonomies ad nauseum, but they apply in multiple cases, including how police agencies talk to each other.

The United Kingdom’s Home Office has published the National Police Chiefs’ Council Minimum POLE Data Standards Dictionary. As the capitalization, I mean capitalisation, suggests, POLE is an acronym standing for Person, Object, Location, Event. The dictionary provides a common method for police agencies to talk to each other about…well, about people, objects, locations, and events.

Some of the comments in the dictionary seem unnecessary, but I guess it’s better to be too specific than not specific at all. Example:

If a telephone number is unknown – do not make one up.

In truth, this ties to a related notation:

A blank field is preferable to a known error…

Because, as anyone who has ever been a teenager will know, things that happen can be added to your permanent record.

Speaking of which, PERSON records may include offenders, suspects, victims, witnesses, and multiple other living, dead, or not-yet-born parties.

Very few specific OBJECT types are called out, but those that do include vehicles, land, and buildings. The OBJECT types also include identifying numbers such as passport numbers and telephone numbers.

A LOCATION may be an address, a geolocation, or another location designator. Or “no fixed abode.”

An EVENT may be a crime, an incident, a “custody,” a stop search, a safeguarding, and a case of “anti-social behaviour.”

So if a Welsh police officer runs into a person trashing a vehicle a a particular geolocation, the officer has all the tools to record what has happened and what will happen.

Montana Fingerprinting Laws…and Costs

School volunteers aren’t free…especially when they need background checks.

Montana Public Radio explains that the state imposed new fingerprint-based background checks for school volunteers.

At $30 a pop, the costs add up. Missoula is spending an additional $20,000 a month to fund this.

Bozeman isn’t paying for this. It’s making the volunteers pay.

Helena was already fingerprinting volunteers and therefore isn’t incurring any additional costs.

To All the People Who Wanted to Defund the Police

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.

Anti-Human Trafficking: Media and Tools

Hillsborough County, Florida seeks bidders for “the continuation of an anti-human trafficking media campaign and related services.”

Bredemarket is not expert in anti-human trafficking campaigns, but several of Bredemarket’s clients and former clients have used biometrics to combat human trafficking and rescue the victims.

Contribute however you can.

When Technology Catches Up: 1980 Murderer of Michelle “Missy” Jones Just Convicted

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported this in September 2020:

“The Fontana Police Department in San Bernardino County, California, said it arrested Leonard Nash, 66, of Las Vegas on a warrant charging him with murder in the July 5, 1980, slaying of Michelle “Missy” Jones. The young woman was found slain in a grapefruit grove in Fontana.”

So why did it take 40 years to arrest Nash?

“Police said forensic evidence was collected during Jones’ autopsy, but technology at the time did not allow it to be connected to an offender.”

In 2020, the Riverside/San Bernardino CAL-DNA Laboratory successfully obtained a profile, but it did not match the DNA profile of any known offender. Nash, a person of interest, was matched to the profile via “discarded DNA.”

Anyway, Nash was convicted this month, but the news stories that described his conviction are inaccessible to you and me.

Convenience (and surveillance)

Convenience.

Manager of the Year?

(Imagen 4)

From Law&Crime:

“According to an arrest report reviewed by Law&Crime, [James Anthony] Morris [Jr.] was mopping the floor of the Subway shop when a 10-year-old girl walked across the area he had just cleaned. The girl’s mother told her to apologize to Morris, who then allegedly grabbed the girl by the hand and brought her to the back of the restaurant.

“He then allegedly locked the girl in a room, and the mother began to ‘panic.’…

“After [Jacksonville FL] police read Morris his rights, he invoked his right to remain silent and “refused” to make a statement. He posted $5,000 bond after being booked into jail on one charge of false imprisonment of a child under the age of 13.”

I think one Jacksonville Subway franchise is going to be in real trouble…especially if Morris himself owns the franchise.

Subway manager trapped 10-year-old girl behind a locked door and said her parents were ‘trash and terrible people,’ police say

Subway manager trapped 10-year-old behind locked door: Cops