Tag Archives: law enforcement

Identity Verification for Nevada Sex Workers

(Part of the biometric product marketing expert series)

There is a lot of discussion about identity verification for people working in certain jobs: police officers, teachers, financial professionals, and the like.

With one exception.

One job that isn’t frequently discussed in the identity verification world is that of a sex worker. Primarily because sex workers usually don’t undergo identity verification for employment, but identity checks for criminal proceedings.

With a few exceptions. 

In portions of Nevada sex work is legal. But it is heavily regulated. So there are laws in places like Carlin, Nevada that govern prostitute registration and work cards. Among other things:

  • Applicants are fingerprinted and are also required to submit a recent photo.
  • Applicants must provide their birth name and all subsequent “names or aliases used.”
  • Three years of residence addresses and employment information.
  • The applicant criminal record “except minor traffic violations.”
  • “A waiver of release of medical information,” since the nature of the work involves the possibility of transmission of communicable diseases. And you thought being a nuclear power plant worker was dangerous!

Presumably the fingerprints are searched against law enforcement databases, just like the fingerprints of school teachers and the other newer professions.

Why?

“The chief of police shall investigate, through all available means, the accuracy of all information supplied by the prostitute on the registration form.”

Included in the investigation:

  • Controlled substance criminal convictions.
  • Felony convictions.
  • Embezzlement, theft, or shoplifting convictions.
  • Age verification; you have to be 21.

As you can see, the identity verification requirements for sex workers are adapted to meet the needs of that particular position.

But…it takes two to tango.

Brothel clients need to be at least 18 years old.

But I don’t know if Nevada requires client age verification, or if age estimation is acceptable.

From https://www.instagram.com/share/_mMj2BVRh.

Ontario: When Enforcement IS Enforcement

For those who missed my prior post on the topic, the city of Ontario announced mandatory weekly car removal from the street to allow street sweeping.

If your side of the street is scheduled for sweeping, and your car is still on the street, you would get a ticket.

After Ontario revealed the signs, it stated that the fines wouldn’t be enforced until the first full week of May.

So beginning in early May, I religiously ensured my car was off my side of the street by Wednesday noon.

Until Ontario restated that the fines wouldn’t be enforced until the first full week of JUNE.

Who does Ontario think it is? The Transportation Security Administration?

But I kept on moving my car through the end of May, every single week.

After a month of enforcement delay, Wednesday June 4 rolled around. And I reminded myself that I REALLY needed to move my car that morning before noon to avoid a ticket from the city.

You can guess what happened next.

I remembered to move my car…at 2:30 in the afternoon.

And found a $50 ticket that was left at 12:57 in the afternoon.

On the day that it REALLY counted.

I immediately tried to pay my fine online, but the (handwritten) ticket hadn’t been entered into the payment system yet.

I’ve been advised that it may take as long as a month to record the ticket in the payment system.

Sadly, I’m not counting on the system to forget about it.

Even though I have a REAL ID.

Revisiting Amazon Rekognition, May 2025

(Part of the biometric product marketing expert series)

A recent story about Meta face licensing changes caused me to get reflective.

“This openness to facial recognition could signal a turning point that could affect the biometric industry. 

“The so-called “big” biometric players such as IDEMIA, NEC, and Thales are teeny tiny compared to companies like Meta, Alphabet, and Amazon. If the big tech players ever consented to enter the law enforcement and surveillance market in a big way, they could put IDEMIA, NEC, and Thales out of business. 

“However, wholesale entry into law enforcement/surveillance could damage their consumer business, so the big tech companies have intentionally refused to get involved – or if they have gotten involved, they have kept their involvement a deep dark secret.”

Then I thought about the “Really Big Bunch” product that offered the greatest threat to the “Big 3” (IDEMIA, NEC, and Thales)—Amazon Rekognition, which directly competed in Washington County, Oregon until Amazon imposed a one-year moratorium on police use of facial recognition in June 2020. The moratorium was subsequently extended until further notice.

I last looked at Rekognition in June 2024, when Amazon teamed up with HID Global and may have teamed up with the FBI.

So what’s going on now?

Hard to say. I have been unable to find any newly announced Amazon Rekognition law enforcement customers.

That doesn’t mean that nothing is happening. Perhaps the government buyers are keeping their mouths shut.

Plus, there is this page, “Use cases that involve public safety.”

Nothing controversial on the page itself:

  • “Have appropriately trained humans review all decisions to take action that might impact a person’s civil liberties or equivalent human rights.”
  • “Train personnel on responsible use of facial recognition systems.”
  • “Provide public disclosures of your use of facial recognition systems.”
  • “In all cases, facial comparison matches should be viewed in the context of other compelling evidence, and shouldn’t be used as the sole determinant for taking action.” (In other words, INVESTIGATIVE LEAD only.)

Nothing controversial at all, and I am…um…99% certain (geddit?) that IDEMIA, NEC, and Thales would endorse all these points.

But why does Amazon even need such a page, if Rekognition is only used to find missing children?

Maybe this is a pre-June 2020 page that Amazon forgot to take down.

Or maybe not.

Couple this with the news about Meta, and there’s the possibility that the Really Big Bunch may enter the markets currently dominated by the Big Three.

Imagine if the DHS HART system, delayed for years, were resurrected…with Alphabet or Amazon or Meta technology.

We are still in the time of uncertainty…and may never go back.

(Large and small wildebeests via Imagen 3)

Wednesday is a Fine Day

For people at Ontario International Airport and other airports throughout the United States, May 7 is REAL ID Sort of Enforcement Day.

For people on certain sides of streets in Ontario, California, today is another type of enforcement day.

For months, we have been told that if your car is parked on the street during street sweeping day, enforcement and fines will begin during the first full week of May.

But will the city truly enforce it?

Visible Light Transmission (VLT) Percentages and Automobile Windows

Here are three questions for you:

  1. When a car pulls up to you, do you want to look inside?
  2. Here’s another question: when a car pulls up to you, and you’re a law enforcement officer, do you want to look inside?
  3. And here’s a third: if you’re driving a car, how much window tint should the car windows have?

The answer to that third question varies on a state-by-state basis, which also affects the effectiveness around the second question.

I’ll use my state of California as an example. According to the “Window Tinting Laws By State” page on Geoshield’s website, the Visible Light Transmission (VLT) percentage on car windows depends on which car window you’re talking about.

  • For the front side windows, the minimum VLT value is 70%.
  • For back side windows and rear windows, any VLT value is allowed.
  • For the windshield, the minimum VLT value is 100%, except on the top 4 inches of the windshield.

But VLT percentages vary on a state-by-state basis. In Arkansas, front and back side windows have a minimum VLT of 25%.

And I would bet that if someone in California drives to Arkansas with “excessive” back side window tinting, they can get in trouble…if the highway patrol officer notices.

So if you’re a criminal, and you don’t want a law enforcement officer to see you, it’s safest for you to sit in the back seat. If you’re a rich criminal, you’re probably being chauffeured anyway, so this should be easy.

By the way, how many of you figured out why I’m asking these questions?

(Automobile tinted window image from Imagen 3)

Do We Have 18,000 Forensic Sciences?

Mike Bowers (CSIDDS) shared a Substack article by Max Houck regarding the uneven nature of forensic science in the United States. Houck’s thesis:

…how the fragmented, decentralized nature of American law enforcement and forensic practice creates a landscape where what counts as science (and possibly what counts as justice) can vary wildly depending on where you happen to be.

There are about 18,000 police agencies in the United States at all levels of government, and 400 separate forensic laboratories.

But we have standards, right?

Do Even when national scientific bodies like ASTM or NIST’s OSAC develop well-reasoned, consensus-based forensic standards, adoption is purely voluntary. Some laboratories fully integrate these standards, using them to validate methods, structure protocols, and train staff. Most others ignore them, modify them, or apply them selectively based on local preference or operational convenience. There is no enforcement mechanism, no unified system of oversight. The science exists, but whether it is followed depends on where you are.

Houck’s article details many other issues that plague forensic science, but the main issues arise because there are 18,000 different authorities on the matter. Because this is a structural issue, deeply rooted in how Americans think of governing ourselves, Houck doesn’t see an easy solution.

Reforming this system will not be easy. It runs up against the powerful American instincts toward local control, political independence, and legal precedent. Federal mandates for forensic accreditation, national licensing of analysts, or the establishment of an independent forensic science* oversight body (all ideas floated over the years) face stiff political and logistical resistance. I don’t give these ideas much of a chance.

Even Houck’s minimal suggestions for reform are questionable. In fact, if you read the list of his solutions at the bottom of his article, you’ll see that he’s already crossed one of them out.

Federal funding could be tied to meaningful accreditation and quality assurance requirements.

(Imagen 3)

The Facial Recognition Vendor Is Not At Fault If You Don’t Upgrade Your Software

This is the second time that I’ve seen something like this, so I thought I’d bring attention to it.

Biometric Update recently published a story about an Australian agency that is no longer using Cognitec facial recognition software.

Why? Because the facial recognition software the agency has is not accurate enough.

Note “the facial recognition software the agency has.” There’s a story here.

Police and Counter-terrorism Minister Yasmin Catley clarifies that Cognitec has released numerous updates to the product since its deployment, but the police did not purchase them. As with other developers, Cognitec’s legacy algorithms have higher error rates for various demographic groups.

Important clarification.

Now perhaps the agency had its reasons for not upgrading the Cognitec software, and for using other software instead.

But governments and enterprises should not use old facial recognition software. Unless they have to run the software on computers running PC-DOS. Then they have other problems.

(A little aside: when I prompted Google Gemini to create the Imagen 3 image for this post, I asked it to create an image of a 1980s IBM PC running MS-DOS. Those in the know realize my prompt was incorrect. I should have requested a 1980s IBM PC running PC-DOS, not MS-DOS. PC-DOS was the version of MS-DOS that IBM licensed for its own computers, leaving Microsoft able to provide MS-DOS to the “clone computers” that eventually eclipsed IBM’s own offering.)

MFB = Multi Factor Biasification?

There’s a paper from Itiel Dror that I need to read. Its title is “Biased and Biasing: The Hidden Bias Cascade and Bias Snowball Effects.”

Here is a portion of the abstract:

“Cognitive bias…impacts each and every aspect of the justice and legal systems, from the initial engagement of police officers attending the crime scene, through the forensic examination, and all the way to the final outcome of the jurors’ verdict and the judges’ sentencing. It impacts not only the subjective elements in the justice and legal systems but also the more objective scientific elements, such as forensic fingerprinting and DNA….[S]uch errors in the final outcome rarely occur because they require that the shortcomings in each element be coordinated and aligned with the other elements. However, in the justice and legal systems, the different elements are not independent; they are coordinated and mutually support and bias each other, creating and enabling hidden bias cascade and bias snowball effects.”

If Tik Stops Tokking (in the U.S.)

Not that it’s authoritative, but I asked Google Gemini what may happen to TikTok users on Sunday, January 19. The text below was written by Gemini.

On Sunday, January 19th, 2025, if the current legal situation remains unchanged:

  •  New users will not be able to download TikTok.
  •  Existing users will likely still be able to use the app on their devices. However, the app will no longer receive updates or bug fixes, potentially leading to performance issues and security vulnerabilities over time.

Important Note: This is based on the current understanding of the legal proceedings. The situation could change if:

  •  The Supreme Court intervenes: They could potentially block or delay the ban.
  •  TikTok is sold: If TikTok is sold to an approved buyer, the ban may be lifted.

I recommend staying updated on the latest news and legal developments regarding this issue.

Title vs. Physical Possession of a Vehicle

(2002 Ford Excursion image public domain)

I’ve talked about non-person entities (NPEs) before, but usually about a computer, or a file (such as a top secret file).

What about sport utility vehicles (SUVs)? 

Or houses?

But I’m going to concentrate on sport utility vehicles here.

Because of their expense, certain NPEs such as vehicles and real estate are associated with title, or proof of ownership. 

Just because I have physical possession of a car or house doesn’t mean that I’m the lawful owner. Maybe I am house sitting. Or renting a car. Or I am a squatter or thief. When it comes to legal (and financial) title, possession is NOT 9/10ths of the law. Otherwise, Hilton and Hertz would be out of business.

Old anti-Richard Nixon ad.

But what happens when the physical NPE and the title diverge? Two victims of now-convicted car salesman Ronald Johnson found out the hard way, according to KTTN:

“In 2022, Johnson orchestrated a scheme that led to a Pennsylvania buyer paying $41,750 for a 2002 Ford Excursion that he had already sold to a South Dakota buyer for $45,000. The South Dakota buyer received the title, while the Pennsylvania buyer was given the SUV, leaving the latter unable to register the vehicle lawfully.”

But how do you verify that the title is real? For vehicles:

“The title should have a watermark, a raised seal, a unique vehicle identification number, a unique title number, and the owner’s information.”

And as for the owner, my regular readers know how to verify THAT.