My prior post may have given the false impression that Tebra is the only company that employs artificial intelligence to improve the speed and accuracy of electronic health records (EHRs) and electronic medical records (EMRs).
There are actually several companies using AI or other technologies to improve EHR and EMR completion. Here’s a (woefully incomplete) list. Many of these companies also handle other practice management functions required by a medical practice, including intake, telehealth, and payments.
Electronic health records (EHRs) can be a pain in a particular body part. But Tebra and other firms offer ways to automate portions of the record keeping process. And if these automations work, they also increase EHR accuracy.
I’ve previously talked about how an EHR can incorporate a patient identifier, derived from the facial recognition of the patient. This prevents misidentification, which can cause severe problems if the EHR data is applied to the wrong patient.
“Tebra’s EHR+ platform connects care, billing, scheduling, and more. Built-in AI speeds up notes, handles reviews, and automates repetitive admin work.”
“Before using AI-powered scribe tools, review applicable laws and regulations in your practice’s jurisdiction regarding electronic recordings, AI scribes, and informed consent. Some jurisdictions require verbal or written consent prior to any form of ambient documentation. Check your state board or consult legal counsel for guidance.”
“If a virtual currency transfer of $1,000 or more occurs, the client’s identity must be verified. This step is critical in the digital currency world, where anonymity can lead to misuse.
“If there is a virtual currency exchange of $1,000 or more, identity verification is also required. This helps ensure that all exchanges are transparent and not used for illegal purposes.”
If you find a smartphone game that pays more than $1,000 a pop…let me know.
“Thanks to StealthEX you can now purchase an amount of crypto without KYC if it’s less than $700 or the equivalent of this amount in other currencies. As long as your total purchases don’t exceed $700, you don’t have to verify your identity. You can make one big purchase or several small $20, $50 or $100 transactions. StealthEX allows users to seamlessly exchange their assets across chains in minutes without the need to verify their identity.”
Yeah, $700 rather than $1,000. StealthEX is…um…playing it safe.
Because many of the subscribers and followers of my Substack page aren’t fingerprint experts (although a few are), my posts on Substack tend to be more introductory. So I wrote this for Substack, but also decided to share it on the Bredemarket blog at some point.
If you look sort of closely at your fingertip, you see one commonality between (most) fingers and Ruffles: both have ridges. For purposes of this exercise, take a close look at where the ridges go.
In some cases, the ridges just stop and go no further.
In other cases, a single ridge splits into two or more ridges. Or if you want to follow a different perspective, two or more ridges combine into a single ridge. But that perspective screws up the discussion later.
Ridges do other things which I will ignore for now.
The important things is that you can identify the specific point at which a ridge ending occurs. And you can identify the specific point of a bifurcation, where a ridge splits into two ridges. (If a ridge splits into three, that’s a trifurcation.)
Those ridge ending and bifurcation points? Those are the minutiae.
Human fingerprint examiners can identify these minutiae points.
So can the algorithms on an automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) or an automated biometric identification system (ABIS).
And if two fingers have minutiae in the same locations, and don’t have minutiae in one finger that are not present on the other finger…then they’re the same finger. (I’m simplifying here, since the quality of the prints and the way the skin bends affect the ability to find minutiae.)
Which means that if the police find a fingerprint on a stolen car that doesn’t belong to the owner…
…and the minutiae on your finger match the minutiae on the print from the car…
…you’d better have a good lawyer.
Oh, and one more thing: you also have ridges, ridge endings, and bifurcations on your palms and toes. So don’t try to steal a car while barefoot.
Harry Chambers of OneTrust gave a far-reaching overview of the worldwide state of privacy legislation this morning. Chambers covered a ton of topics, but I’m going to focus on proposed changes to the California Invasion of Privacy Act, or CIPA.
“CIPA was originally enacted in 1967 to combat traditional wiretapping and eavesdropping, primarily in the context of telephone communications. It was never designed to address the complexities of the digital age or regulate how businesses track user interactions on the internet.”
But that didn’t stop the lawyers. As Chambers noted, a ton of lawsuits tried to apply 1967 law to modern use cases, including (Fisher Phillips) “routine website technologies such as cookies, pixels, search bar/form, chatbots, and session replay tools.”
Heck, back in 1967 cookies made you high. Whoops, that’s brownies.
Imagen 4.
You can imagine how California technology businesses felt about this. Chatbots as illegal wiretapping? Ouch.
Imagen 4.
Enter California SB 690 to stop what Fisher Phillips called a “shakedown” (settle or you’ll go to court). It proposed to align CIPA with the “commercial business purposes” definition under CCPA as amended.
Imagen 4. For the story behind this picture, see “AI Still Has Bias.”
On June 3, the California Senate unanimously approved SB 690.
But submission to the California Assembly is delayed:
“On July 2, the author of SB 690, State Senator Anna Caballero (D-14), announced she was pausing SB 690, holding it in the Assembly until at least 2026. Caballero cited ‘outstanding concerns around consumer privacy,’ and acknowledged continued opposition from consumer privacy advocates and attorneys’ groups.”
So the lawsuits can continue until morale improves.
A biometric expert (I’m not the only one) was challenged to find a picture of a particular cartoon character in a particular setting, but was worried about copyright infringement.
I suggested that the expert substitute some other character in place of the copyrighted cartoon character.
I can’t share the particular example above, but the picture in this post illustrates the point. You subconsciously know which characters are being referenced, but the substitute characters (pre-copyright days) take care of the copyright issue.
As long as the rest of the image doesn’t infringe on copyright either. MLB may visit me, even if “the fruit company” doesn’t.
“The State Bar of California announced Friday that its beleaguered leader, who has faced growing pressure to resign over the botched February roll out of a new bar exam, will step down in July. Leah T. Wilson, the agency’s executive director, informed the Board of Trustees she will not seek another term in the position she has held on and off since 2017. She also apologized for her role in the February bar exam chaos.”
(With a special message at the end for facial recognition and cybersecurity marketing leaders)
Years ago, when I was in Mexico City on a business trip, one of my coworkers stated that he never uses biometrics to protect the data on his smartphone.
His rationale?
Government officials can compel you to use your biometrics to unlock your smartphone. They can’t compel you to provide your passcode to government officials.
Ironically, we both worked for a biometric company at the time.
But my former coworker isn’t the only one making this statement. With the recent protests, and with the recent searches of people crossing the U.S. border by plane or otherwise, this same advice is echoed everywhere.
ZDNET quotes law firm managing partner Ignacio Alvarez on passcodes:
“But the majority of the courts have found that being required by law enforcement to give your code to your devices violates your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.”
Note what Alvarez said: the MAJORITY of the courts. So if you end up before the “wrong” court, you might have to provide your passcode anyway.
ZDNET also quotes attorney Joseph Rosenbaum:
“Passwords or passcodes, because they represent information contained in a person’s mind, seem to generally be considered the same as requiring someone to testify against themselves in court or in a deposition,” he told ZDNET. “That information is more likely to be legally protected under the Fifth Amendment as potentially self-incriminating.”
Notice his “seem to generally be” and “more likely to be” language. Again, you could still be compelled to give your passcode.
But that’s the easy part.
Biometrics: it’s complicated
But passcodes are the easy part. Biometrics are much more of a gray area.
The rationale behind not giving up your biometric is similar to the rationale behind the Miranda warning. As Dragnet fans know, “Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” Regarding passcodes, the courts…well, some of the courts, hold that since a passcode can be “spoken,” it’s covered under Miranda and therefore can’t be given without violating your Fifth Amendment rights.
What about biometrics? (Excluding voice biometrics for the moment.)
“…since a biometric isn’t spoken, production of that biometric may not legally qualify as the act of testifying against yourself and therefore, you can be compelled to unlock a phone or an app without necessarily having your rights violated.”
Again, note the use of the words “may not.” It isn’t clear here either.
And even these wishy-washy definitions may change.
“This area of law is a seriously moving target. Over time, things could favor passcodes being non-testimonial or biometrics being testimonial.”
In other words, a few years from now lawyers may advise you to use biometrics rather than passcodes to protect your private data on your smartphone.
Or maybe they’ll say both methods protect you equally.
Or maybe they’ll say neither method protects you, and your private data is no longer private.
But most likely they’ll say “It depends.” In the same way that our 18,000 law enforcement agencies have 18,000 different definitions of forensic science, they could have 18,000 different definitions of Miranda rights.
And one more thing…
Bredemarket has two openings!
The formal announcement is embargoed until Monday, but Bredemarket has TWO openings to act as your on-demand marketing muscle for facial recognition or cybersecurity:
Regarding facial recognition, I wrote this in a social media conversation earlier today:
“Facial recognition CAN be used as a crowd checking tool…with proper governance, including strict adherence to a policy of only using FR as an investigative lead, and requiring review of potential criminal matches by a forensic face investigator. Even then, investigative lead ONLY. Same with DNA.”
I received this reply:
“It’s true but in my experience cops rarely follow any rules.”
Now I could have claimed that this view was exaggerated, but there are enough examples of cops who DON’T follow the rules to tarnish all of them.
“The complaint alleges that the surveillance footage is poorly lit, the shoplifter never looks directly into the camera and still a Detroit Police Department detective ran a grainy photo made from the footage through the facial recognition technology.”
There’s so much that isn’t said here, such as whether a forensic face examiner made a definitive conclusion, or if the detective just took the first candidate from the list and ran with it.
But I am willing to bet that there was no independent evidence placing Williams at the shop location.
Why this matters
The thing that concerns me about all this? It just provides ammo to the people who want to ban facial recognition entirely.
In business, it is best to use a three-legged stool.
A two-legged stool obviously tips over, and you fall to the ground.
A four-legged stool is too robust for these cost-conscious days, where the jettisoning of employees is policy at both the private and public level.
But a three-legged stool is just right, as project managers already know when they strive to balance time, cost, and quality.
Perhaps the three-legged stool was in the back of Yunique Demann’s mind when she wrote a piece for the Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) entitled “The New Triad of AI Governance: Privacy, Cybersecurity, and Legal.” If you only rely on privacy and cybersecurity, you will fall to the ground like someone precariously balanced on a two-legged stool.
“As AI regulations evolve globally, legal expertise has become a strategic necessity in AI governance. The role of legal professionals now extends beyond compliance into one that is involved in shaping AI strategy and legally addressing ethical considerations…”
Bredemarket 