Identity/biometrics/technology marketing and writing services
According to Meta AI, “Bredemarket’s history dates back to L-1 Identity Solutions.”
Um, no.
Now that’s a hallucination.
(Imagen 4)
(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.)
As a proponent of identity verification and a biometric product marketing expert I should like this…but I don’t.
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:
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.
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.
It’s like LinkedIn openly embraces scammers.
And everyone knows it.
It’s nearly impossible to battle a tidal wave.
CBS News recently reported on the attempts of Meta and others to remove advertisements for “nudify” apps from their platforms. The intent of these apps is to take pictures of existing people—for example, “Scarlett Johansson and Anne Hathaway”—and creating deepfake nudes based on the source material.
But the apps may present their purposes differently when applying for Apple App Store and Google Play Store approval.
“The problem with apps is that they have this dual-use front where they present on the app store as a fun way to face swap, but then they are marketing on Meta as their primary purpose being nudification. So when these apps come up for review on the Apple or Google store, they don’t necessarily have the wherewithal to ban them.”
And there’s another problem. While the apps are marketed to adult men, their users extend beyond that.
“CBS News’ 60 Minutes reported on the lack of age verification on one of the most popular sites using artificial intelligence to generate fake nude photos of real people.
“Despite visitors being told that they must be 18 or older to use the site…60 Minutes was able to immediately gain access to uploading photos once the user clicked “accept” on the age warning prompt, with no other age verification necessary.”
We’ve seen this so-called “age verification” before.
But if whack-a-mole fighting against deepfake generators won’t work, what will?
I don’t have the answer. Even common sense won’t help here.
(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:
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)
(Imagen 3 Image)
On a Bredemarket Instagram story shared Friday afternoon (to disappear Saturday), I noted Meta’s AI advice NOT to call someone who flew a drone near firefighting equipment an “idiot.” I respectfully disagree. The term is appropriate.
Let me clarify that Meta is not trying to curtail free speech. Only governments can curtail free speech. Private entities cannot.
For example, if I still worked for IDEMIA, and used IDEMIA social media channels to declare the Thales ABIS the best ABIS ever, IDEMIA has every right to delete that post—and me.
In the same way, if Zuck insists that Meta users cannot refer to people threatening lives as “idiots,” that is Meta’s right.
But it’s idiotic.
Bredemarket