The Future of Digital Identity: Security, Privacy & Biometrics

What if your face, fingerprint, or palm could replace every password you’ve ever used?
In today’s world of constant data breaches and digital overload, the future of secure identity verification is already here—and it’s happening on your phone.

In this episode of Forum Power, we dive into mobile-first biometric authentication, cybersecurity, digital identity, and privacy-first technology with Joe Ferrigno, Director - Global Safety & Security at Identy.io.

Joe brings over 30 years of experience from top federal agencies—including INTERPOL Washington, DHS Office of Inspector General, and Homeland Security Investigations—giving us a rare insider perspective on how global security, information sharing, and investigative strategy have evolved.

We break down what passwordless authentication really means, why it matters for both government and everyday users, and how Identy.io is changing the game with on-device biometric security that protects your data without storing it in vulnerable databases.

If you’ve ever wondered how to balance security vs. privacy, or what the next 5–10 years of digital identity and biometric technology will look like, this episode is for you.

⚡ Plus: Don’t miss our rapid-fire round where Joe reveals his favorite biometric method, leadership style, and daily habits.

Hashtags:
#Cybersecurity #DigitalIdentity #Biometrics #TechPodcast #PrivacyMatters #Passwordless #GovTech #Innovation #MillennialMindset #FutureOfWork #Identyio #FORUMPodcastNetwork

FORUM POWER Podcast delivers insider conversations on GovCon and federal IT leadership, hosted by Mary Ann Brown, President of FORUM.
Follow FORUM on LinkedIn for updates. New episodes weekly. 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:02

The point of the leaders made the state of the government working through the government conversation for the leaders of the fourth part of federal innovation and government of the fourth hour of government modernization of procurement of cybersecurity of AI and more. And now here is your host, Mary Ann Bradley.

SPEAKER_01 0:24

I am being joined today by Joe Ferrino, Director of Global Safety and Security for Identity.io. Joe, thank you for hopping on with me today.

SPEAKER_02 0:33

Oh, thank you so much, Marion. Nice to meet you.

SPEAKER_01 0:35

You've had an incredible career across multiple federal law enforcement agencies. What originally drew you to public service and how did those early experiences shape your leadership style today?

SPEAKER_02 0:47

I grew up in Staten Island, New York, on a street with over 15 New York City police officers. Uh, my father included pretty much every other house on the street had a uh cop living there. And so with all my father's friends, I was literally surrounded by cops all the way up until the time that I left, I left for college. I was in college, I went to a small school in uh Newburgh, New York, Mount St. Mary College. While I was there, IBM hosted Henry Kissinger, uh, the former Secretary of State for a three-day visit at the college. And uh I was the president of the student body, so I was privileged enough to escort him around the campus for three days. And being the former Secretary of State, he had a protection detail with him. Most of them were retired uh U.S. Secret Service. And so I got to know them during that three-day visit and uh got to be pretty friendly with them. I was a communications and English major. I hadn't really given a lot of thought to a law enforcement career, although, like I said, my dad was a police officer and I had considered that at one point. And then one of the detection details turned to me and said, Hey, did you ever think about becoming a Secret Service agent? And I said, Well, not really, but okay. And he told me more about it. He said, if you're interested, we'll hook you up with an interview down in New York City with our special agent in charge. So uh they told me to study up for the Treasury Enforcement Agents exam, which was the test you had to take at the time. And then uh they actually set me up with an interview down there. I went down. Uh it was just about the time, this is in '88 or so, because the school year had ended. And Secret Service had already done a full hiring for that election cycle. So the special agent charge was like, hey, listen, I can't bring you on board because we're filled up, but you know, would you consider going to U.S. Customs? And he referred me literally downstairs to the U.S. Customs Office in New York City. And I went down there for an interview. And as it turns out, it worked out well, and the rest is history. So I ended up on board.

SPEAKER_01 2:43

Wow, that's cool. And you've also worked with organizations like Interpool, Washington, and DHS, OIG. What are some of the biggest shifts you've seen in global security and investigative priorities over, say, the past three decades?

SPEAKER_02 2:57

So there you go. Three decades. It's a long time, Marianne. You know, you're talking about I came on to the job in uh 1991. I think if I had to put it in one line, I think global security, we've seen it shift from reactive investigations that we did when I first came on job to proactive intelligence-led operations, which uh they focus mostly on threat prevention and early detection. So to put that in a little bit of context, when I first began in law enforcement, again it was 1991, I was with U.S. Customs, and it was really the height of the war on drugs. And I was in a narcotics group at the time. I was I was assigned to JFK Airport at the JFK Narcotic Smuggling Unit. And we were right there on the front lines with our DEA partners, you know, really charging hard, interdicting drugs that were being smuggled every imaginable way in some really unimaginable ways, to tell you the truth. JFK Narcotic Smuggling Unit was also known as Jinsu. It had a rather prolific reputation just due to the sheer volume of narcotics that we were seizing every year and the number of successful investigations, uh, not only at the port, but expansive even into RICO investigations that were conducted by a very relatively small group of people. And of course, these units were also replicated throughout the country at other airports and land borders. And concurrently, our financial divisions, they were tracking and seizing record amounts of narcotics proceeds. And that was both domestically and abroad. It was incredible. The work was a lot of fun, it was exciting, and it was nonstop. And at that time, also, because it was so prolific, agencies whose mandates really didn't include narcotics or money laundering investigations actually started jumping into the ring because the issue was so prevalent. So you started seeing FBI, ATF, IRS, they were all getting into the drug and money investigations. And it was because you really didn't have to go looking for cases. They found you. But then we had a string of events that occurred, and I don't think they're any secret to anybody because it was so out there at the time that actually had the markers, were or had the markers of what appeared to be coordinated attacks from within or abroad. So in 1993, we had the first World Trade Center bombing, and that's the location where I interviewed for my jobs. That was the World Trade Center. The customs house was there in those locations. And that was immediately followed by the Branch Dividian standoff in Waco. And then in 1995, you had the bombing of the Murray building in Oklahoma City. And then in 86, that was followed. You were you were followed by the TWA Flight 800 crash, which was determined not to be a terrorist incident, but was investigated as such. And of course, prior to my start in law enforcement in 1988, you had the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerby. So these incidents really started the shift towards focusing on counterterrorism and transnational organized crime and domestic terror threats as a greater existential threat to the United States. So, with that being said, counterterrorism is the FBI. It's one of their mandates. So naturally, they took the lead on that and they redirected a lot of resources towards counterterrorism from the other priorities. But then other federal, state, and local agencies began to look at those events and intelligence through a different lens. Concurrently, and you have to take this in context because we are talking about 30 years ago now, and most people in today's age, even the younger folks, won't have the perspective that we did at that time. This was during the development of mobile communications in the form of pagers and cell phones and the internet. So that email thing that, you know, everybody talked about in the early 90s, electronic mail, social media, online banking and trading, file sharing and chat groups and other information sharing capabilities, they started to become part of the vocabulary. They debuted as new benefits to the public, but no sooner were we introduced to these technologies did we see the onset of internet-related crimes as well as mobile communication-related crimes. So from the earliest days of the internet and our introduction to the World Wide Web, it seemed like we were very naive as law enforcement. Somehow the bad guys, the criminals and their predators, already had a head start on this and were way out in front of us. So with emails, chat rooms, and file sharing, we saw new forms of secretive communications amongst criminal organizations, fraud schemes, and most unfortunately the exploitation of vulnerable populations and specifically children. To that end, Customs actually took the lead early on with the creation of the Cybercrime Center in Virginia, which still exists today under uh Homeland Security investigations. And their mandate was to identify uh individuals and networks responsible for exploiting children. At that same time, we also saw the profile of the stereotypical criminal changing because everybody had in their mind what the drug smuggler looked like, what the bank robber looked like. With rapidly advancing computer and mobile phone technology, it made it easy for criminals and terrorists to communicate on a level of relative anonymity which was never seen before. So it brought people off the benches who would have never thought of getting involved in criminality before because you could do it from behind a computer screen. And it seemed like you were a little bit untouchable at the time. So then the race was on for us and law enforcement to keep pace with these bad guys and hopefully try to get one step in front of them if you could. And that's when we started to see the development of new technical support teams and intelligence-driven units and the modernizing of our investigative methods and tools so that we can disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal organizations and terror organizations. And then, of course, flash forward to 2001 and you had 9-11. That shook the whole world and the global law enforcement community and put terrorism front and center for everybody. The attacks were right here on our soil, so it was all hands on deck. And the mandate became clear for us, you know, from the top down identify all the networks, find out how they're working together, gather as much intelligence as you can from all sources, prioritize the threats, share the information in real time, and coordinate and implement actionable plans to interdict, mitigate, or terminate the threats. That was almost 25 years ago, but it's still a priority today. And the key message then and still now to leaders is make real-time data and actionable information accessible to the boots on the ground folks who need it most. It's critical to the mission success, so make it happen, whatever you have to do.

SPEAKER_01 9:25

Now, as times change and all these agencies are involved, information sharing is really critical. What are some of the biggest challenges to effective collaboration that can actually be improved?

SPEAKER_02 9:37

One of the clearest examples of showing where we were missing the boat is you can go back just to the 9-11 Commission report and see the glaring areas where we fell short here in the United States amongst our own agencies with siloing information. Commission exposed this need to know territorial culture that really fostered the siloing of information versus the sharing of information amongst agencies. The siloing prevented all of our agencies from collectively connecting the dots on Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, which obviously led to catastrophic results. So, with that, the commission recommended we have to shift to a need-to-share model that resulted in, among other things, uh the creation of the National Counterterrorism Center, NCTC, and the National Intelligence Directorate, which were mandated to gather intelligence, develop the larger picture, and coordinate the dissemination of information globally. Since that time, we've had major positive strides on the information sharing front among U.S. agencies and many of our foreign partners. But unfortunately, it's too often that we'll still see examples of fragmented and non-interoperable systems and longstanding trust issues between agencies and nations which really hinder information sharing and collaboration, especially when it gets to sensitive information being involved. For example, in some countries, intelligence agencies don't share information at all or might only share with the national police in that country. But neither of them will share information on a regular basis with uh local authorities. Yet, who is it or most likely to cross paths with the bad guys on the street? It's the local police, right? Unlike in the US, with U.S. customs and border protection, in many countries, border guards and immigration are not considered law enforcement. And when they're not recognized as law enforcement, nobody wants to short share information with them. Yet they're the first line of defense on their borders. Especially when it comes to cases where times of the essence of the utmost importance and criticality to have these open lines of communication, reliable methods of information sharing available to those people who can actually act on it. So thankfully, on a global basis, the message is spreading. You mentioned I was with Interpol for six years, or I should say Interpol Washington for six years. That is a distinction. And with organizations like Interpol, whose mandate is specifically to facilitate international police cooperation with data sharing, we see that the police communities are coming together and they're expanding methods of communication and developing interoperable technologies that can be easily shared. For example, I don't know if you're familiar with the Interpol system of or color-coded system of notices and diffusions, but they're international alerts that are used to track criminals and suspects and threats. So member countries publish these notices for other countries to query at and away from borders. However, sometimes they're they can be really cumbersome because, in not all cases, the Interpol system is not necessarily integrated with the country's native law enforcement systems. So in those cases, and in many of the countries throughout the world, the officers have to be trained on, specifically trained on an Interpol computer and use that computer separate than their own data systems to query people coming in or out of the country at or away from the border. And they tend not to do it when there's lines in front of them at customs areas and all. So they did tend to fall back on their own systems. So what we did to promote information sharing at Interpol, Washington, is we developed some source code that basically put all of that together behind the scenes for the Interpol query systems. And we developed that and give it away to foreign countries. We actually helped them install it on their systems, on their servers, so that the officer working at that terminal only needs to know how to use their own system, but yet they get the full advantage of the uh all the Interpol data that's coming to them. And that includes biometric information if it was part of a notice or diffusion. And that biometric data is really critical because a lot of people around the world that have similar names in different cultures, the names don't change much. So biometric benchmark is something that's really crucial in adding a significant level of value and certainty in authenticating the identity of a potential bad actor. But conversely, in the same in-border environment, the use of biometrics at the border becomes a valuable and time-saving tool to authenticate legitimate travelers and expedite their movement through airports or other security. It's a long answer, but I used Interpol as the mechanism, just as an example. But in general, for governments and agencies to fully realize the comprehensive benefits of information sharing, they have to invest in standards that are based on interoperable technologies that also have strong privacy protections. And with the ultimate goal being safe, real-time scalable data sharing.

SPEAKER_01 14:47

So you've done a lot in the in government. What inspired you to transition over into the private sector?

SPEAKER_02 14:53

If it's not noticeable now, I really enjoyed what I did for my career. I I enjoyed being a law. Yeah, I really enjoyed being in law enforcement, and uh, I had a great career. And I feel that I made some significant contributions to enhance global security and really promote information sharing. But after 31 years, it's tough to just leave that job. It's it really is part of who you are, and you just don't turn that off, and it sticks with you. So I felt the need to stick with the community somehow. And I've been doing quite a bit of consulting, mostly on border security, since I left. And then I happened to cross paths with this great team at Identy. And I was chatting with the co-founders, Jesus Saragon, and Anthony Vendan, and I learned about their backgrounds in Silicon Valley, the technical backgrounds in Silicon Valley and their journey to develop this suite of field-ready mobile-first biometric solutions. And I was intrigued to say the least. So they gave me a demonstration of the application, and I was hooked. I mean, I was literally hooked. I said, I wish I had this when I was working way back when, you know, to see the power of these solutions operating literally virtually on any mobile phone, and they have the potential to solve real-world challenges for federal agencies, uh, local agencies, uh, and even like humanitarian efforts and beyond into commercial sectors like banking, fintech, and healthcare. It was just really impressive. And then Jesus and Anthony laid out their vision for scaling these solutions for global impact and you know, like beyond the scope of a single agency or a mission set. And I was already hooked and I wanted to be part of that effort. So they were kind enough to bring me on board. And in this role, I get to play in the law enforcement sector, but I also get to bridge the law enforcement sector and move into the commercial sector and work with them as well to add benefit. And I'm just thrilled to be part of this team.

SPEAKER_01 16:45

Can you tell me what the mobile first biometric authentication is and how it matters right now?

SPEAKER_02 16:51

Sure. Mobile first biometric authentication sounds, you know, really ominous, right? Or you know, it's it's out there, it's this technical term, but it really it enables identity verification using biometrics like fingerprints, faces, and irises captured simply with the camera and flash of a smartphone. So there's no need for any specialized hardware, which when we look at it in police sense, it seems like somebody's always adding something to what you're carrying. I look at what I wore back in the day, and I look at what these folks are wearing on the streets now, and I'm like, I don't even know how they walk around, I don't know how they get in the car, you know, because everything's piled on them. There's no need for this specialized hardware, which makes identity verification really scalable and it's more accessible and significantly more cost effective or cost efficient, I should say. So whether I'm speaking to an IT guy from a company or a gal that's one of the operators or one of the procurement teams of any particular agency or group, it seems like we hit the right spot. Mobile, scalable, more cost efficient than our competitors out there. And as for law enforcement application, a mobile first biometric means it's the ability to identify an individual with facial recognition, touchless fingerprint, palm scan, irises, but more so it's right there on the spot, simply with the cell phone. Therefore, you're adding a new level of officer safety and security too, because the officer might encounter somebody that says they are who they are or they don't have any identification. With this, as long as you have a cell phone, mobile phone, you don't have to wait for somebody who may or may not have a mobile identification kit in their car, or you don't have to bring a person all the way back to police station. And in the case of you know, some of our rural sheriffs, you might be talking 50, 60 miles away from your office to do that. So we're giving them the ability to do verification right on the spot. And again, in cases where identity is a question, this can also reduce the encounter times that they have with the public. And reducing encounter times in police work, it has benefits all the way around from constantly engaging to somebody to getting them on their way really quick and then putting the officer back on patrol is really a good thing. And then from the commercial side, from banking, financial, or fintech or healthcare perspective, the mobile first authentication gives providers the advantage of and flexibility to have their clients remotely enroll for products and services and conduct sensitive real-time transactions, knowing that their privacy and security concerns are covered and that they're not mutually exclusive. For instance, one of our larger banking customers, they have folks that are really remote and can't get to a brick and mortar bank to enroll for a bank account. And so those folks are at a disadvantage. But as long as they have a mobile phone, five megapixel camera, and a flash, as well as a certifying document like a passport or a national identity card, with the capabilities we have, we can enroll those people remotely and gives them a bank account, and they're confident they have the trust that that person is who they say they are, and that they can conduct that financial transaction or whatever transaction they need to conduct. So I think, like I said, healthcare as well, too.

SPEAKER_01 20:07

Privacy is a major concern when it comes to biometric data. How does identity ensure security while also protecting user privacy?

SPEAKER_02 20:16

Our solution is specifically designed to give the user greater control over their identity and while at the same time guarding against spoofing deep fakes and evolving attack methods. So privacy and security, they're not trade-offs. So building them together strengthens the overall data protection. And with our biometric processing occurring right on the device, data exposure is reduced and reliance on central systems is limited. So on top of that, we design our solutions to align with federal standards like NIST and DHS's Office of Science and Technology's remote identity validation rally, which is also the anacronym is River, to help ensure that systems are both protected and tested against uh real world threats.

SPEAKER_01 21:02

And I'm sure the tech guys that are doing all of the work in the background are constantly having to work and update to fight against all of this constant AI and everything.

SPEAKER_02 21:13

They're feverishly doing that. It's nonstop, absolutely nonstop.

SPEAKER_01 21:18

So, with your background in law enforcement and investigations, how do you view the balance between security and civil liberties in today's digital identity landscape?

SPEAKER_02 21:28

It's funny because I get in this conversation quite a bit. And contrary to what a lot of folks might presume, coming from the federal government and law enforcement background, that doesn't mean that I want more government regulation or intrusion or involvement in my life. In fact, I'm more of the less government type of person. That being said, there is an inherent tension between strengthening security and protecting civil liberties. And getting that balance right really depends on how the systems are designed and implemented. Overcollection or misuse of data that can erode. Your public trust. If you have insufficient identity verification, uh, that can create vulnerabilities that impact public safety. So walking that fine line and striking that balance is really tenuous. Having those conversations and conducting exercises, like in the government conducting a privacy impact assessment, a PIA, that's critical. I also believe that raising public awareness as to how the consumer chooses to share their own information is just as crucial. And the government needs to play a big role in that. You know, how many times do we see people and myself expressed the worry about your privacy is eroding yet? We're quick to download that new app and you know onto the phone and click the I agree button to the terms and conditions. You know, you never read the 48 pages of terms and conditions, and you don't know what extent your personal information is going to be used or exploited.

SPEAKER_01 22:52

Yep, I do that all of the time. So looking at that, what role do you see uh biometric authentication playing in government operations and everyday life over the next, say, five, 10 years?

SPEAKER_02 23:04

That's loaded because just right off the top of my head, technology has grown exponentially. And I think this is a good natural follow-on to your previous question. It's like, you know, the government's tasked with national security and public security and public safety, yet they have to be mindful of civil liberties. They have a duty to readily provide services while at the same time trying to deter fraud and protect the vulnerable from exploitation. I guess one of the terms I had talked about when I was doing my global security consulting or border security consulting is so how do you let the public know that they're secure without telling them that they're secure in a really imposing manner, where they feel like there's somebody looking over their shoulder. And I believe the ethical implementation of biometric authentication could arguably be the single most important tool in navigating that path. On the technical side, and like I said, I'm not the technical guy for sure. I come from the operator side. So in layman's terms, we're seeing a shift towards continuous vetting, a multi layered model that's adaptive and it moves away from uh trusting single data points. So it's a zero, it's what they call zero trust architecture. So you you never trust and always verify. You basically treat all traffic as a threat. And by constantly evaluating those risks based on real-time AI assessments of things, user behavior, device posture, environmental signals, we will maintain that quote unquote continuous adaptive trust. As for particular use cases in the government, you know, I could probably go on all day trying to figure out where we would be in five or 10 years. But uh, you know, I'm sure in the border environment, you might find expanded and refined biometric collections that would include palm, iris, voice, and DNA collection for prospective citizens or residents. While at the same time, you'll see expanded use of touchless biometrics becoming the standard for both hygienic purposes and also for enhanced traveler experiences to expedite people through ports of entry. On the public services and benefits side, back in 2024 alone, there was an estimated total loss of$47 billion due to identity fraud and scams. And relative to that figure, traditional identity fraud affected over 18 million Americans and accounted for$27 billion of those losses. In the coming years, I think you're going to see a full shift by the government to full biometric authentication as the standard for accessing any kind of public service benefits like Social Security, tax filing, voting, FEMA applications, Medicare or Medicaid applications, et cetera. And that'll streamline the processes, but it'll also prevent individual or systemic fraud schemes with the one person, one identity model. And this will ensure that a real person's applying for a benefit or service, and the person is truly the person who is applying for that benefit. Military or a law enforcement application, uh, we're already seeing the push towards refining our abilities to identify individuals at distance or at speed for purposes of security or tracking individuals after a security incident or crime has been committed. That'll have an impact on solving cases in real time or after the fact. But I think with the knowledge that those systems are or will be in place, biometrics becomes an inherent deterrent if the potential criminal knows that they're unlikely to evade police. Silently, that sits there as the deterrent. How do I let somebody know I'm secure without telling them I'm secure? If you know biometrics are out there and they're, you know, they were collected and you had your driver's license, you had your picture on it, and now you commit a crime and you're going to be on every camera going around the county, you're not going to get away. So it acts as a deterrent, a passive deterrent. For an everyday use, I see the cases uh in some other countries like Australia or New Zealand. I don't think it's unlikely that you'll see our government implement guidelines for a regulation of social media platforms regarding the access by minors or the content accessible to minors, and therefore some biometrics are going to be required to authenticate and access the platform or the content for that person. And in that same vein, there are so many deep fakes already on social media involving sexual content, fraud, or political misrepresentation that it's quite likely the government's going to place even further pressure on or regulation on social media platforms to identify labor and remove these AI-generated deep fakes. And on a global scale, one of the things often overlooked is that there are approximately 850 million people who lack any kind of identity document whatsoever, which not only prevents them from accessing necessary services, but because of their anonymity, it makes them vulnerable to exploitation. You know, using something like a mobile biocode generator app, like the one we offered at Identity, governments and NGOs have already begun to remotely enroll these people and provide them with a digital national ID or a local ID for that matter, by which they can access necessary services. And I believe this will become more of a standard in the future versus the exception. Lastly, on the humanitarian front, there's organizations like the Exodus Road, a wonderful partner of ours at Identity. They work with governments and law enforcement worldwide to uh find and free trafficked people and children, most of whom live in anonymity. So they, along with another group, My Family ID, another great partner of ours, promote the use of biometric identification of children and vulnerable populations for sharing with governments and law enforcement agencies in cases of emergency. So with organizations like these actively engaging governments, they will become more proactive in addressing the issues. And I think they'll bring more resources to bear in protecting these populations.

SPEAKER_01 29:06

And this is a question not necessarily for you, but this is what I'm thinking about as you're saying this. My grandmother, she has never owned a computer, doesn't own a cell phone. Like she's from that generation where she was just like, I don't need a computer. They never even had a um, what do you call it? The thing that answers the the voice, the voice.

SPEAKER_02 29:25

Yeah, yeah, recording.

SPEAKER_01 29:31

I can't think of the words. They've never done any of that. Like she has no biometric data, I'm sure, anywhere. So from that generation, they're gonna sort of have to get pulled in or fade out before this takes place, maybe. I'm not sure.

SPEAKER_02 29:48

Well, I I think there's I you think you'll even find a balance between that. Ironically, you mentioned that uh I was I was listening to a news story last week. There's a gentleman out in California who's been a seasoned ticket holder for the Dodgers for, I don't know, like 50 or 60 years.

SPEAKER_01 30:01

Yes, I saw that story. They're not making tickets anymore.

SPEAKER_02 30:05

They're not making tickets anymore. So he's telling them I don't have a smartphone, so how am I getting it into the stadium?

SPEAKER_01 30:11

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02 30:11

You know, I guess one of the ways, for instance, I'll say I'll use that the enrollment of these folks who don't have any IDs in other countries right now, or even for the fact, like what we do for the children with the My Family ID, parents can enroll the people. So you can have them enrolled remotely. They don't necessarily have to own the device themselves. When you create a bio code for the person, it comes out like a QR code, but it has their identity information in it, but it's secure. And only the agency that issued it would have the key to it. So you could literally print out that code in hard form, laminate it like an ID card, and that becomes the scannable device. So what would happen is if they went into just say a social security office and they wanted to get a check, or they went to a bank and the bank wanted to ID them, they come in with their QR code, they would scan that on a platform because even though most of our solutions are mobile, they can be equipment based as well. So if the person went in and they scanned it, then they would look into the camera and the camera would take the picture of them and say that matches the code of the person that's holding that biocode. So I think that would be a good workaround for that.

SPEAKER_01 31:24

Okay. Wanted to throw you a little screwball in there towards the end. So now um we're gonna end with some fun rapid fire questions. Just the first thing you think of. Okay, so first question facial recognition, fingerprint or palm scan. What is your favorite biometric and why?

SPEAKER_02 31:44

So I'm gonna go with fingerprint, but I'm gonna caveat that with touchless fingerprint. That's the thing that sold me an identity. When you can pick up a smartphone, you simply put your hand underneath it and take a picture, and it pulls your fingerprints immediately right there on the spot. And they could you could either use it for enrollment or verification for a police officer. That's gold. I love everything else too, but to me that's it.

SPEAKER_01 32:07

Coffee or tea when you're tackling a big challenge.

SPEAKER_02 32:10

Oh, I'm a coffee person. My mom used to make me drink tea every morning on the way out to school. She's you know, the Irish woman. So uh we had tea every morning, but I'm a coffee and uh, you know, I look at it, I'm like, you know, sometimes you just need a nap and a cup.

SPEAKER_01 32:24

Yes. So one word that describes your leadership style.

SPEAKER_02 32:28

You'd probably go with consistent. The best leaders I've had in my career are the ones that taught by example and defined a mission and set clear standards and they stuck to them and they backed their teams. So you knew where you stood with them and they they knew where they stood with you. There were there weren't any surprises on either end. It brings clarity, it avoids chaos, and generally it lends to you know effective outcomes. At the same time, it's important to know that being consistent doesn't mean you can't be flexible or adaptable.

SPEAKER_01 32:56

Okay, so now if you weren't in security, law enforcement, now technology, what career would you have pursued?

SPEAKER_02 33:01

I would have been a chef.

SPEAKER_01 33:03

Nice. What's your what's your go-to dish?

SPEAKER_02 33:06

Oh, I you know what, I have too many of them. I I cook everything. I I learned to cook at a very early age, watching PBS, Chel 13 in New York, and then I cooked it, I cooked in restaurants from when I was 13 years old on and off, and then even up until just getting coming on the job as as an agent, and I still cook a lot and I love it. So believe me, I know how tough it is to be in that profession. You're always working when somebody else is having fun, but then again, I did that by stuff. So that's what I do.

SPEAKER_01 33:38

Okay, and are you an early riser or night owl?

SPEAKER_02 33:41

I'm both, on the both category.

SPEAKER_01 33:43

Before seven.

SPEAKER_02 33:44

Yeah, you know, granted, since retiring from the law enforcement career, I tend to sleep in just a little later. I uh I'm still up by 7 or 7:30, but I stay up until at least midnight, one o'clock in the morning every night. And then uh when I was working in law enforcement, I was always in the office. I live really far away from the office, but I was always in the office by 7 a.m. the latest. And and we were always working late every night, and I'd get home late at night, and I just I'm not a go-to-bed early person. So I'm just one of those people that don't that doesn't need a lot of sleep.

SPEAKER_01 34:14

Joe, I feel like I could sit here and listen to you talk for hours and hours. Like I'm sure you have some very interesting stories, and I will be seeing you on a TV show soon, I feel like.

SPEAKER_02 34:26

Thank you, Mary Ann. Thank you very much. It's been a pleasure to go in here.

SPEAKER_01 34:30

Thank you and have a great day.

SPEAKER_02 34:31

You too now. Take care.

SPEAKER_00 34:34

You've been listening to Forum Power. Stay connected by following Forum on LinkedIn or visit devforum.io. Thank you for listening. Be sure to join us again for a new episode of the deeper look at leadership and action.