Dreaming of a Cookie-less Future

Episode 310

12/15/2022

Episode 310

Dreaming of a Cookie-less Future

Host:

Cameron D'Ambrosi, Senior Principal at Liminal

Guest:

Dan Frechtling, CEO at Boltive

Links:

Share this episode:

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:00:04] Welcome everyone to State of Identity. I’m your host, Cameron Ambrosi. Joining me this week is Dan Franklin, CEO of Boltive. Dan, welcome to the podcast.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:00:13] Thanks, Cameron. Great to be here. Thanks for having me.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:00:16] Yeah, you know, really excited for this chat. You know, in our hour pre read, we were talking about this almost being a continuation of some of the previous conversations we’ve had on the podcast around data and identity in particular. So really excited to get this in the ears of our listeners, so to speak. But before we do that, you know, I’m always fond of asking folks about, you know, their on ramps to digital identity, as it were. So, you know, you’re CEO of Bolt. EV, give us a little bit of background as to kind of what led you down this path of focusing on kind of identity and privacy.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:00:54] Yeah, thanks, Cameron. It was a bit of a personal journey and a professional journey on the professional side. I was running a company that was in a similar space, which was around e-commerce, and now what we do is a little bit more around online advertising and privacy implications there. But I had sold that company and I was kind of continuing to run it but was looking for something different. And then the bolt of opportunity came along. But but what really crystallized it for me was the personal change that happened in my life where I experienced invasive, predatory advertising myself. One day my wife had back pain and we were searching for all these causes. And we unfortunately learned that she had cancer and that that required me to do a lot of online research about cancer treatments. And while I was researching the diagnosis, I didn’t realize this, but I was being profiled online based on my eyebrows, history and her conditions. And so I started to get targeted with all these shady cancer treatments myself. Some were dramatic and some were very personal, and some were even cartoonish. And that’s how I discovered the issues of data leakage and surveillance. Advertising that had motive is a key part of all of our services. And so that’s a kind of a bit of a meshing of the of the professional and personal and why it means so much to me what Boltive is doing.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:02:17] And, you know, perfect segue way into what Boltive is doing. You know, for our listeners who are not familiar with the platform at a 15,000 foot level, you know, what would you say, your elevator pitch as well?

 

Dan Frechtling [00:02:31] The reality is that we are seeing regulators in two thirds of the world’s population cracking down on brands that violate privacy at the same time. And there hasn’t been a regulatory convergence like this before. If you look at the history of regulations, you look at pharmaceuticals and you look at airplanes and automobiles and food and nuclear power, there’s never been a simultaneous worldwide shift. At the same time that we’re seeing in privacy, what’s happening, though, is that the vendors in the technologies are struggling to keep up with these regulatory changes. And what we find is this notion of consent, of opting out or opting into having your data shared creates errors among vendor handoffs. And that happens about 25 to 50% of the time, which is what our software discovers in our solution is we’ve created a patented solution that’s secret shoppers for privacy compliance that make sure if there are any vulnerabilities out there, we find them and then we can help companies remediate them because it’s a very hard thing to do to orchestrate all the vendors and technologies to stay current with with regulation through GDPR in Europe, to see CPA and CPRA and four other states in the U.S. to Latin America, Canada, China. It’s it’s a simultaneous shift.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:03:55] I mean, I think that’s. Really, really fascinating in the sense that, you know, from a consumer perspective, I think certainly people do not understand kind of what is going into this proverbial soup. You know, I know it at cocktail parties. I’m a real hoot because I will, you know, buttonhole people and start asking them if they understand how programmatic ad exchanges work and the notion of real time bidding and all of that, which obviously makes me the the absolute life of the party party. Even beyond that, you know, if you talked to a majority of B-to-B focused folks in the space, I think there is a kind of a black hole of knowledge as to like what what is actually going on and what are all the links in this chain. And to your point, where are those resulting vulnerabilities? And I think it’s. Really surprising to some degree that this complexity has has kind of taken over and folks don’t feel like they, one, have a grasp of where all this data is going and where it’s coming from and to, you know, what is my compliance posture? Broadly speaking, they don’t even know where to start when it comes to compliance with either GDPR or CP or whatever else is set to come down the pipe.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:05:06] I think you’re doing a service to this audience of the B2B side who are just starting to comprehend this. I liked your episode in April with Kyle Holloway of Axiom because you spoke of the regulations that were coming in 2023 and the importance of consent that we’ll talk about here. And you had a quote in there that I really liked, which is and I may steal it, but if you don’t get the technology’s right to capture consent, the data aren’t worth the bits and pixels they’re written on, which was which was really true from April. And I think there was another you did another episode with Michael Becker of Identity Practice at Praxis in May, where this this subject came up of people are waking up to realize that their personal data has real economic value. And so for the business side, we’ve got to come around to that that the the. Consumers get a vote. Now, in the decades leading up to where we are today, the origin of the Internet, it was always about hyper targeting and a progression towards getting better and better at that. And the driver’s seat where the businesses and the businesses that won were those that could gather the most data, personal data and act on it. But the power is now shifted to the consumer. And we’ve got to realize that because like many other things in life, companies can not only be subject to regulatory fines, but a loss of reputation. If you’re not respecting and honoring that consumers power and right to consent their data.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:06:23] I think that’s that’s so so apt. And you know, it it was kind of almost to draw another kind of cookie analogy right before. It wasn’t a conversation. It was a lecture. Right. It was consumers sitting on one end of the megaphone. And now consumers have found a voice. And it’s a dialog now. And I think consumers are realizing that when they get told something they don’t like, they can vote with their their feet proverbially, you know, on the Internet and stop using these platforms that they don’t feel are being respectful of them. At the same time, I think there is this tremendous new opportunity for brands to, one, demonstrate their commitment to these, you know, respectful data principles, but also start unlocking value. Because, again, you know, the most interesting dynamic to me is around how consumers think about. These platforms and sharing of their data and consent, like in a good way. And, you know, not to give Elon Musk too much credit or any credit at all, but in his latest open letter to advertisers on Twitter, you know, what did resonate with me was his talking about, you know, good advertising is content when you are served good contextual ads, those are actually adding value to the ecosystem that when you surface products that a person actually wants to see ads for and is getting value from, that is a positive, not a net negative of an ecosystem. But that comes along with the expectations of those consumers and what where they want to meet you and the difference between delighting someone versus creeping them. The F out is a very thin line. Right. You know, if I had come in and just met you and all of a sudden I start referencing, you know, like, oh, hey, you know, I know what street you lived on when you were in college. You would probably be a little bit disturbed. But if after a conversation where you talked about, you know, oh, I went here for undergrad and then I went here for grad school and then I surfaced in conversation, oh, like I used to live in Boston and oh, I lived on this street and this was my favorite sandwich shop. And then you’re like, Oh, I, you know, I live right by there. What a funny coincidence that would be in a way in which we could bond. And the line between that is, is subtle.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:08:37] That’s yeah, that’s, that’s well said. And there’s a there’s a there’s a quid pro quo involved in that as well. When you talk about content, the reason why so much content on the Internet is free is because advertising pays for it. And that I think we look at look back in the history of the Internet, it’s quite intriguing. The the you mentioned cookies, right? The origin of the cookies and tracking. I’ve always found fascinating that cookies and content are intertwined. And there was this time when you when the Internet was was was newborn, you used to browse for information by visiting portals and aggregations, aggregators of content. Like if you want to buy a car, you’d go to Yahoo, you go to MSN, you go to AOL, and you would you would find out information there. And that’s where the advertisers place their ads on those content pages. Then Google comes along, and now the models are totally different. You’re not going to the hubs you’re searching and the audience fragments and advertisers now have to be everywhere because there’s not these central points like the ad networks were in in the in the TV world. Then along comes all these ad tech companies to aggregate all of these auto enthusiast sites and in with cookies. What was powerful about cookies is you don’t just see who’s visiting a auto site at the time. You see who’s visited an auto site over the past 30 days. And you can actually remember that. So that that was a big change. Where this started to have a dark side was when. Marketers in tech and actually really engineers discovered that cookies could allow you not just to know where somebody has been to, but actually track them all around the Internet. And that happened in 1995, where DoubleClick used cookies as the very first tracker. And from these humble beginnings now we have all the targeting of innovations over the past 20 years from from tracking people across nonaffiliated sites, which is how it began to tracking people since 2007 and the origin of the iPhone, tracking people across devices and across apps. And now in 2014, we had these device graphs that then extended all of this into a new device, which is your television and connected TV. And so all of this this kind of explosion of of connectivity and targeting that started with cookies, very humble beginning is now in all of the addressable digital media that exists, even the metaverse.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:11:10] When we’re thinking about the future of this space and this transition that we’re in to accommodate these new regulatory paradigms, you know, we’ve certainly put out content talking about, you know, the death of a cookie in this transition to a cookie less world. You know, would you mind planting a flag in terms of, you know, where are we at that point in time in terms of the notion of cookies dying? And, you know, is the notion of third party data going to become irrelevant or are we going to be in a world where first party data is the only data that matters? Are we going to have kind of a long tail of of some of these third party data and cookie technologies that still remain relevant even after we enter this complete new regulatory shift for two thirds of the world’s population?

 

Dan Frechtling [00:11:56] There is no question that third party data has a major role in the future of cookies or no cookies. And what I think may surprise people is that the 100 plus replacements for the cookie are not necessarily going to be more privacy compliant than the cookie itself. I actually just saw an academic paper from the FTC privacy conference a couple of days ago where if you really study the solutions, they are actually more powerful and more supercharged and more able to act on sensitive data than the cookie model. And so I think that, yes, Google is going to deprecate cookies finally in 2024. I believe that will happen. And yes, marketers are looking for new cookie list solutions. And by the way, marketers aren’t looking for one cookie list solution. They’re looking for several, depending on what region they’re in or what consumer they’re going after. So we’re going to be living in this world of multiple, untested solutions and the ability for regulators and technologies to keep up with all of that, I think is going to find us in a more fragmented space. So there’s going to be there was a great collision in 2018 where the technologies ran right into the wall of GDPR, and after years of data breaches, enough was enough and the laws changed. Cookie lists is probably going to be just as profound as we adapt to this world of untested, unproven new solutions where there’s no single winner anymore. And the architecture is going to be multifaceted.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:13:25] Talk a little bit about. You know, I think there’s obviously this this privacy construct that’s super, super interesting, but there’s also this tremendous intersectionality with the fraud side of things. Right. We know there’s a big fraud problem when it comes to display ads and people, bad actors kind of taking advantage and extracting, I think, tremendous value out of, you know, basically lying to these advertisers about who is actually getting these ads put in front of them. You know, what is the scope of this problem in and how in in some ways are this this notion of kind of privacy and consent intertwined with how you can actually plug some of these holes with regard to fraud vulnerabilities?

 

Dan Frechtling [00:14:10] So yet another side of our business covers fraud and malware in advertising, and we have technologies to block and replace malware with safe content. I do, actually. I don’t see a whole lot of connection though, with the use of fraud and invalid impressions with privacy, because I think a lot of what we see with ad fraud is deliberate and economic and moneymaking. Whereas in privacy it tends to be inadvertent and people are trying to do the right thing. But technologically, it’s extraordinarily difficult to synchronize everything so that privacy is maintained. And if you if you recognize there is the ads which fund programmatic ads, fun to the open web. 90% of advertising is programmatic. But you also have digital objects that that live on web pages like analytics tags and CRM and those elements that those two constructs are where the regulators are going after. And because those those pieces of technology inadvertently, not maliciously, like fraud, inadvertently sell and share data which violates people’s rights. And the weakness is really the lesser known third parties in the consent chain. So to get this right, I think a CPRA in California has been the most deliberate in spelling out the rules. Secondarily, Colorado is doing a pretty good job in their rulemaking, which is which is open, unlike some other states, that that firms need to know what their vendors are doing. And again, so this inadvertent sort of ability just to sort of, you know, shrug your shoulders and say, I didn’t know that was going on. I wasn’t aware of it. That’s going away as willful blindness becomes that becomes where the regulators will start to go after. So I do I do think it is it is different from fraud in that we need to just be better at our practices. It’s just like Sarbanes-Oxley. It’s just like canned spam. Are these other regulatory changes where we business wasn’t ready for it and it wasn’t areas of commission, they’re errors of omission. Then over time, with the right software, you avoid the inadvertent mistakes and you do the right thing.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:16:21] And this is maybe a bit a field of the previous tenets of our conversation. But one thing that’s always interested me about the online advertising space was kind of this fundamental shift from how advertising was was served up in the past, right before the advent of the Internet, the way that you had an idea of who was going to see your ad was based on where it was placed. So like, I’m a car guy. I subscribe to Car and Driver. What are the ads they put in car and driver Well, the presumption is if I’m reading car and driver, I’m interested in things about cars. And so if I want to reach an audience that’s interested in cars, that’s where I buy my ads. Obviously, the Internet blew that up in the sense that even if I’m looking at car content in my case, like I got, you know, married a few years ago and so I’d been looking at diamond content and, you know, God help you if you’re a man that the Internet knows is aged, you know, 27 to 35, and you start searching for engagement rings, you know, your Instagram, your email ads, your Google search ads, like everything is diamonds, diamonds, diamonds, you know, till the end of time. You know, do we think that these restrictions are going to usher in a fundamental change about how advertising is served and maybe a return to the approach that we can base who an ad should be targeted to is is based on the content of the page itself or, you know, have advertisers tasted from the Grail, which is we we know more about you than maybe even, you know, and, you know, we’re going to continue kind of down this more programmatic course.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:17:55] Yeah. Well, if you look at how ads are targeted and this is this comes from another academic paper that was part of the FTC’s cavalcade a few days ago. Yeah, retargeting is the strongest indicator of what kind of ad you’re going to get. If you’ve visited a website before, you’re most likely going to be retargeting. What comes in second is the content on the page. And so content, contextual advertising or what used to be the way magazines always did their advertising is still a strong number two. And it’s number three where you talk about purely third party data independent of retargeting, which is, well, did they visit a car? Are they a car contender or are they a diamond purchase intend tender a high value target like you were when you were getting engaged. That’s that’s already in third place. In second place is contextual. We will start to see contextual move up the ranks. But retargeting and that is getting people back who left an item in their shopping cart and haven’t bought it yet or visited a page and expressed interest, still has the highest CPMs and the highest performance. So if we look going forward, I think there’s a couple directions we could go. There’s a positive future where innovation continues and and consumers make their own tradeoffs between privacy and convenience, because we do like the targeting, we do like relevant ads. And that you could get to kind of the point where you’re so transparent that Amazon send you a package of ten things you may like and you send back the items you don’t want, right? They get really, really good at knowing you better than you know yourself. Look at hotel minibars, right? That’s they’re still around for decades because they present you what they think you’re going to want. They do a pretty good job at it, although most of us reject most of what’s in there. They make enough money, right? That’s a that’s a positive future because where individuals can make their own tradeoffs between how much data they want to share and how much they want relevant advertising. But then there’s a negative future where you could see a boomerang effect. If privacy takes hold and there isn’t a balance with the need for targeting, it’s going to be the big tech companies that are going to win because they have the most first party data. And that gives them, I think, an unfair advantage. And if we find ourselves in a world where the big tech companies with the most first party data are the winners, that takes us way back to how the Internet started when there was CompuServe and AOL. And remember, we used to call those the walled gardens. Today we call it Amazon and Google and Facebook, the modern day walled gardens. It’s a viable model, but it’s antithetical to the open web we’ve known over the years. So that’s a little bit of the of the pessimism. If we go too far with regulations, we’re going to disproportionately burden startups and SMB small businesses so that they can’t they can’t have data because they can’t possibly tighten it down the way as is.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:20:35] That makes a lot of sense. And I think, you know, the the law of unintended consequences is always relevant and something that I think all of us need to keep in mind when we’re thinking about kind of future trajectories and pathways. So from your perspective, you know, where where do we go from here and where should we hope to go from here? I guess to to slightly rephrase that in terms of right hitting this right balance, which is what’s healthy for the broader ecosystem as well as what’s healthy for consumers themselves. And then that third critical piece, which is and what is going to keep us, you know, in compliance in and out of regulatory jail.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:21:12] Mm hmm. Yeah. Regulations have always come and changed how companies are structured in one way or another. I would recommend that companies assign a privacy leader of some sort. It’s required under GDPR to have a data protection officer. It’s not required under the U.S. laws, but it’s still a good idea to have one person in charge of that. Then mapping your data, knowing where your data sits, is the next logical step. Who are your vendors that are already getting your consumer data that you’re sharing? Where were the databases within your own four walls so that you know where the sensitive data may be and sensitive data would be, would be would be race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, health conditions, financial conditions and those kinds of things. And then I would say, which is kind of a little bit more of the world and where bolt of lives is to implement systems that are going to protect you outside the four walls where your data can be misused. We see dark signals, and dark signals are when opt outs from your consumers don’t make it to your vendors. So your vendors treat people who’ve opted out like they’ve opted in and start sharing their data all over the place that that those dark signals cause that to happen. And then the secondary impact are data skimmers, where knowing that this happens and that data leaks are so frequent, there are bad actors that live out in the advertising ecosystem whose main purpose is to hoover up consumer data and do things with it. We see malware distributors that are hoovering up U.S. consumer data for their purposes, and we’ve seen on multiple occasions sanctioned companies in unfriendly countries hoovering up this kind of data. And there’s been a history of of of of why Tick Tock has has been under scrutiny and why even Google has been under scrutiny. But but Tick Tock has been repeatedly accused of sharing data with China and having having loose practices there. So knowing that that there are bad actors and it is much as I say, it’s mostly inadvertent, some of it is malicious that that companies need to respect the fact that data skimmers are out there. So knowing who’s out there and detecting who’s out there, which can be done with software is an important part of a privacy program and of a cybersecurity program.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:23:25] It’s interesting to unpack this skimming piece a little bit because I’m admittedly maybe less than well versed as to those mechanisms. Is this true? You know, again, analogies are one of my favorite ways of kind of understanding concepts. Is this similar to, you know, in the equities markets where we see kind of almost bid spoofing, where it’s people who are claiming to want to interact in good faith with the ecosystem, but in reality, just kind of collecting data that they see out there. And rather than buying ads, they’re just hoovering up almost those those asks. Right. They’re going to the programmatic ad exchanges and just kind of collecting information as to what identities are out there without wanting to transact in good faith.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:24:03] Yes, that’s a good analogy, but it’s much bigger than that. Right. So there’s 15 billion equity trades a day in the U.S. stock market. There’s 250,000,000,250 billion data sinks, right. Bid requests every day online. So it’s a much bigger problem. That’s a good analogy. Another analogy are the data skimmers that sit at gas pumps or ATMs, which is a piece of hardware. When you swipe your card, there’s actually a piece in the middle that’s extracting your credentials and sending that off somewhere else. That’s the the transactional version of data skimmers as well.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:24:35] That’s really, really fascinating. And, you know, not to turn this into a direct pitch, but I would love to hear a little bit about, you know, the bulk of product and in how you guys are enabling platforms to detect this, if you wouldn’t mind sharing a little bit of it.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:24:51] Yeah. So we have a scanning solution. This is our our patented secret shoppers for privacy compliance, where we set up personas and we visit our clients and act as synthetic people. And the magic of this is it’s like a smoke test through Internet pipes. When you do a smoke test, you don’t push flammable gas through a pipe and see where your leaks are. That’s far too dangerous. You put smoke through. It’s innocuous, but you can see the leaks because the smoke escapes the same idea. Because we use synthetic data in synthetic personas, we can find the leaks, but no actual data is being shared. So that’s an advantage. And so I think that’s where it where it starts. And then being able to use that to diagnose where your consent issues are, we see that consent management platforms tend to have an error rate of about 37%. And wow, yeah. In Web forms, which are recommended by California law, actually have an even higher error rate. That’s around 50%. But the absolute highest rate, and this is ironic, comes from browser signals like the Global Privacy Control, which is mandated by California, is going to be mandated in Colorado in 24, and it is mandated within the EPA, which is the U.S. federal privacy law that’s in Congress right now. It’s this thing called the G.P.S. but 90% of companies aren’t aren’t able to act on it. Our software makes sure through our synthetic personas, that consumers are having all of those signals honored so that you don’t get yourself in trouble.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:26:25] And this is the that last piece. That’s the do not track flag, to be blunt. Right.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:26:30] So right. So that the do not track that was iteration one. And this is very similar to the do not track method except it is now mandated by law. It wasn’t a voluntary industry consortium like the do not track list.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:26:44] That’s super, super fascinating. So last question here, too, to bring us home. You know, what can we expect to see looking forward into the future, you know, over the next few years? Are you bullish or bearish on our prospects to, you know, resolve these privacy issues? And, you know, what do you see in terms of the adoption, I guess, from a U.S. perspective around, you know, compliance with these ever increasing privacy regulations? Are we in for for rough waters or do you think we can maybe reach a place of smooth sailing where where platforms can kind of get their feet out underneath them and start addressing some of these challenges?

 

Dan Frechtling [00:27:20] I like to be an optimist, so I believe it’ll be some rough waters in the beginning and then get to smooth sailing that it needs to start with how marketing functions in North America, especially the U.S. Marketing has long sought to optimize region frequency. Now marketing must optimize for privacy, and you can’t do it by hiring more people and try to scale up that way. You need softwares like what? Bolt of offers in order to integrate without it’s a it’s really privacy centric growth you’re still going to grow. What our software uncovers, which was a bit of a surprise, is that not only are we finding when consumers are opting out and they’re viewed as opting in, we also identify a lot of waste because when consumers opt out and we see premium advertising campaigns going to people who have rejected your brand, that’s a big waste of money. So furthermore, when opt ins fail, which happens just as frequently, you’re missing this great audience of people who are raising their hand and saying it’s okay to target me. But because of the inefficiencies among vendors, you never see that signal. So I think we marketing is going to embrace the idea of understanding consent and getting consent, right? And that’s going to have business benefits as well as privacy compliance benefits. But I think it might be a little choppy. Again, kind of going back to Ken Spam and Sarbanes-Oxley, it was tough at first before technologies were able to catch up and enable businesses to do this cost effectively. And that’s where we’re both too busy right now to make sure we’re one of those technologies that’s fit for purpose.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:28:51] I love that. I mean, you know, the the old cliche from the advertising world and I, you know, apologies to whoever is quoted says that I’m stealing but it’s, you know, the old I know that 50% of my advertising budget is being wasted. The problem is, I don’t know which 50%.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:29:06] WANNAMAKER Yeah.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:29:07] You know, this is it. And I think this is where the intersectionality of growth and privacy come in, which is these are a great way of understanding, you know, who the people who actually have raised their hand and want to consume your ads, you know, this is the channel through which they can share that preference. And if you can get that right, it should be not only, you know, helping you stay out of regulatory jail, but also a tremendous piece of growth engine. Because a person telling you point blank, I am not interested in seeing your ads is a great way to save the money that you would have otherwise spent putting something in front of them that they’ve told you proactively. I have no interest in seeing.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:29:45] Yeah, understanding your customer is even more and getting past the inefficiencies of of technologies that tend to get in the way and vendors that tend to get in the way is going to ultimately be allow us to do better targeting. So there is a bright future. Apple’s shift to opt in for apps is actually yielding a better advertising model. It happens to be a better advertising model that enriches Apple a lot. But but that’s an example of how privacy centric targeting can work.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:30:15] Love it. All right. Bring us home with a shameless plug for everyone who’s listening, who whose ears perked up, realizing they have these challenges and they really want to engage with you and learn more about the multiplatform. What’s the best place for them to go and how should they get in touch with you and your team?

 

Dan Frechtling [00:30:32] Yeah. Thank you for that. So I’m. I post on LinkedIn a fair amount on privacy issues. Dan Frecklington I think it’ll be in the show notes, but f r t lag is my last name. So you can, you can link up with me on LinkedIn or you can just email me. I’m Dan in Boltive dot com Voelte. I’ve e-com but I love talking about privacy as you can tell. So I mean, I’m eager to continue a dialog after this.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:30:55] Amazing what Dan, this was so, so illuminating. This is an area I’m continually looking to to get smarter on because there’s so much nuance and so many facets. And I think, you know, look, this is the economic model that powers the Internet in a in a very real and literal sense. So, you know, the more I can learn about it in the more audience can learn about it, definitely the better. I definitely going to have to have you on again soon and really looking forward to that follow up conversation.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:31:22] Yeah, me too. And I courage your audience to stay and subscribe to what you offer. Because I said the podcast in April, in May with Kyle Holloway and Michael Becker are really good listening. And I think you’ve got a thread and a theme that as as the situation evolves and as as trends progress, you’re going to be on top of that. And this will be a good source to hear about what’s happening with identity and privacy.

 

Cameron D’Ambrosi [00:31:44] Amazing. What. Thank you so much. And you know, for the record, I did not put Dan up to this at all. So thank you again for the kind words. And, you know, look, this show would be nothing without my fantastic guest. So I know, folks, time is at a premium. Really appreciate you taking a half hour to spend with me and with and with our audience.

 

Dan Frechtling [00:32:01] My pleasure. Glad to be here.

 

Episode 316

On this week’s State of Identity podcast, host Cameron D’Ambrosi is joined by ID5 CEO, Mathieu Roche to explain how identity solutions are a means to enforce data protection mechanisms rather than go against them. They present and explain what ID5 does in contrast to the surveillance advertising narrative.

Episode 315

What is a synthetic identity and who is doing it? On this State of Identity podcast, host Cameron D’Ambrosi and Kurt Weiss, Vice President of Enterprise Sales at Ekata discuss synthetic identity and the levels of sophistication. Can it be solved, and what are the keys to solving the problem? 

Episode 314

On this week’s State of Identity podcast, host, Cameron D’Ambrosi sits down with Aaron Goldsmid, VP of Product for Twilio Communications Platform. They discuss verified identity as a primitive of the internet and the digital “anti-fragile identity” becoming better than in real life.

Episode 313

How can document fraud detection help fight identity fraud? On this State of Identity podcast, host Cameron D’Ambrosi discusses building AI and machine learning models for a fraud vector with Inscribe Co-Founder and CTO, Conor Burke. This duo breaks down the challenges banks and fintechs face in combatting fraud. 

Episode 312

Understanding where your user is physically located is critical for compliance, trust and safety, and anti-fraud applications. On this week’s State of Identity podcast, host Cameron D’Ambrosi welcomes Isabella Edmonds, Head of Government Relations at Geocomply. They discuss the shifting regulatory and industry landscape, and the role geographic signals should play within a digital identity tech stack.

Episode 311

What is the difference between alternative and behavioral data; how widely are they used in fintech and other verticals today? On this week’s State of Identity podcast, host Cameron D’Ambrosi and Michele Tucci, Chief Strategy Officer & MD of Americas at credolab discuss how alternative data with AI & ML algorithms can promote greater financial inclusion and improve lenders’ profitability by better understanding their customers. 

Filter by Content Type
Select all
Research
Podcasts
Articles
Case Study
Videos
Filter by Category
Select all
Customer Onboarding
Fraud and Risk
Go-to-Market
Growth Strategy
Identity Management
Landscape
Market Intelligence
Transaction Services