Government & Public Safety
A public body is not judged only on whether it caught something. It is judged on whether it can show what was found, what that was based on and who decided what happened next. FaceOff runs the same checks across the sectors a government touches and keeps the reasoning with every result, so a decision is still explainable long after it was taken
Overview
Detection that produces evidence a public body can show an auditor, with a record of what was found and what it was based on.
Courts, banks, hospitals and police forces all face a version of the same problem: media that may have been generated, people who may not be who they claim, and decisions somebody will ask about later. Each sector tends to buy its own answer, which is understandable, and leaves an organisation holding several tools that describe the same world in different words.
For a public body the second problem is the harder one. An outcome on its own is not enough. An auditor, a public accounts committee, a tribunal or a court will ask what was found, what it was based on, who was told and what was decided, and an answer that cannot be produced on request tends to be treated as an answer that never existed.
The checks below run across those sectors and report the same way, keeping the reasoning with the result and a record of what was examined. What an organisation ends up holding is not only detection, but an account of it that survives being asked about.
What you deploy
These are the products public bodies and risk functions deploy most often, covering the people who sign in, the media that arrives, the identities behind it and the credentials that are issued.
Autonomous voice interviewer with trimodal audio, visual and linguistic forensics.
ExploreKey capabilities
What this sector asks for most often. Each one runs at the moment a decision is being made, and each returns a result a reviewer can explain to somebody else.
No finding arrives on its own. Each carries what was noticed and where, so it can be acted on now and explained later to an auditor, a tribunal or a committee without anybody having to reconstruct it from memory and old email.
The same question turns up in a court file, a bank account opening and a hospital consultation. Reporting it identically in all three means a risk function reads one kind of finding instead of translating between several, and can see what is happening across the whole organisation.
Images and video arriving by email, portal or browser, and the person on a live video call, are checked before anybody acts on them. Impersonation of an official and instructions that were never actually given arrive through exactly those routes.
Access is confirmed continuously rather than only at sign in, so a shared credential or a session that quietly changes hands is surfaced while it is happening rather than discovered afterwards during a log review.
Records that may belong to one person are drawn together, and public information about the accounts involved is put into a structured view, so an investigation can describe a network rather than a list of unrelated reports.
Passes, certificates and packaging can carry a code confirming the item is genuine and has not been altered, checkable without an internet connection, so verification does not rest on a connection or on somebody's impression of how a document looks.
Where it is used
Every entry names a product on this site and describes it the way its own page does.
voice, video and online identity checks
identity and session checks
clinician, credential and packaging checks
every finding carries the reasoning behind it
records held in India
Common questions
A graded finding with the reasoning behind it and a record of what was examined. That combination is what allows a decision to be explained to an auditor, a tribunal or a committee months or years later, which for a public body matters as much as the detection itself.
Because a risk function that reads one kind of finding can compare what is happening across the organisation, while one holding several tools that describe things differently spends its time translating between them. Consistency is what makes an overview possible at all.
No. Analysis can run inside your own environment, so applying a common standard does not require gathering sensitive material from different departments into a single system first. The standard travels rather than the material.
DeepMeetGuard confirms the person on a live video call is real while the call is happening, and DeepBrowserGuard and DeepVideoGuard cover the online and recorded routes the same fraudulent instruction usually travels by, so a warning arrives before a decision is made.
Yes. Findings and the actions taken on them are recorded and can be searched, which is what turns a decision into something reviewable rather than something remembered.
No. Every finding goes to a person with the reasoning attached, and the decision and whatever process follows stay with your own officers. That separation is exactly what makes a decision defensible when it is questioned.
No. It sits alongside your existing case, access and audit systems and answers a question they were not built for, which is whether the media, the voice and the identity in front of you are genuine. Findings return in a form those processes can already carry.
Analysis can run inside your own environment where material is sensitive or must stay in the country, so meeting a standard does not mean handing citizens' material to somebody else in order to protect it.
Yes. Any method of detection can be mistaken in either direction, human judgement included, so a finding is an evidence based reason to look rather than a conclusion. For a public body that is the point: a finding that can be examined and, where necessary, overturned is worth far more than one that cannot.
Bring your own footage. We will run it through the Adaptive Cognito Engine and walk you through the findings.
