Govern
ARBITER authority gate
The exact query, target, purpose, scope, current policy, legal authority, and approval evidence must agree before access is admitted.
Privacy Gate · Powered by ARBITER
Public safety without standing surveillance authority.
Privacy Gate puts a policy and authority boundary in front of sensitive surveillance access. The question is not whether a database can return location history. The question is whether this exact actor may perform this exact search, for this exact purpose and scope, under the current policy and authority state.
See the Utah proofOpen the integrator decision roomDiscuss a government or partner pilotSee the underlying ARBITER Gate
exact request → purpose/policy → exact approval if required → constrained access → outcome receipt
The core rule
Knowing the target is not authority to search the target.
Access to a plate, person, camera, or historical dataset is context. Privacy Gate keeps that context separate from permission by binding consequential access to an admitted purpose, current policy, exact scope, and reviewable authority evidence.
The product boundary
Govern the query. Do not attack the camera.
INTIGNAI is building a legitimate control layer for surveillance systems—not jamming, dazzling, plate obscuring, RF interference, anti-tracking evasion, or evidence destruction. The goal is less unnecessary collection and harder unauthorized access while preserving authorized public-safety workflows.
Control before access
Make policy executable at the consequence boundary.
- 01A person or system requests an exact surveillance-data action.
- 02Privacy Gate binds actor, agency, target reference, purpose, scope, source, and policy version.
- 03Current policy and required evidence are checked before access.
- 04Broad or sensitive scope can require approval bound to that exact action.
- 05Changed target, scope, policy, or authority invalidates prior approval applicability.
- 06The decision produces an inspectable receipt before any provider adapter is allowed to act.
Product architecture
One authority model, three deployable layers.
Prove
Outcome receipts
Every decision can carry deterministic action binding and reviewable evidence. A receipt documents what happened; it never creates authority.
Minimize
Provider-neutral boundary
Existing ALPR or CCTV systems can sit behind a constrained adapter. Technical provider capability never becomes standing permission.
First jurisdiction proof
Utah: policy requirements turned into testable decisions.
The first source-qualified profile models a narrow Utah law-enforcement captured-plate search path. It demonstrates admitted public-safety purposes, required search evidence, fail-closed missing-control states, court-authority handling for nongovernmental data, exact-action supervisor approval for INTIGNAI's broader-scope privacy baseline, and tamper-evident no-execution receipts.
This is an engineering proof profile, not a claim of statutory completeness, legal advice, compliance certification, production deployment, or connection to a live ALPR provider.
Who can use it
One system, different accountability views.
States and municipalities
Turn statutory purpose, retention, sharing, and audit requirements into controls that can fail closed instead of relying only on policy documents and after-the-fact review.
Law-enforcement leadership
Preserve legitimate investigative capability while making unauthorized or overbroad access mechanically harder and producing evidence that protects defensible use.
Privacy and oversight teams
Inspect what policy allowed, denied, held, or escalated without exposing live investigative targets or turning transparency into operational leakage.
CCTV / ALPR integrators
Keep existing hardware and deployment competence while adding a provider-neutral authority/privacy layer that supports public-safety governance and a lower-friction construction/private-security product path.
For a pilot jurisdiction
Start as an overlay before replacing infrastructure.
The practical first deployment is a governed access layer around an existing workflow: one admitted query type, one policy pack, exact approvals where required, and receipts. Provider-specific integration is scoped separately and cannot widen authority merely because an API supports more capability.
Scope a Privacy Gate pilotFor a hardware/integrator partner
Keep the field stack. Add the layer buyers will increasingly ask you to prove.
The partner decision room shows how an existing CCTV/ALPR company can preserve its hardware advantage while adding exact authority, receipts, and a privacy-governed construction/private-security lane without handing INTIGNAI customer secrets or production credentials.
Open the partner demo