KEEP WHAT WORKS
No rip-and-replace.
Existing cameras, ALPR hardware, VMS, and provider integrations can stay in place. Privacy Gate adds a control layer around consequential use rather than becoming another camera platform.
Privacy Gate · CCTV, ALPR & site-security integrators
Keep the cameras. Add control over who—or what—can use the data.
INTIGNAI adds an approval and access-control layer around sensitive surveillance use. Existing hardware can stay in place while important requests from people or AI are checked against the applicable rules before they proceed—and important outcomes remain reviewable afterward.
existing platform → sensitive request → rules and approval → limited use → reviewable outcome
The 30-second version
Useful surveillance without blanket authority.
The opportunity is not to make cameras less capable. It is to make powerful systems easier to justify, safer to operate, and more valuable to customers by controlling sensitive use around the capability.
CONTROL SENSITIVE USE
Capability does not equal permission.
Sensitive requests are checked against the purpose, requested range, approval requirements, and current rules before access proceeds.
PROVE WHAT HAPPENED
Important actions leave evidence.
Reviewable outcome evidence makes it possible to distinguish what was requested, what was permitted, and what result was actually observed.
Integrator thesis
Keep the hardware. Put sensitive access behind approval.
A camera or ALPR company can keep its hardware advantage while offering customers a stronger answer to the questions that increasingly matter: who may use sensitive capability, for what purpose, under what boundaries, and what evidence exists afterward?
That creates differentiation across municipal, public-safety, construction, and private-security markets without requiring the integrator to build an access-control platform from scratch. Privacy Gate controls legitimate system use; it is not a jammer, camera-defeat, plate-obscuring, evidence-destruction, or evasion product.
Why this becomes a need
The capability gap is no longer the hard problem. The permission gap is.
Provider capability is broader than business authority
Without an authority layer: A camera/VMS/ALPR platform may technically permit a sensitive search or export, but technical capability alone does not prove that the requested use is authorized.
With ARBITER: ARBITER evaluates the requested use against the applicable authority and policy boundary before consequential access proceeds.
Audit after access is too late
Without an authority layer: A log can show that sensitive access happened after the data was already returned or exported.
With ARBITER: Privacy Gate can deny, hold, or require approval before sensitive provider access, then preserve reviewable evidence of the decision and result.
Private-sector buyers need useful security without default tracking
Without an authority layer: A law-enforcement-first surveillance product can create unnecessary adoption friction for construction, property, campus, fleet, and private-security buyers.
With ARBITER: The same hardware can support bounded operational and incident workflows without making broad historical tracking the default product experience.
AI increases speed unless authority is equally machine-enforced
Without an authority layer: Adding AI to a powerful provider interface can make broad actions easier to request without making the underlying authority any clearer.
With ARBITER: AI may prepare or recommend. The authority layer independently determines whether the requested consequence may proceed.
Do not rip and replace
The partner keeps the hardware advantage.
- → Partner keeps camera/sensor hardware, enclosure, power, networking, firmware, capture pipeline, field installation, and provider operations.
- → INTIGNAI supplies the governed authority, policy-integration, evidence, and oversight layer around consequential use.
- → The first technical evaluation uses sanitized interface material or an isolated test path—not customer records or production credentials.
Commercial expansion
One hardware platform, two controlled product modes.
Public-safety deployments can add stronger purpose, scope, approval, and evidence controls. Construction and private-security deployments can emphasize site health, incident evidence, retention, role-limited access, and privacy-safe operations instead of default historical tracking.
The partner keeps device and field expertise. INTIGNAI provides the approval and access-control layer as licensable infrastructure.
For the owners
The first implementation decision is small enough to approve now.
This does not begin with fleet replacement, live credential handoff, or a company-wide commitment. It begins with one limited technical evaluation using sanitized material. Each later step is separately approved and can stop without widening the engagement.
01 · Synthetic conformance
Prove fit without customer secrets.
Start with sanitized interface material or a simulator-level description of one limited provider action. No live credentials or customer data are required.
02 · Isolated hardware or sandbox
Test one bounded integration path.
Only after the initial example is accepted, evaluate one agreed action against a sandbox or isolated test device under a separately approved test plan.
03 · Named pilot → OEM rollout
Earn expansion from evidence.
Choose one named site/customer use case with success and rollback criteria, then consider recurring licensing or OEM expansion only after the pilot proves the operational and commercial case.
What ownership needs to nominate
One technical owner. One business owner. One first action.
That is enough for INTIGNAI to define the test and determine fit without exposing customer secrets or requiring live-system access.
Five-minute executive demo
Show control changing the outcome—not another dashboard.
- 01Show the same surveillance capability under a legitimate bounded request: ALLOW.
- 02Show personal-curiosity tracking with no admitted purpose: DENY before provider access.
- 03Show a legitimate but overbroad request: REQUIRE APPROVAL.
- 04Show the approved bounded request: ALLOW, while materially changed use requires a new decision.
- 05Switch to the partner view: keep existing hardware and add Privacy Gate as the authority/privacy layer.
- 06Finish with the low-disclosure integration ask: sanitized interface material, then a bounded technical evaluation.
For IT, security & engineering
Enough technical truth to evaluate the product—without publishing the implementation recipe.
Privacy Gate is an enforcement layer separate from the AI model and the surveillance provider. It supports permission checks before action, provider-specific integration limits, and reviewable evidence afterward. The public page intentionally does not disclose internal policy construction, integration contracts, security thresholds, secret custody, or other implementation details reserved for technical review.
CONTROL
Permission is checked before sensitive access.
The control layer distinguishes what a system can technically do from what a person or AI is allowed to do for a particular request.
INTEGRATION
Hardware and provider systems stay in place.
Partner-specific integration is tested against sanitized or isolated interfaces before any live-system access is considered.
EVIDENCE
Important outcomes remain reviewable.
The product preserves decision and outcome evidence so customers can inspect controlled use rather than relying on an AI narrative alone.
Technical review
The implementation package is the next layer—not the public layer.
After a partner decides the opportunity is worth testing, INTIGNAI can provide the appropriate architecture, integration requirements, security assumptions, test plan, and pilot acceptance package under an appropriate confidentiality agreement.
The first ask
We do not need customer secrets to prove the fit.
- → A sanitized API/OpenAPI/SDK excerpt, simulator description, or example request/response.
- → The provider capabilities and scope controls available for the first bounded evaluation.
- → Whether a sandbox or isolated test device is available after the initial technical review.
- → One technical owner and one business owner if the proof works.
Explicitly not requested
No live keys. No active cases. No customer list.
Initial evaluation should not contain live provider credentials, raw plate histories, active investigation data, covert deployment locations, customer-identifying records, or permission to take live actions.
A real sandbox, device, or live deployment requires a separately approved test plan.
Decision point
Do not buy another promise. Test the authority boundary.
Give INTIGNAI one limited, sanitized integration target and success definition. We will determine whether the opportunity should advance to a controlled technical evaluation before asking for live integration access.
Start the partner implementation pathProof first
See the outcomes before discussing integration.
The public proof shows the business distinction that matters: the same capability can produce different outcomes when the authority context changes.
Open the decision proof