Scenario 01
Legitimate public-safety search
Stolen vehicle · named incident · narrow time/camera scope
ALLOW
Why: Admitted purpose and required control evidence are present.
Recorded result: The decision and modeled outcome remain reviewable.
Privacy Gate · Utah proof profile
Same surveillance capability. Different permission.
These four fixed scenarios show the product boundary. The underlying surveillance capability stays the same; purpose, requested range, current rules, evidence, and approval change whether the requested use may proceed.
What this example proves
Source-backed, not provider-connected.
This example is backed by working Privacy Gate source and focused tests. It demonstrates the visible control outcomes without publishing proprietary implementation details.
Important limit
A proof is not a compliance certificate.
This page contains synthetic presentation data only. It does not query a surveillance provider, validate a real warrant, expose a real target, certify legal completeness, connect to a live system, or grant permission.
Four decisions
What changes the result?
Scenario 02
Unauthorized personal tracking
Personal curiosity · target known · no admitted investigative purpose
DENY
Why: Knowing a target does not create authority to search location history.
Recorded result: Denied before provider access; the denial itself remains reviewable.
Scenario 03
Legitimate purpose, excessive scope
Stolen vehicle · broad historical window · multi-camera search
REQUIRE APPROVAL
Why: INTIGNAI's proof privacy baseline requires additional approval for broader scope.
Recorded result: Materially changed use requires a new authority decision.
Scenario 04
Approved bounded use
Same broad request · matching current policy · required approval present
ALLOW
Why: The requested use satisfies the current approval and policy boundary at decision time.
Recorded result: Proof remains no-provider and non-production; no surveillance query is executed here.
Scenario 02 is the wedge
Unauthorized tracking fails before the data is returned.
Traditional audit-only controls may discover misuse after access occurs. Privacy Gate is designed to move the decision boundary earlier so an unauthorized request can be stopped before sensitive provider access is completed.
Scenario 03 proves access limits
A legitimate purpose is not unlimited permission.
A legitimate business or public-safety purpose can still require a narrower request or additional approval. If the requested use changes materially, it is reviewed again instead of silently inheriting an earlier decision.
What works today vs what a live deployment still needs
The control foundation exists. Live deployment stays separate.
PROVED IN SOURCE
Controlled decisions, limited integration path, reviewable outcomes
INTIGNAI has working source demonstrating the control concept and partner-evaluation path. Public materials stop at visible product behavior and safe examples.
LIVE DEPLOYMENT STILL NEEDS
Legal approval, live credentials, provider connection, deployment testing
A real deployment still requires jurisdiction-specific legal review, provider-specific testing, secure credential handling, monitoring, recovery planning, incident response, and named-pilot acceptance.
Technical disclosure boundary
Public examples demonstrate behavior. Technical review covers implementation.
Internal policy construction, integration contracts, validation internals, security thresholds, and other proprietary implementation details are intentionally excluded from this public example.