SFT
Sprint Family Tech Building safer digital lives that families actually control
Identity shouldn’t be owned by platforms.
It should belong to the person.

🧭 Where SiGear fits in the consent landscape

Most systems collect consent. Some systems record it. A few systems gate access. But very few enforce consent as a living rule that changes with identity, purpose, and lifecycle. That is the gap SiGear is built to fill.


🧠 The Basic Shift

What most tools do

Capture a click, store a record, and move on.

What platforms do

Ask for binary permissions like allow or deny.

What SiGear does

Evaluates whether a specific action should be allowed right now.

🧩 The Current Landscape Is Fragmented

Existing tools solve parts of the problem. They help organisations collect consent, prove compliance, or manage access. But they rarely answer the deeper question: is this specific data use actually allowed under the current agreement and current state of the user?


🔍 A Layer-by-Layer Look

1

UI Consent Tools

The surface layer where users click accept, reject, or manage preferences.

Cookiebot
OneTrust
TrustArc
What they do well
  • Show consent banners and preference centres
  • Capture user choices
  • Help websites meet cookie-law obligations
What they do not do
  • Enforce behaviour after consent is collected
  • Understand deeper purpose boundaries
  • Track lifecycle states like dormant or recovery
3

Platform Permissions

The operating-system and platform layer that prompts for tracking, location, camera, or device access.

Apple ATT
Google Consent Mode
OS Permissions

What they do well

  • Block access until a user responds
  • Provide recognisable permission controls
  • Create a simple user checkpoint

What they do not do

  • Model nuanced purpose like moderation vs model training
  • Carry decisions across services and time
  • Reflect a living consent lifecycle
5

SiGear

A new layer: identity-led consent enforcement with purpose-aware, state-aware decisions.

NTI
Policy Engine
Audit Trail
Lifecycle Control

What SiGear adds

  • Consent tied to identity, not just a browser session
  • Purpose-level enforcement at runtime
  • Lifecycle states such as active, dormant, and recovery
  • Decision logs with reasons, not just records of acceptance

Why it matters

  • Systems behave according to what was actually agreed
  • Parents and young people can verify what happened and why
  • Consent becomes enforceable, reviewable, and reversible
  • Digital identity becomes safer, fairer, and more accountable
📊 At a Glance

The difference is not whether consent exists. The difference is whether systems have to obey it.

Layer Examples What they do What they do not do
UI Consent Cookiebot, OneTrust Capture consent choices Enforce runtime behaviour
Compliance OneTrust, TrustArc Record and report Control live decisions
Platform Controls Apple ATT, Google Consent Mode Gate device or tracking access Understand purpose or lifecycle
Identity Systems Auth0, Okta Authenticate users Govern data usage
SiGear NTI + Policy Engine Enforce consent as a system rule —

SiGear is not trying to replace every tool in the stack. It fills the missing layer between collected consent and actual system behaviour.