RedRadar Technologies Human Rights Statement

RedRadar Technologies Inc. ("RedRadar") build intelligence platform for governments, defense organizations, and selected enterprises that operate in environments where conventional tooling does not reach. The work matters because the access gap matters — adversary ecosystems shape outcomes that affect lives, and the institutions responsible for protecting people in democratic societies need accurate visibility into those ecosystems to do their work. That same work, used differently or by the wrong party, could harm people. We have always understood that. This statement explains how we think about human rights in the context of what we build, who we build it for, and where we draw lines. This statement applies to all RedRadar personnel, contractors, and advisors, and informs every commercial decision we make.

Our commitments

We support the principles set out in:

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly the rights to security (Article 3), privacy (Article 12), and equality without distinction (Article 2).
• The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
• The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. We acknowledge our corporate responsibility to respect human rights, and we recognize that operating responsibly in our category requires more than acknowledgment. It requires choices about who we work with, what we build, and what we refuse. We commit to the following:

  We work only with parties whose mission we understand and whose use of our work we are prepared to stand behind. This is not aspirational language. It is a description of how we evaluate every prospective engagement. Where we cannot get to that level of understanding, we do not engage.

  We do not sell to adversary states or to entities operating on their behalf. Selling intelligence capability about adversary ecosystems back to those ecosystems would be a direct contradiction of why we exist. We have a documented internal list of jurisdictions and entity categories we will not engage with, and that list is reviewed regularly.

  We do not build tools whose primary purpose is the suppression of journalism, peaceful dissent, or political opposition. We are not a surveillance vendor for use against a state's own civilian population, and we do not pursue work that would make us one.

  We treat the rights of data subjects inside the ecosystems we observe as a real consideration, not a procedural one. We collect and structure information to support legitimate intelligence, security, and research missions of legitimate institutions. We do not enable harassment campaigns, doxxing, or operations directed at individuals based on their identity, beliefs, or lawful expression.

  We comply with applicable export control and sanctions regimes, including those of Israel, the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and other relevant jurisdictions. Where a contemplated sale would not be authorized under those regimes, we do not pursue it.

How we evaluate clients

The most important moment in our human rights due diligence is before a contract is signed. RedRadar does not operate as open-market vendors. We assess every prospective client against criteria that include:

• The nature of the institution and the legitimacy of its mission.
• The jurisdiction in which it operates and the legal regime governing its conduct.
• The intended use case and whether it falls within the categories we support.
• Any publicly available information about prior conduct that would conflict with this statement.
• Where relevant, alignment with the security interests of allied democratic states. Some prospective clients pass this assessment. Others do not. We have declined and will continue to decline engagements where we are not confident the work would be used for purposes consistent with this statement. This is not an unusual outcome — it is a routine part of how we operate. We also recognize that our visibility ends where our contractual relationship ends. We address this through the controls described below.

How we mitigate the risk of misuse

We recognize that no vendor can fully control what every authorized user does with every capability over time. We address this risk through four overlapping controls:

Mission-aligned design. The platform is built for the use cases we support — pattern-of-life analysis, counterintelligence, military activity tracking, and similar disciplines exercised by legitimate institutions. It is not a general-purpose surveillance product, and it is not marketed or configured for general-purpose surveillance work.

Selective engagement. As described above, we choose who we work with rather than serve any buyer who can afford the platform. The selection happens before access is granted, not after.

Contractual constraints. Our agreements include use-restriction clauses, audit rights where appropriate, and termination rights where misuse is identified. The exact terms vary by client and engagement.

Reactive enforcement. Where credible information reaches us suggesting misuse of our products, we investigate. Depending on the findings, we may use any combination of contractual remedies, suspension or termination of access, cooperation with relevant authorities, and public disclosure where appropriate. We have ended engagements over conduct concerns before, and we will again.

Personnel

We expect every person at RedRadar — employees, contractors, and advisors — to raise concerns about any engagement, capability, or use case where they believe our work is being or could be misused. Concerns can be raised:

• Directly with their manager, with the founder, or with our legal contact.
• In writing to legal@redradar.ai, which goes to a small distribution. Retaliation against anyone who raises a concern in good faith is prohibited. We treat this as a foundational rule, not a policy line.

How external parties can raise concerns

If you believe we, or one of our clients using our products (if that client is you), has been involved in conduct inconsistent with this statement, you can write to us. We will review any credible concern raised through this channel. Where we have visibility into the matter and the authority to act, we will act. Where we do not have visibility — for example, where the concern relates to a client's independent conduct — we will be honest about the limits of what we can do and will engage with the relevant authorities or oversight bodies as appropriate. We do not promise that every concern will result in disclosed action, because in some cases the appropriate response is confidential or operational. We do promise that credible concerns are reviewed by people, not auto-replied or ignored.

Transparency

We do not publish the names of our clients (unless approved by the client in written form). This is not unusual for our category and reflects the operational realities of the institutions we work with. It also limits the public scrutiny that can be directed at our customer base. We acknowledge that limitation directly. We address it by holding ourselves to the standards in this statement irrespective of public visibility, by maintaining the internal review processes described above, and by being willing to engage with researchers, journalists, and oversight bodies in good faith when concerns arise.

Modern slavery and forced labor

We oppose modern slavery and forced labor in all forms. We assess our suppliers and partners for these risks proportionate to the nature of our business, and we will not engage with parties that we have reason to believe rely on forced labor (to the best of our research and due diligence). The direct risk of modern slavery within our own operations is low — we are a software and training company without manufacturing or extensive physical supply chains — but the commitment is unconditional regardless of size.

Review

This statement is reviewed annually and updated when our practices, our scale, or the legal environment in which we operate changes materially. The "Last updated" date at the top of this page reflects the most recent change.