A security intelligence platform, with its limits in plain sight
Who is behind this, how publishing decisions are made, and the things that are not solved yet.
Why this exists
In Haiti, the security information someone needs to make a concrete decision — whether a convoy leaves, whether a distribution route is still passable, whether a team can return to the office — travels through messaging groups, phone calls and personal contacts. It is fast, but it is lost, it cannot be cited, and no record remains of whether it was confirmed or a rumour.
The organisations that produce rigorous conflict data are generally retrospective: they describe well what happened, weeks later. And specialised security services for humanitarian organisations run on paid membership, which leaves out precisely the smallest local actors.
Sentry View tries to fill that gap: a georeferenced record, with explicit confidence levels and an expiry date, accessible through a free trial and a professional membership.
Who is accountable
Sentry View is a product of Sentry UAV NSCE SpA (Chilean tax ID 77.779.577-5), a drone and security company based in Chile; its official address, gerencia@sentryuav.app, is the single contact for the platform. Sentry View operates with centralised editorial and technical oversight to keep verification, moderation and platform development consistent. One standard decides what gets recorded, how its confidence is classified, and when an assessment expires.
For questions, corrections or information: gerencia@sentryuav.app. Every substantiated correction is reviewed and, where it applies, recorded in the history of the affected record.
This is a small-scale operation. We say so here rather than in a footnote because it conditions everything else: the volume that can be verified, the speed of response and the realistic reach of coverage.
What it is and what it is not
Sentry View is an independent platform: it is not an NGO, a foundation or a public body, and it receives no institutional funding. It is sustained by the subscriptions of the people who use it.
Two things worth stating before anyone has to ask:
- Contracting is arranged directly with whoever operates the platform.
- If your organisation needs specific contractual or invoicing arrangements, it is worth raising them before subscribing.
How publishing decisions are made
Editorial and moderation decisions are currently taken by the project operator. That is a structural conflict of interest: the same person logs, verifies, moderates and vouches for quality, with no separation of duties. There is no way to disguise it, so we declare it.
What exists to mitigate it:
- A written, public method any decision can be checked against: the methodology.
- A mandatory, visible confidence level on every piece of information, with “unverified” as the default.
- A consultable history of changes and re-verifications, instead of silent edits.
- An open corrections channel.
The next planned step is a second, independent moderation account and a small advisory group with public names.
Continuity
If a project depends on one person, it has to say what happens if that person is not there. It is a legitimate question any organisation will ask before relying on this platform.
What exists today: periodic database backups held outside the main provider, and documented ownership of the domain and infrastructure accounts. What is missing: a second person with administrative access and a written succession plan. It is a stated priority, not a solved problem.
Independence
Sentry View is funded by the subscriptions of the people who use it. There are no advertisers, sponsors or institutional agreements that could condition what gets published, how it is presented or how it is classified.
- We show no advertising and do not plan to.
- We do not sell or trade user data.
- We do not use third-party analytics to track individual activity inside the platform.
- Paying for a subscription grants no influence over content, confidence classification or the assessment of a zone. A customer cannot ask for a zone to be shown as safer than it is.
- Sentry View is not affiliated or aligned with governments, political parties, security forces, military organisations, armed groups or any actor involved in the events represented on the platform.
Corrections and field information
Sentry View is also built from field experience, professional feedback and corrections from people who use or know the regions represented on the platform.
- If you are on the ground: you can share information, observations or relevant changes by email. Where appropriate, information can be incorporated without publicly identifying the person who provided it.
- If you work in a humanitarian, security or response organisation: tell us what information you need to make decisions and what would help you read the situation better. That kind of input guides development directly.
- If you found incorrect or outdated information: send the correction with any available source or evidence. Verifiable observations keep the map accurate and traceable.
- If you found a security issue on the platform: report it directly and in as much detail as possible. Security reports are reviewed as a priority.
All information received is assessed before being incorporated. Receiving information from a source does not imply automatic publication, nor does it change Sentry View's editorial criteria.
Contact
gerencia@sentryuav.app — a real address, read by a person.