ABT-D
Device
Enclave-to-application callback across the secure hardware boundary. Manufacturer attestation chain. Per-data-category retention.
Filed · Patent pending
Sid Ratnam
ABT methodology family · variant ABT-D · counsel memorandum

Precise location: hardware sealed, policy irrelevant

A worked example of hardware-enforced location projection, cross-session unlinkability, and the legal consequences of a compelled production demand directed at an app that never held precise coordinates.

U.S. Provisional Patent 64/056,353 · Filed May 4, 2026 · Foundational specification: ABT envelope-tier architecture
Abstract

The ABT-D variant applies the foundational envelope-tier architecture to device-layer data collection, with location access as the canonical scenario. The variant-specific architectural element is the hardware enclave projection boundary: precise coordinates from the GPS sensor are read exclusively inside the device's secure enclave — a hardware region inaccessible to the operating system, applications, and all software processes. The enclave applies a user-configured projection (city, neighborhood, or precise) and returns only the projection to the requesting application. Precise coordinates never exist in any memory region accessible to the application, and therefore cannot be transmitted to external servers, exposed in API logs, or produced in response to legal process directed at the application or its backend. This memorandum follows Soo-Jin Hwang's location request through three daily sessions, examining the data flow, the compelled production analysis, and the GDPR Article 25 compliance posture.

I. The request and the hardware boundary

WeatherField requests location — the enclave is the only reader of precise coordinates

When WeatherField calls the location API, the request is intercepted by the ABT-D enclave before the OS returns precise GPS coordinates to the app. The precise coordinates exist, for the duration of one computation, exclusively within the enclave's hardware memory. The app receives the projection — not the source data.

The distinction between a software privacy policy and a hardware boundary is legally significant. A software policy — "WeatherField will not share your precise location" — creates a contractual or regulatory commitment enforceable after the fact. A hardware boundary — the enclave returns only the projection — means the precise coordinates are structurally absent from the app's process space. There is no violation of the policy to investigate after the fact; there is no precise location data to share, because the app never held it.

For legal process analysis: a subpoena directed at WeatherField for "all location data collected from Soo-Jin Hwang" can only be satisfied with the city-level projection data — because that is all WeatherField holds. The subpoena is answered with the full scope of WeatherField's possession, which is structurally bounded by the enclave projection.

II. Cross-session unlinkability — three sessions, one city

Hwang moves across San Francisco — the log shows no movement

Hwang opens WeatherField three times on the same day from different neighborhoods. Each session produces a city-level projection with a per-session nonce. The app log is incapable of showing her movement pattern.

WeatherField session log: Session A · 08:14 AM · "San Francisco, CA" · enc_nonce_d7f3 Session B · 12:33 PM · "San Francisco, CA" · enc_nonce_8b1a Session C · 06:48 PM · "San Francisco, CA" · enc_nonce_2c9e movement inferable from log: NONE precise locations: Mission District, SoMa, Richmond [Mission, SoMa, Richmond: not in any external record] cross_session_analysis: enc_nonce_d7f3, enc_nonce_8b1a, enc_nonce_2c9e: opaque per-session values derivable to common user identity without enclave: NO pattern analysis across nonces: not possible without enclave participation
III. The compelled production analysis — per party

What each party holds and what it cannot produce

PartyHoldsCannot produce (does not hold)
WeatherField (app)City-level projections; per-session nonces; timestamps of location requestsPrecise coordinates; movement patterns more granular than city-level; cross-session identity linkage
Weather API (external server)City-name queries (e.g., "San Francisco, CA"); timestampsAny location data more precise than city; any user identifier linked to location
Device hardware / GPSRaw coordinates (in transient enclave memory only, cleared per session)Persistent log of coordinates; any record accessible outside the enclave session
RegistryHash-chained log of projection events: "location projection issued, city-level, enc_nonce_d7f3, timestamp"Precise coordinates; city name (registry receives only the event hash, not the projected value)
Architectural note. A subpoena directed at any party in this chain for Hwang's "precise location on [date]" cannot be satisfied by any of them. WeatherField holds city-level data. The weather API holds city queries. The registry holds event hashes. The enclave holds coordinates transiently within a hardware boundary that no legal process can reach through software. The precise location data is genuinely absent from every external record.
IV. Structural claim summary — ABT-D
PropertyGuaranteeLegal relevance
Hardware enclave boundaryPrecise coordinates processed only in hardware enclave; never accessible to app processCompelled production from app yields only projection data; hardware boundary is not a policy commitment that can be violated
Projection before networkCity-level projection applied before any network call; external APIs never receive precise coordinatesThird-party subpoena to external API cannot yield precise location; data not held cannot be produced
Per-session noncesEach location request generates a fresh enclave nonce; cross-session linkage requires enclave participationStructural resistance to location history reconstruction from log data; Carpenter concern avoided by architecture
User-configurable scopeUser controls projection granularity (city / neighborhood / precise); scope enforced at hardware layerPrivacy is a user-controlled property enforced below the application layer — not a permission granted at install time and ignored thereafter
GDPR Article 25 complianceData minimisation enforced by design at the hardware API layerRegulatory compliance is structural, not dependent on each app developer's voluntary implementation
ABT methodology family · ABT-D device-layer privacy variant · counsel reference document · US Provisional Patent 64/056,353 · Filed May 4, 2026
sidratnam.com