Receive and define
A useful review begins with a precise description of the resource, behaviour or incident. We separate the central concern from unrelated personal information.
Our work
Turn isolated incidents into useful public understanding.
RightsRelay works at three levels: the immediate situation a person faces, the recurring pattern behind it and the system that determines who carries the risk.
A public-interest model
Analysis, guidance and reporting are parts of the same work.
A guide without context can make every incident look like an individual mistake. Analysis without a practical route can leave the reader informed but unsupported. Reporting without clear standards can collect sensitive information without producing anything useful.
RightsRelay brings these functions together while keeping their boundaries clear. The aim is not to promise control over every outcome. It is to improve the quality of the information, decisions and records available when online harm occurs.
Review process
From a reported concern to a responsible next step.
The depth of review depends on the information available and the nature of the issue. This framework keeps the process consistent without implying that every submission receives the same outcome.
Assess the available evidence
We distinguish directly observed facts, supporting public links and unresolved claims. Missing context is treated as missing—not silently supplied.
Connect the wider pattern
Where appropriate, we consider how the issue relates to recurring fraud methods, data exposure, account systems, platform choices or information integrity.
Publish or route what is useful
The result may inform guidance, analysis or a more focused next step. Not every submission becomes public, and publication is never automatic.
Publishing and review standards
Quality depends on restraint as much as investigation.
RightsRelay is designed to avoid the same incentives that make online harm harder to address: unnecessary collection, overstated certainty and attention without responsibility.
Source important claims
Guidance should point readers to primary or authoritative material when that source meaningfully supports the claim or next step.
Separate advice from outcome
We describe actions a person can take without implying that those actions guarantee recovery, removal or prevention.
Collect only what is necessary
The report channel is for an initial record, not identity documents, passwords, payment details or a complete private evidence archive.
Name systemic responsibility
Guidance should not turn insecure defaults, excessive collection or poor reporting systems into a personal failure by the user.
Preserve uncertainty
When the available information does not support a conclusion, the uncertainty remains visible in the language and the decision.
Avoid attention incentives
We do not publish sensitive detail merely because it is dramatic, searchable or likely to attract traffic.
Case workflow
Fix consent and Investigation Scope before the first external action.
Case intake asks for a public starting URL, a concise factual account, required User contact and only an email address or phone number the User controls as Subject Data. Evidence is captured by the bounded worker, classified, hashed and reviewed before a complaint is approved.