Surveillance Camera Privacy Auditor

3.65

Derivation Chain

Step 1 US Flock surveillance camera destruction movement

→

Step 2 Growing CCTV privacy concerns in Korea

→

Step 3 Automated personal information compliance for CCTV operators

Problem

Apartment management offices, small commercial buildings, and daycare centers operating CCTV systems struggle to self-verify compliance with Korea's Personal Information Protection Act (Article 25, video information processing devices). Manually checking 12 legal requirements — signage, recording scope, retention period, access procedures — takes 2-3 hours per facility, with fines up to ~$37,500 for violations. The 2025 amendment to the Personal Information Protection Act added new requirements for AI-based video analysis, compounding the confusion.

Solution

When CCTV installation details (number of cameras, locations, viewing angles) are entered, the system: (1) auto-generates a 12-item checklist based on the Personal Information Protection Act and standard guidelines, (2) auto-generates signage copy and design templates, (3) provides a video retention management calendar with auto-deletion alerts, (4) auto-generates the mandatory annual self-inspection Report in PDF. Provides additional requirement guidance (impact assessment) when AI video analysis is in use.

Target: Apartment management offices (300+ units), daycare/kindergarten directors, small commercial building owners/property management companies

Revenue Model: SaaS Monthly Subscription: Small tier at ~$22/mo (10 cameras or fewer, checklist + signage), Medium tier at ~$52/mo (up to 50 cameras, retention management + self-inspection Report), Property management tier at ~$112/mo (manage up to 10 facilities)

Ecosystem Role: Regulation

MVP Estimate: 2_weeks

NUMR-V Scores

N Novelty

3.0/5

U Urgency

4.0/5

M Market

4.0/5

R Realizability

4.0/5

V Validation

3.0/5

NUMR-V Scoring System

N Novelty	1-5	How uncommon the service is in market context.
U Urgency	1-5	How urgently users need this problem solved now.
M Market	1-5	Market size and growth potential from proxy indicators.
R Realizability	1-5	Buildability for a small team with realistic constraints.
V Validation	1-5	Validation signal quality from competition and demand data.

SaaS N=.15 U=.20 M=.15 R=.30 V=.20 Senior N=.25 U=.25 M=.05 R=.30 V=.15

Feasibility (78%)

Tech Complexity

34.7/40

Data Availability

23.1/25

MVP Timeline

20.0/20

API Bonus

0.0/15

Feasibility Breakdown

Tech Complexity	/ 40	Difficulty of core implementation stack.
Data Availability	/ 25	Practical availability and cost of required data.
MVP Timeline	/ 20	Expected time to ship a usable MVP.
API Bonus	/ 15	Bonus for viable public API leverage.

Market Validation (56/100)

Competition

8.0/20

Market Demand

6.2/20

Timing

14.0/20

Revenue Signals

10.5/15

Pick-Axe Fit

10.5/15

Solo Buildability

7.0/10

Validation Breakdown

Competition	/ 20	Signal quality from competitor landscape.
Market Demand	/ 20	Demand proxies from search and mention patterns.
Timing	/ 20	Fit with current shifts in tech, behavior, and regulation.
Revenue Signals	/ 15	Reference evidence for monetization viability.
Pick-Axe Fit	/ 15	How well the concept serves participants in a trend.
Solo Buildability	/ 10	Practicality for lean-team implementation.

Technical Requirements

Backend [medium] Frontend [low] Data Pipeline [low]

Dashboard