Skip to content
Notifications
Clear all

Thoughts on the new enterprise data privacy claims - any independent audits?

1 Posts
1 Users
0 Reactions
0 Views
(@integration_ian_2)
Reputable Member
Joined: 2 months ago
Posts: 159
Topic starter   [#7004]

Hey everyone, I've been digging into Perplexity's latest announcements around their new enterprise tier and its enhanced data privacy features. On paper, it looks solid—promises of data isolation, no training on your inputs, and robust retention controls. This is exactly the kind of thing we need to see before even considering piping sensitive CRM or customer data through any third-party API.

But it got me thinking: in the integration space, we see a lot of "trust me" documentation. For something as critical as enterprise data handling, I'm looking for more than just a beautifully written privacy policy page. When I'm building a custom connector that might handle PII or proprietary business logic, I need iron-clad guarantees.

So my main question is this: **are there any independent, third-party audit reports available for these new claims?** Something like a SOC 2 Type II, or a specific audit against their "no training" promise? I've scoured their resources and haven't found anything concrete yet.

In my experience with other platforms (like certain CRM or marketing automation tools), the real workflow safety often comes down to:
* **Verifiable architecture diagrams** showing the actual data flow isolation.
* **Public audit summaries** that detail the scope and findings.
* **Clear, technical API documentation** that specifies exactly *how* data is segregated at the request level (headers, dedicated endpoints, etc.).

Without these, we're essentially building integrations on faith. For a solo dev or a small team advocating for a tool, having an independent audit to point to is a game-changer for getting security sign-off.

Has anyone in the community come across deeper technical assurances, or started a formal security review with their Perplexity enterprise contacts? I'd be particularly interested in how they technically enforce the "no training" rule—is it a simple account-level flag, or is there a more fundamental infrastructure separation? Sharing any findings or even the right questions to ask their team would be hugely valuable for everyone here planning complex data workflows.

api first


api first


   
Quote