Do they own your data? Krisp Privacy Policy Reviewed.
Krisp's AI noise cancellation shows promise but falls short of enterprise standards with a 4/10 readiness score. While offering solid basic functionality, gaps in advanced security, compliance frameworks, and enterprise-grade support limit its appeal to large organizations.
Final Enterprise Readiness Rating: 4/10
⚠️ Partially ready (Reviewed 2026).
|
Area |
Verdict |
Notes |
|---|---|---|
|
Data Residency & Storage |
⚠️ Partial |
Data primarily stored in US with limited international options for regulated industries |
|
AI Model Use |
❌ High Risk |
Uses third-party AI services for meeting summaries with unclear model training policies |
|
Data Minimization |
⚠️ Partial |
Noise cancellation processes data locally, but AI features collect extensive meeting data |
|
Privacy Controls |
⚠️ Partial |
Some workspace controls available but limited granular privacy settings for enterprises |
|
Compliance & Auditability |
✅ Good |
HIPAA, GDPR compliant with PCI-DSS certification and security measures |
|
Consent Handling |
⚠️ Partial |
Basic consent handling but lacks sophisticated enterprise consent management features |
|
Model Explainability |
❌ High Risk |
No clear information about AI model operations, decision-making processes, or observability |
|
Data Retention & Deletion |
✅ Good |
Clear retention periods with user-controlled deletion options |
|
Third-Party Sharing |
❌ High Risk |
Extensive third-party sharing for AI processing with insufficient transparency |
⚠️ Recommendation for Enterprises:
Adopt Krisp with caution. Be especially careful if you handle:
- Confidential client communications
- Health, financial, legal, or regulated data
- Sensitive IP or trade secrets
Instead, consider AI tools that:
- Offer full control over AI model usage
- Provide data residency guarantees
- Support comprehensive audit trails
- Implement automated consent workflows
Better Alternative:
✅ BuildBetter.ai — GDPR, SOC 2 Type 2, and HIPAA compliant
✅ Zero training on customer data
✅ You own your data. Fully opt-in privacy model.
🔍 Krisp Privacy Policy – Enterprise Risk Assessment
Audience: Security-conscious enterprise organizations evaluating AI noise cancellation and meeting transcription tool for internal use in highly sensitive or regulated environments (e.g. legal, healthcare, finance, tech/IP-heavy orgs).
⚠️ Where Krisp Falls Short – Critical Gaps
🔒 1. Data Residency & Storage
Quote: "Company is a United States corporation, which primarily processes and stores information in the United States. To facilitate our global operations, we may process and store personal information from around the world, including from other countries and in other countries in which Company, our group affiliates, or our subprocessors have operations"
Risk: Enterprises in regulated industries or jurisdictions with data sovereignty requirements cannot control where their sensitive meeting data is stored, creating compliance risks
Enterprise Issue:
- No data residency guarantees
- Limited control over storage location
- Potential regulatory compliance issues
Verdict: ⚠️ US-centric with insufficient localization options
🧠 2. AI Model Use
Quote: "WE MAY FURTHER SHARE YOUR MEETING CONTENT WITH OUR THIRD PARTY SERVICE PROVIDERS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AI-GENERATED MEETING SUMMARIES, WHICH MAY ALSO BE STORED BY US. THE LIST OF OUR CURRENT THIRD PARTY SERVICE PROVIDERS IS AVAILABLE HERE"
Risk: Sensitive meeting content is shared with unspecified third-party AI providers, potentially exposing confidential business discussions to external systems without clear controls
Enterprise Issue:
- Third-party AI sharing without clear controls
- No bring-your-own-model options
- Unclear model training policies
Verdict: ❌ Opaque third-party AI usage without enterprise controls
📊 3. Data Minimization
Quote: "COMPANY DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO OR STORE ANY AUDIOVISUAL DATA WHEN YOU USE NOISE CANCELLATION FEATURE ONLY. IN SUCH A CASE NO AUDIOVISUAL DATA LEAVES THE USERS' DEVICES"
Risk: While basic noise cancellation is privacy-preserving, the AI meeting assistant features collect and store comprehensive meeting content including transcripts, recordings, and summaries
Enterprise Issue:
- Extensive data collection for AI features
- Limited ability to minimize data collection
- Different privacy levels across features
Verdict: ⚠️ Good for noise cancellation, concerning for AI features
⚙️ 4. Privacy Controls
Quote: "If you subscribe to Krisp using your business email address and your employer has a Krisp account, we may add your Krisp account to your employer's corporate Krisp workspace, if allowed by your employer's Krisp account settings"
Risk: Limited enterprise-grade privacy controls make it difficult for organizations to enforce consistent data handling policies across all users
Enterprise Issue:
- Limited granular privacy controls
- Insufficient workspace-level policy enforcement
- Basic admin settings
Verdict: ⚠️ Basic controls but lacks granular enterprise settings
📦 5. Compliance & Auditability
Quote: "In addition to these measures, we ensure full compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) when our services involve the processing or storage of payment cardholder data. Our PCI-DSS compliance has been independently validated by a Qualified Security Assessor"
Risk: Good compliance foundation, though audit trails and detailed security controls documentation could be more comprehensive for enterprise requirements
Enterprise Issue:
- Limited audit trail details
- Need more comprehensive security documentation
- SOC 2 status unclear
Verdict: ✅ Strong compliance foundation with key certifications
📬 6. Consent Handling
Quote: "BY USING KRISP AI MEETING ASSISTANT, WHICH ENABLES YOU TO TRANSCRIBE, RECORD AND/OR SUMMARIZE YOUR ONLINE MEETING SESSIONS, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT (I) WE MAY STORE SUCH MEETING TRANSCRIPTS, RECORDINGS AND SUMMARIES ON OUR SERVERS"
Risk: Consent mechanisms are basic and don't address complex enterprise scenarios like multi-party meetings, external participants, or automated consent workflows
Enterprise Issue:
- No automated consent workflows
- Limited multi-party consent handling
- Basic recording notifications
Verdict: ⚠️ Basic consent mechanisms without enterprise automation
🔍 7. Model Explainability
Risk: Enterprises cannot understand how AI models process their sensitive meeting data, making it impossible to assess risks or ensure compliance with AI governance policies
Enterprise Issue:
- No AI model transparency
- Lack of decision-making explainability
- No observability features
Verdict: ❌ AI operations lack transparency and explainability
🧼 8. Data Retention & Deletion
Quote: "WE STORE RECORDINGS AND/OR MEETING NOTES UNTIL YOU INSTRUCT US TO DELETE THE RECORDINGS, MEETING NOTES AND/OR YOUR ACCOUNT WITH COMPANY. YOU CAN CONTACT [email] TO REQUEST RECORDINGS AND/OR MEETING NOTES DELETION"
Risk: Good user control over data retention, though enterprises may want more automated retention policies and guaranteed deletion timelines
Enterprise Issue:
- Manual deletion process
- No automated retention policies
- Limited bulk deletion options
Verdict: ✅ Reasonable retention policies with user control
🤝 9. Third-Party Sharing
Quote: "We may share such information with our third party service providers for the sole purpose of providing Krisp to you and only in accordance with the terms of this Privacy Policy"
Risk: Meeting content is shared with third-party AI providers without clear enterprise controls, potentially exposing sensitive business discussions to external parties
Enterprise Issue:
- Unclear third-party AI providers
- Limited control over external sharing
- Potential data leakage risks
Verdict: ❌ Concerning third-party sharing for AI features
✅ What Krisp Does Right (Credit Where It's Due)
- Local processing for noise cancellation features
- HIPAA and GDPR compliance framework
- PCI-DSS certification with independent validation
- Clear data retention policies with user control
- Encryption in transit and at rest
- Robust access controls for stored data
Disclaimer: This evaluation is based solely on publicly available information and documentation. For formal enterprise vetting, always request a vendor's latest DPA, security whitepaper, and third-party audit reports.