Reason8.AI 2.0 - Turn conversations 💬 into summaries 📝

@romaeora thanks for your kind words ;)

@valentin_preobrazhenskiy try us and I am sure we will find the way to collaborate

@johnfaig Thank you John. We will consider the idea =)

@haoyangnz thanks for your kind words! Would appreciate your feedback and ideas about useful features for you :)

@lyondhur Thanks for your question - you can try our app and see the result. Your conversation will be transcribed with speaker attribution. Meanwhile, just a few words about privacy protection: - We are GDPR compliant by design. - We’ve developed an internal process to keep your data secure. - We rely on AWS physical protection of data centers. - All user credentials are securely encrypted using one way encryption, passwords are never stored in plain text. - All data access is protected by a role-based access-control mechanisms, which only lets users view data for which they have permission. - And Reason8.ai’s computing infrastructure is provided by Amazon Web Services, a secure cloud services platform. Amazon’s physical infrastructure has been accredited under ISO 27001, SOC 1/SOC 2/SSAE 16/ISAE 3402, PCI Level 1, FISMA Moderate, and Sarbanes-Oxley.

@vladislav_belyaev that's all well and good but you still haven't answered my question. I'm not enquiring about ownership, but about information privacy. By that, I wouldn't mean exposing the contents of any given meeting to a third party or else the public -- that would merely be every app’s basic and default obligation. I'm asking whether can ANYBODY, including anyone at Reason8, read, listen or have access to any of the contents of a meeting? If the answer is YES, it would STILL implicate any member of my team beyond breaching more NDAs you can imagine. I assume, any other company‘s, team or project who need to keep their information inaccessible. If the app doesn't have in-device, no-key retaining, full P2P encryption, then no matter how many locks you put around the box, it wouldn't matter. Companies and government organisations go through hell and under just to protect email and day-to-day chat. Exposing the spoken word would not be something anybody would look forward to doing. You might claim it is secure (which always means not inviolable), but you could not so much as to start saying the word ‘private‘. Not really. Private would mean engineering the app to read, transcribe and move the user data in a way that only intended parties can have access to it. Otherwise, this is no more than a beautifully crafted.. liability nightmare. If what I asked you isn‘t there, then despite this being the start of something that could be really useful, as of now, it would be nothing but a door that cannot be closed and it lets someone inside who hasn‘t really been invited (pardon my harshness here). Plus, big red flag: free. Sure.. just big data, right? But I digress. The user would have to "trust" you, in this case, that someone would not want to have access to the contents of their meetings. Which, again, means the user isn't really having a private meeting with their team and their team only. So, do you or anybody in the company have access to a single syllable originated in the meetings produced by using the app? How is that for a straight question? Perhaps a bluntly put question might get me a straight and simple answer. ;) Cheers for engaging. For the user: being GDPR compliant, at this moment, means only that one merely adheres to the regulation that is only to be enforced in May 2020. Meaning, no company is truly liable for breaching information protection acts regulated by the GDPR in the next 2 years. In case you don‘t yet know about it, it protects ONLY EU citizens‘ personal data both domestically and abroad. Again, European citizens only. Heres a hunted link I found in here: