Your LLM Privacy & Governance Is Probably Fake — Here’s How To Make It Real
Why this matters this week
If you’ve shipped anything beyond a toy LLM feature, you’ve now discovered the awkward middle ground:
- Security wants SOC2/ISO-aligned controls.
- Legal wants provable data retention limits and DPIAs done.
- Product wants faster iteration on prompts, retrieval, and new use cases.
- Finance wants to know why the LLM bill doubled last month.
The common pattern: teams bolt an LLM onto production data and call it “governed” because there’s a DLP checkbox, a vague “we don’t train on your data” claim, and some redlines in the vendor contract.
That’s not governance. That’s vibes.
Three concrete shifts that make this week different from six months ago:
-
Regulators are moving from principles to evidence.
Regulators and customer auditors increasingly expect evidence of control effectiveness for AI: logs, approvals, data flows, retention configs, not just policy PDFs. -
Model and data boundaries are blurring.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), fine-tuning, and prompt tools are mixing application logic with data governance decisions. You now need to reason about privacy and risk at the workflow level, not just the database or vendor level. -
Policy-as-code is becoming table stakes.
“We follow a policy” doesn’t cut it; the question is whether your LLM gateways, vector stores, and data pipelines can enforce that policy mechanically and be audited.
If your AI roadmap depends on handling customer or employee data, privacy and governance aren’t a compliance box—they’re a scalability constraint. Get it wrong, and your next big deal or audit will veto the whole stack.
What’s actually changed (not the press release)
Ignoring the marketing noise, these are the practical changes that matter if you run production systems.
1. Model providers’ privacy knobs are now real levers
Most major API providers now have:
- Separate training vs logging controls.
- Per-request data retention flags (some down to hours/days).
- Regional processing options (e.g., EU-only).
What’s changed:
- These are now contractually binding in enterprise plans and exposed via APIs/headers—not just FAQ pages.
- Audit teams are starting to ask: Show me where you set these, and how you verify they work.
If you’re not capturing and versioning these configurations, you can’t defend them.
2. RAG made privacy harder, not easier
The sale was: “RAG keeps data out of the model; it just lives in your vector DB.”
Reality:
- Vector stores often lack field-level retention, masking, and lineage.
- Embeddings may leak sensitive patterns even after masking (e.g., unique project names, IDs).
- Access control is usually bolted on via app logic, not enforced at query-level in the vector layer.
So you’ve replaced “data in model weights” risk with “opaque semantic cache of sensitive data with weak ACLs” risk.
3. SOC2/ISO auditors are updating their playbooks
Auditors increasingly treat your LLM stack as:
- A new system boundary (data in, reasoning, outputs)
- With its own:
- Access controls
- Logging
- Change management
- Third-party risk
They no longer accept: “It’s just another API call.”
They expect:
- A data flow diagram including prompts, context, vector search, and tools.
- Evidence that red-team findings are tracked and mitigated.
- Records tying policies to specific controls in the AI path.
4. Model risk is now a board topic
For many orgs, “model risk” used to mean quant models in finance. Now:
- Execs ask: Can the LLM leak customer data?
- CISOs ask: Can a prompt bypass our DLP?
- Counsel asks: If this system makes a decision, can we explain how?
This drives demand for auditability at the interaction level, not just uptime metrics.
How it works (simple mental model)
A workable mental model: LLM Governance = 4 layers of control
You need at least “good enough” at all four; one weak layer sinks the whole thing.
-
Boundary Controls (Outside-In)
Define what data and actions are even eligible to touch the LLM.- Data classification gates (PII, PHI, secrets).
- Allow/deny lists for tools and connectors.
- Network and identity controls (who can invoke what, from where).
-
Session Controls (At Call Time)
Govern each interaction with the model.- Prompt & context filtering/redaction (PII, secrets).
- Per-call policy: which model, max tokens, which tools.
- Per-call data-retention + logging configuration.
-
Knowledge Controls (What Models See Over Time)
Govern how information persists and is reused.- RAG/prompt cache/vector store access policies.
- Retention schedules on embeddings and logs.
- Rules for what can be used for fine-tuning or evaluation.
-
Audit & Assurance (Proving It Works)
Turn “we think it’s fine” into “here’s evidence.”- Immutable logs tying inputs → policies applied → outputs.
- Config-as-code for LLM gateways and policies.
- Regular automated tests + spot checks (e.g., forbidden data leakage tests).
Overlay that with policy-as-code:
Your written policy (e.g., “customer PII can’t leave region X; admin data is retained for 30 days”) must compile into:
- DLP rules
- IAM policies
- Gateway config
- Retention settings
…all version-controlled, testable, and auditable.
Where teams get burned (failure modes + anti-patterns)
Failure mode 1: “The vendor said they don’t train on our data, we’re good”
Pattern:
- You trust the vendor’s “no training” setting.
- You do not control:
- Logs retention at the vendor.
- Regional processing.
- Sub-processors they use.
Risk:
- Regulator/customer asks: “Where can our data end up, and for how long?”
- You can’t answer except by forwarding a marketing PDF.
Anti-pattern: Delegating privacy posture entirely to the LLM provider.
Better:
Treat the provider like any other critical SaaS with data:
- Get written commitments on retention, region, and caching.
- Map data categories you send (PII, secrets, internal-only).
- Limit what leaves via pre-call redaction and tokenization.
Failure mode 2: “We added RAG, so data never enters the model”
Pattern:
- App pulls internal docs → chunks → stores embeddings.
- LLM is called with embeddings-based context.
- No masking/logging strategy for vector operations.
Risks:
- Embeddings contain enough information to reconstruct sensitive details.
- Similarity search can “cross-tenant” if you mess up filters.
- No clear retention policy for vectors or raw chunks.
Real-world example:
- Internal support bot built on tickets and call transcripts.
- Bot accidentally shows other customers’ ticket summaries due to missing tenant filters on the vector query.
- Incident revealed that support call transcripts were retained in vectors indefinitely.
Better:
- Treat vector stores as primary data stores, not caches.
- Apply tenant and row-level security at the vector layer.
- Align retention of vectors = retention of source docs.
- Periodically test for semantic cross-tenant leakage with synthetic data.
Failure mode 3: “Log everything, we’ll sort it out later”
Pattern:
- Every prompt/response is logged “for debugging.”
- Logs contain names, IDs, secrets, internal discussions.
- No clear retention schedule or access controls.
Risk:
- Your “governance” layer becomes the biggest privacy liability.
- Breach of logs is worse than breach of source DB (context is richer).
Real-world example:
- Engineering added comprehensive LLM logs for latency and quality tuning.
- Months later, a security review found production credentials and legal opinions in logs.
- Emergency log scrubbing and new retention policy required; delayed SOC2 renewal.
Better:
- Decide up front what needs to be logged (and anonymized).
- Support structured logging: metadata + redacted text snippets; full text only when strictly needed.
- Enforce short, role-specific retention for sensitive logs.
Failure mode 4: “Policy doc ≠ policy-as-code”
Pattern:
- There’s a lovely AI policy PDF.
- Engineers don’t know how to translate it into gateways, config, and code.
- Real system behavior diverges from policy within weeks.
Risk:
- During audit or incident, legal discovers reality doesn’t match the written policy.
- You lose credibility with auditors/customers.
Better:
- For each policy statement, define:
- Which system(s) enforce it.
- What config/code implements it.
- How it is tested and monitored.
Practical playbook (what to do in the next 7 days)
This assumes you already have at least one LLM in production.
Day 1–2: Map the blast radius
Produce a one-page LLM data flow diagram for your main AI feature:
- Inputs:
- Who can call it (users/services)?
- What data categories: PII, secrets, source code, contracts, etc.
- Processing:
- Which models, which endpoints, which regions.
- Any RAG/vector stores or tools called.
- Outputs:
- Where responses and intermediate data are logged/stored.
- Who can read logs and histories.
Output: A diagram and an inventory of components (API providers, vector DB, gateways, internal services).
Day 3: Classify and constrain data
From your map, mark:
- Data that must never leave your boundary:
- E.g., passwords, API keys, some HR data.
- Data that can leave only with strict conditions:
- E.g., pseudonymized PII, aggregated analytics.
Actions:
- Implement pre-call filters:
- Mask or drop banned fields before calling any LLM.
- Consider deterministic tokenization for IDs (reversible internally, opaque externally).
- Enforce vendor-level toggles:
- Turn on the strictest no-training and minimal logging settings.
- Force region selection compatible with your policies.
