Methodology & independence

SecretSafe records what legal AI vendors publicly state about seven criteria that matter for Swiss and EU professional secrecy. It does not test products or audit vendors.

Each criterion is scored 0 to 3 from a cited public source, preferably the vendor’s own trust center, DPA, sub-processor list, security page or privacy policy.
If we find no public source, the field reads “not disclosed”. We never guess, and “not disclosed” is not a negative score.
Scores are never added up. There is no overall ranking; the directory shows how many criteria each vendor discloses.
Every US Cloud Act score is an editorial judgment call, marked ⚖︎, with a one-line rationale.
Each record carries the date it was checked. Changes are logged publicly in the changelog and RSS feed.

Scoring levels

Criterion	0	1	2	3
Data storage Where data rests decides which law and which authorities can reach it. Swiss firms often require Swiss residency for client matters.	US/Canada only, no EU/CH option	Other region with an option	EU/EEA, or selectable region including Switzerland	Switzerland only, or customer on-premises
Where the AI runs / sub-processors Storage and AI processing are often in different places. A tool can store data in Zurich and still send prompts to models in another country.	Processed in the US	Can leave the region, or relies on US LLM APIs	Switzerland plus EU/EEA	Switzerland only, own or non-US models
US Cloud Act exposure The US CLOUD Act lets US authorities require US providers to disclose data in their possession, custody or control, wherever it is stored. This score is always an editorial judgment call.	US-domiciled vendor or US-only processing	Non-US vendor on US-parent clouds/models	Swiss storage, but US-parent compute or optional exposure	Non-US vendor, non-US infrastructure and models
Art. 321 SCC auxiliary terms Under Art. 321 SCC, auxiliaries of a lawyer are bound by professional secrecy, and Art. 13 para. 2 BGFA/LLCA makes the lawyer responsible for ensuring they respect it. Written auxiliary terms help document that.	No secrecy commitment	—	General confidentiality claim, no auxiliary-person term	Contractual auxiliary-person (Hilfsperson) status or external legal opinion
revFADP / GDPR processing agreement Art. 9 revFADP and Art. 28 GDPR require a contract (or legal basis) when a processor handles personal data on your behalf.	No processing agreement	—	GDPR DPA or US framework certification only	Public DPA that names the revFADP
No training on customer data If customer data trains a model, confidential content could surface elsewhere. Look for a contractual ban that also binds model providers.	Trains on customer data	—	Allows de-identified/usage-based improvement	Contractual no-training, including model providers
ISO 27001 / SOC 2 Independent audits (ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type II) give evidence that security controls exist and are tested.	None stated	Infrastructure-only or planned	Claimed or partner-level	Own ISO 27001 or SOC 2 Type II

Independence

No vendor pays for inclusion, placement or scores.
Sponsorship slots, if any, are labelled “Sponsor” and are separate from the data. Sponsors never see or influence scores before publication.
Affiliate links, if any, are disclosed and do not affect scores.
Vendors can request corrections with a public source; accepted corrections are logged.

Limits

Public statements can be incomplete or change without notice. Contracts, trust-center documents behind access requests and individual configurations may differ. Always verify with the vendor before using a tool with client data.

Informational only, not legal advice. Scores reflect vendors’ public statements on the date checked. SecretSafe is an independent project; no legal services are offered through this site. No vendor pays for inclusion or scores.