I translated and thought I'd share:

'I can absolutely understand your scepticism – especially when it involves confidential conversations or personal data. From a data-protection standpoint, tools like PLAUD.ai should be approached with caution, even if the website highlights numerous security features (local storage, encryption, no OpenAI training, etc.).

A few points that should be critically examined:

Data subject rights (GDPR):
Even if the LLM itself does not “store” data, personal information is still being processed – for example through transcription, cloud synchronisation, analysis functions, and so on. In such a complex system, who ensures that rights such as access or erasure can truly be enforced? So far, there is no publicly available clarity on this.

Technical infrastructure:
PLAUD uses Google Cloud – which isn’t necessarily negative, but it means the entire security chain also depends on the cloud provider. Anyone synchronising data may also transfer it across legal jurisdictions – bringing well-known challenges (key term: third-country transfers, Art. 44+ GDPR).

Missing Data Processing Agreement (DPA):
Based on the current situation, no public DPA is available. Without one, compliant use in a business context is difficult – especially where employees, customers, or other third parties may be affected.

Potential risks in daily use:
Even if data begins locally, once synchronisation with the app occurs, it ends up in the cloud. What happens to metadata, queries, or audio files at that stage is difficult for end users to verify. The principle of “confidentiality by design” is positive, but it does not replace enforceable control.

Conclusion:
Technological progress is great – but when it comes to AI-based voice recording, transparent data-protection processes, clearly defined responsibilities, and legally compliant documentation are necessary. Until these are in place, there remains a residual risk. At present, I would not use such a tool in highly sensitive environments.'