Philterd

Talk to an Expert

Tell us about your stack and the privacy problems you're trying to solve. We typically respond within one business day.

Prefer to skip the form? Pick a time on our calendar →
or send a message

← All industries

Financial Services

PII Redaction for Financial Services

Self-hosted redaction for banks, fintech, payments, and contact centers. Reduce PCI DSS scope, meet GLBA Safeguards Rule requirements, and keep customer financial data inside your perimeter.

Or deploy Philter yourself →

The financial-services PII problem

Financial services has two overlapping privacy regimes: PCI DSS (for cardholder data) and GLBA (for the broader category of Nonpublic Personal Information). Each has different triggers, different scope, and different penalties. Both pull every system that touches the relevant data into compliance audit scope.

The cost difference between a 4-system PCI scope and a 14-system PCI scope is enormous — both in audit fees and in the operational tax of running every one of those systems to PCI standards. The same is true at smaller scale for GLBA. The lever to pull is the same: remove the sensitive data from systems that don’t need it, before it ever lands there.

How Philterd handles finance

PCI scope reduction

PAN masked to last-4 visible per PCI DSS Req 3.4. CVV/CVC/CSC fully redacted per Req 3.2. Apply before logs, CRM tickets, and call-center transcripts land in downstream systems — de-scope those systems from your audit.

GLBA NPPI handling

Customer names, SSNs, account numbers, routing numbers, loan IDs — the full Nonpublic Personal Information surface area under 15 USC 6801-6809. Ready-made policy in the library.

Call-center transcripts

Speech-to-text transcripts from Genesys, NICE, Verint, Five9 contain spoken-aloud PANs, CVVs, and SSNs. A purpose-tuned policy handles the spoken-pattern variants of each.

Luhn-validated PAN detection

Philter validates credit-card sequences against the Luhn checksum before treating them as PANs — dramatically reduces false positives on order IDs, tracking numbers, and reference codes.

Fraud-model training data

Train fraud and credit-risk models on real transaction data with NPPI safely redacted. Differential privacy via Philter Diffuse for aggregate reporting that won’t leak individuals.

Stays in your VPC

Self-hosted in your existing AWS, Azure, or GCP environment. No cardholder data sent to a third-party API; no new vendor in your audit footprint.

Ready-to-use policies

Apache 2.0 policies from the open source policy library — download and load into your Philter instance.

Finance v1.0.0

PCI DSS Scope Reduction

Strip cardholder data (PAN, CVV, expiration) from logs, transcripts, and tickets to reduce PCI DSS scope per Requirement 3.4.

PCI DSScardholder dataPANscope reduction
Contact Center v1.0.0

Contact Center Call Recording Transcripts

Strip cardholder data and PII from contact-center call transcripts — primarily PAN, CVV, SSN, account numbers — to reduce PCI DSS scope and meet QA privacy requirements.

PCI DSScontact centercall recordingtranscripts

Browse the full policy library →

Recent writing on finance

All blog posts →

Where financial-services teams start

  1. Map your scope. Inventory every system that touches cardholder data (PCI) or NPPI (GLBA). For most teams, this is the eye-opener — the list is longer than expected.
  2. Deploy Philter from your cloud’s marketplace into a subnet that can receive log streams, CRM exports, and call-center transcripts.
  3. Apply the PCI scope-reduction policy at the ingestion point of every downstream system you want to de-scope. Logs to Splunk/Datadog; CRM ticket text; transcripts to QA platforms.
  4. Document the data flow showing PAN cannot re-enter the de-scoped systems. Your QSA needs this for the scope-reduction argument.
  5. Layer on GLBA for the broader customer-data systems — analytics warehouses, fraud-model training corpora, third-party-shared records.

Common deployments

1. Contact-center scope reduction. A typical contact center has 5-10 systems in PCI scope because call-recording transcripts containing spoken-aloud PANs land in QA platforms, CRMs, and analytics warehouses. Pre-ingest redaction via Philter at the transcript-generation step takes most of those systems out of scope — with documented savings well into the six figures per year in audit and remediation costs.

2. Fraud and credit-risk model training. Real transaction data is the training fuel; NPPI is the toxic byproduct. Apply the GLBA NPPI policy at the ingestion step into your ML data lake, and your data scientists work on a corpus that won’t fail a privacy audit.

3. Migration from AWS Comprehend or Google DLP. Teams hit a pricing ceiling on per-character-billed PII APIs as their volume grows. Philter on the AWS Marketplace bills per instance-hour — predictable at scale, often a 10× cost reduction at production volumes. The TCO comparison post has the worked numbers.

What teams need to be careful about

  • De-scoping isn’t automatic. Removing PAN from a system doesn’t automatically take it out of PCI scope. You also need documented data flow showing PAN cannot re-enter, segmentation controls, and periodic validation. Treat redaction as one input to scope reduction, not the whole answer.
  • GLBA ≠ PCI. They overlap but they’re distinct regimes with different triggers and different penalties. Most financial institutions need both policies, applied to different systems.
  • State law layering. California (CCPA / CPRA), Nevada (NRS 603A), New York (NYDFS 23 NYCRR 500), Massachusetts (201 CMR 17) all impose additional or stricter requirements. The library policies are federal-baseline; layer state-specific policies on top.

Build PII redaction into your finance pipeline

Audit costs are real money. Procurement contracts with new vendors are real time. Talk to the engineers who built the toolkit and get a concrete answer on whether self-hosting changes your audit math.

Or deploy Philter yourself →