BlackRoseEvy
My feedback
47 results found
-
19 votesBlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
11 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment BlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesBlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
9 votesBlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
8 votesBlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
3 votesBlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
71 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment BlackRoseEvy
commented
We are facing challenges in gaining confidence to enable the AI tool due to the nature of its current access controls. While we can exclude or allow individual user access to AI, the concern primarily revolves around protecting specific content. For example, even if AI is disabled for an individual, any shared content they own can still be processed by AI if accessed by another user with AI enabled.
We are awaiting a response from the privacy office regarding acceptance of the risks associated with AI and HIPAA-protected content. If the risk is not approved, we may need to disable AI features for all users who have access to HIPAA data. Unfortunately, this would prevent those users from leveraging AI features for their non-HIPAA-related content as well.
It would be highly beneficial to have greater flexibility in managing AI accessibility at a more granular level. Are there any roadmap items or plans to address the following potential solutions?
• Allowing content owners to tag specific files to exclude them from AI processing
• Allowing content owners to tag folders for AI exclusion
• Leveraging classification policies to prevent specific data types from being processed by AIThese capabilities would help ensure compliance while enabling broader use of AI for non-sensitive content.
Thank you.
BlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
15 votesBlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesBlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
5 votesBlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
2 votesBlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
6 votesBlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
7 votesBlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
4 votesBlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
13 votes
Previewer role is under consideration but still not defined on our roadmap. Please share additional feedback and use cases to help us understand the importance of this release.
BlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
35 votes
We currently gather the feedback about this request. Please, notify your manager if you can provide an additional details and use cases to this request. This will help us to build the best version on Hubs!
BlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
111 votes
This is still on our roadmap and is under development.
BlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment BlackRoseEvy
commented
This feature would also be highly useful for the University of Arizona. Different departments manage their own content and have varying versioning needs. Some situations require a limit of 50 versions, while others need up to 500.
The ability to set granular versioning permissions at the file, folder, or group level would address these needs as well as streamline and enhance content management across our organization.
BlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
8 votes
We do not plan to add more permissions / roles at this time.
BlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
-
429 votes
We understand the request, but unfortunately this is not on the near-term roadmap.
BlackRoseEvy
supported this idea
·
The ability to transfer ownership of individual files is a critical need for effectively managing our Box content at the University of Arizona. While we can reassign ownership of folders when users leave the institution, the inability to do the same for standalone files creates unnecessary roadblocks, delays, and risks of data loss.
Currently, there is no straightforward method to transfer file ownership—leaving admins without an efficient or scalable solution. This issue arises every time a user’s status changes to “former” based on EDS data attributes, which can occur as often as 3–5 times per month—or even weekly—depending on the volume of user transitions.
Enabling file ownership transfers, either through the Admin Console’s Content Manager or by allowing changes while logged in as the user, would significantly improve our administrative efficiency, reduce support overhead, and ensure continued access to institutional data.
Please consider adding this feature to the roadmap. Thank you.