No, this doesn’t solve the problem because the viewer can just view it but can’t edit it or add comments.

We need to create views that a staff member or client can work in where they ONLY see their own tasks.

I don’t want one staff member to be start questioning why someone else got the assignment and they didn’t.

And a task like “Prepare to terminate Bob next week” can be seen by everyone instead of just the HR person you wanted to get things ready.

Haha, seems like an oddly specific example

Having experience managing permissions in other systems, I agree with keeping it simple.

My use case: restrict the ability to approve an item (e.g., update the “approved” column on an expense request or vacation request) to a group (managers). Another: limit the ability of a group of users (say employees) to see a specific table (say salary data) while still allowing access to other related info (say, employee contact info).

A simple way to accomplish both of these is to put view/edit permissions on tabs. I could combine that with linked records and lookups to accomplish everything I need, with much less complexity than view/column permissions. Tabs could inherit permissions from the base, or have their own.

Adding my voice to requests for table-level permissions:

We have two categories of data that we use - call them “programming” and “operational”.

Programming data needs to be edited by lots of people and inaccuracy is not too bad of a problem. Operational data only needs to be edited by two people who know what they’re doing. Inaccuracy here is a business-breaking problem, so we can’t currently keep it under the same permissions as the Programming data.

Unfortunately the operational data contains some core entities that are relevant to almost everything in Programming world. This means that we need to maintain a second version of the operational data in the programming base - with all the attendant problems that brings.

If we were able to use airtable as the source of truth for our operational data, we would potentially never consider moving to a “Real” database. However this bifurcation means that we can only ever see airtable as a flexible interim solution until we can move to a classic relational database.

'+ 1 for this feature.

Role management (permission management) on tab/view level would help a lot!

You could use airtable for that :winking_face: #airtableception

+1 for this feature. Need more granularity of permissions at the table and/or VIEW level.

Also would be a plus if there was an option to copy existing permissions when new bases are created

+1. I believe that granular permissions (hiding tables or columns for certain editors) allows for much more serious enterprise uses.

I Agree! setting permission to certain fields or tables would be a whole new level for Airtable. Hope developers find a way to introduce it.

+1 on this feature request. I work with multiple clients who are submitting work orders and managing work in progress in an airtable base - but I also want to manage a different set of contractors who are doing the work on those work orders, as well as track expenses and revenue for those same work orders. Airtable views and columns make creating personalized views for each stage of the work possible, but the entire base data is available to all. As such, contractors know what other contractors get paid, as would the client, etc. etc.

We absolutely need to have some user permissions around hiding fields for certain collaborators and then it would be a perfect solution. Hmmmm. . . please?

Could possibly leverage a form for intake but even in that situation the client, if listed as a collaborator, would be able to expand to see the hidden fields (I think).

Linking between bases or sectioning collaborator permissions by Table could work too but I don’t think those are possible either. . .are they?

Thanks!

We need to a way for people to comment on certain tables but not view the entire base’s tables. Or a linking mechanism between different base tables where user access can be allowed on base one and denied on another.

I can’t believe it’s not possible to have different permission levels. I’ve spent many many hours working on a database for our institution and took for granted that I’d be able to keep some confidential information from some users. I use many many cloud applications and ALL of them have ways of limiting access and information.

So almost a year ago the airtable CEO said it was coming soon. Is it?

What do you want to hide? There is some methods, mainly with Views.

familiar with so called “personal” views etc. this is not a business level solution. Is there a business that doesn’t have confidential data that perhaps all collaborators should not have access to?

You want to hide Records, Fields, Views, Tables?

The lack of security is the one aspect which is making our company question whether Airtable is right for us.

User stories:

As the creator of a base, I want to share this base as read-only with other selected people.

As the owner of the data in the base I want to avoid anyone from sharing the read-only link outside a certain domain.

• 1 to this post. This is 1 reason why our company doesn’t want to purchase airtable licenses… needs better security to hide certain tables/views from users.

Same here. A very needed functionality.

I want to be able to invite Collaborators to a Base, and have it to where they are only able to view/edit records they are assigned to.

What are the chances of this ever happening?

Any response from Airtable on this? Per-table security is a must!

Couldn’t agree more! As we look to leverage Airtable as an enterprise solution, the ability to set user permissions is huge! In our organization for example, we need the ability to provision someone into a workspace for a specific project task, without giving them access to everything in the workspace. Privacy is key as we have certain more ‘confidential’ projects we are working on at any given time. Would love an update on timeline for bringing this to the platform. Thanks Airtable!

Same. I have a view that I can share with my collaborator right now, but they can’t edit anything unless I add them as a user to the whole base.

Is there a way to restrict the editing to just one table, without giving them access to all tables in the base, at least?

Here is a pretty simple example that is NOT complex. The majority of Airtable’s users CAN comprehend a simple diagram. If they couldn’t comprehend the image below, Airtable wouldn’t even exist in the first place.

The amount of $$ in development of this feature will be paid back to Airtable in the matter of days with the amount of Enterprise customers switching over.

Here is an example of what is possible. Their system is very much set up like Airtables. I just don’t see why this is that big of a “technical hurdle”

Agreed. I cannot convince my directors to sign off on an Enterprise subscription until there is user or user-group level security.

It seems that a unix-like user-group system would work wonderfully. Attaching users to various groups, and groups to various views.

Most users do not need to create views.

Something along the lines of this would be amazing.

Collaborator options at View level/Table Level.

One more request for robust user permissions. My use case is that a staff person processes our payroll and invoicing in an Airtable base for which they must be able to add/update/move/delete data. But the payroll and invoicing are subsequently used to generate information for a gross/net profit table in the same base that only management should be able to see. I should have read the AirTable documentation more carefully before devoting months to getting this in place because now, without the user permissions, it is a dead brick for us.

I see this thread going back to 2016, almost three years. That’s disappointing. One can buy the “we are proceeding cautiously to make sure we get it right” response for only so long, especially on basic access/security fundamentals.