+Artikel 21 Ret til indsigelse
---+Artikel 21 1.
---+Artikel 21 2.
---+Artikel 21 3.
---+Artikel 21 4.
---+Artikel 21 5.
---+Artikel 21 6.
|
Artikel 21 Ret til indsigelse
-
1. Oversigt
| Titel |
Regulering |
|
Artikel 21 1.
|
Den registrerede har til enhver tid ret til af grunde, der vedrører den pågældendes særlige situation, at gøre indsigelse mod behandling af sine personoplysninger baseret på artikel 6, stk. 1, litra e) eller f), herunder profilering baseret på disse bestemmelser. Den dataansvarlige må ikke længere behandle personoplysningerne, medmindre den dataansvarlige påviser vægtige legitime grunde til behandlingen, der går forud for registreredes interesser, rettigheder og frihedsrettigheder, eller behandlingen er nødvendig for, at retskrav kan fastlægges, gøres gældende eller forsvares.
|
|
Artikel 21 2.
|
Hvis personoplysninger behandles med henblik på direkte markedsføring, har den registrerede til enhver tid ret til at gøre indsigelse mod behandling af sine personoplysninger til sådan markedsføring, herunder at gøre indsigelse mod profilering, i det omfang den vedrører direkte markedsføring.
|
|
Artikel 21 3.
|
Hvis den registrerede gør indsigelse mod behandling med henblik på direkte markedsføring, må personoplysningerne ikke længere behandles til dette formål.
|
|
Artikel 21 4.
|
Senest på tidspunktet for den første kommunikation med den registrerede skal denne udtrykkeligt gøres opmærksom på den ret, der er omhandlet i stk. 1 og 2, og oplysninger herom skal meddeles klart og adskilt fra alle andre oplysninger.
|
|
Artikel 21 5.
|
I forbindelse med anvendelse af informationssamfundstjenester og uanset direktiv 2002/58/EF kan den registrerede udøve sin ret til indsigelse gennem automatiske midler ved brug af tekniske specifikationer.
|
|
Artikel 21 6.
|
Hvis personoplysninger behandles med henblik på videnskabelige eller historiske forskningsformål eller statistiske formål i henhold til artikel 89, stk. 1, har den registrerede ret til af grunde, der vedrører den pågældendes særlige situation, at gøre indsigelse mod behandling af personoplysninger vedrørende den pågældende, medmindre behandlingen er nødvendig for at udføre en opgave i samfundets interesse.
|
,
1.1 Referencer
1.2 Identificerede krav
1.3 Relaterede standarder
2. Identificerede krav
3. Relaterede standarder
Standarder
| Kilde |
Krav |
|
SCF
|
Data Privacy Accountability Structure
Description
Mechanisms exist to establish a data privacy accountability structure that:
(1) Identifies data privacy roles required by applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations;
(2) Assigns each role to one or more individuals with the requisite qualifications, authority, independence and resources; and
(3) Is reviewed and updated as data privacy obligations, operating jurisdictions and/or business practices change.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Designated privacy point of contact (may be the owner or office manager)
∙ Documented privacy responsibilities
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Assigned privacy lead with documented responsibilities
∙ External DPO or privacy counsel where legally required
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data privacy program with assigned Chief Privacy Officer (CPO) or equivalent
∙ Data Protection Officer (DPO) where required
∙ Privacy roles documented in a RACI
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Formal privacy office with CPO and DPO(s) by jurisdiction
∙ Privacy management platform (e.g., OneTrust, TrustArc)
∙ Annual review of privacy roles against obligations
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise privacy governance structure with CPO, regional DPOs and privacy champions
∙ Privacy management platform (e.g., OneTrust, TrustArc, Securiti)
∙ Board-level privacy reporting
∙ Annual accountability structure review
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
Privacy (PRI) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PRI domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Data privacy-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ No formal data privacy team exists. Privacy roles are assigned to existing IT / cybersecurity.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Privacy (PRI) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with PRI domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRI domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRI domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data privacy management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data privacy management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
Level 3 Well Defined
Privacy (PRI) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with PRI domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software and customer management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRI domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Data Subject Consent
Description
Mechanisms exist to enable data subjects to authorize the collection, receipt, processing, storage, transmission, sharing, updating and/or disposal of their Personal Data (PD), where the data subject is provided, prior to collection, with:
(1) Plain language explaining the potential data privacy risks of the authorization;
(2) A means to decline the authorization; and
(3) Necessary choice and consent-related criteria required by applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Privacy (PRI) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with PRI domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRI domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRI domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data privacy management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data privacy management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The data privacy program is developed to work with IT and cybersecurity staff to ensure that applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual data privacy obligations for Personal Data (PD) are properly identified and implemented.
Level 3 Well Defined
Privacy (PRI) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with PRI domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software and customer management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRI domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to Mechanisms exist to enable data subjects to authorize the collection, receipt, processing, storage, transmission, sharing, updating and/or disposal of their Personal Data (PD), where the data subject is provided, prior to collection, with:
(1) Plain language explaining the potential data privacy risks of the authorization;
(2) A means to decline the authorization; and
(3) Necessary choice and consent-related criteria required by applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Privacy (PRI) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Data Subject Consent
Description
Mechanisms exist to enable data subjects to authorize the collection, receipt, processing, storage, transmission, sharing, updating and/or disposal of their Personal Data (PD), where the data subject is provided, prior to collection, with:
(1) Plain language explaining the potential data privacy risks of the authorization;
(2) A means to decline the authorization; and
(3) Necessary choice and consent-related criteria required by applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data classification program
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Product / project management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process.
▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Privacy (PRI) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with PRI domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRI domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRI domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data privacy management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data privacy management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ The data privacy program is developed to work with IT and cybersecurity staff to ensure that applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual data privacy obligations for Personal Data (PD) are properly identified and implemented.
Level 3 Well Defined
Privacy (PRI) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Policies and standards associated with PRI domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software and customer management solution).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRI domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls).
▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to Mechanisms exist to enable data subjects to authorize the collection, receipt, processing, storage, transmission, sharing, updating and/or disposal of their Personal Data (PD), where the data subject is provided, prior to collection, with:
(1) Plain language explaining the potential data privacy risks of the authorization;
(2) A means to decline the authorization; and
(3) Necessary choice and consent-related criteria required by applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual obligations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Privacy (PRI) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:
▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational.
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|