+BDSG § 81 Sonstige Datenübermittlung an Empfänger in Drittstaaten
|
BDSG § 81 Sonstige Datenübermittlung an Empfänger in Drittstaaten
(1) Verantwortliche können bei Vorliegen der übrigen für die Datenübermittlung in Drittstaaten geltenden Voraussetzungen im besonderen Einzelfall personenbezogene Daten unmittelbar an nicht in § 78 Absatz 1 Nummer 1 genannte Stellen in Drittstaaten übermitteln, wenn die Übermittlung für die Erfüllung ihrer Aufgaben unbedingt erforderlich ist und - 1.
im konkreten Fall keine Grundrechte der betroffenen Person das öffentliche Interesse an einer Übermittlung überwiegen, - 2.
die Übermittlung an die in § 78 Absatz 1 Nummer 1 genannten Stellen wirkungslos oder ungeeignet wäre, insbesondere weil sie nicht rechtzeitig durchgeführt werden kann, und - 3.
der Verantwortliche dem Empfänger die Zwecke der Verarbeitung mitteilt und ihn darauf hinweist, dass die übermittelten Daten nur in dem Umfang verarbeitet werden dürfen, in dem ihre Verarbeitung für diese Zwecke erforderlich ist.
(2) Im Fall des Absatzes 1 hat der Verantwortliche die in § 78 Absatz 1 Nummer 1 genannten Stellen unverzüglich über die Übermittlung zu unterrichten, sofern dies nicht wirkungslos oder ungeeignet ist. (3) Für Übermittlungen nach Absatz 1 gilt § 79 Absatz 2 und 3 entsprechend. (4) Bei Übermittlungen nach Absatz 1 hat der Verantwortliche den Empfänger zu verpflichten, die übermittelten personenbezogenen Daten ohne seine Zustimmung nur für den Zweck zu verarbeiten, für den sie übermittelt worden sind. (5) Abkommen im Bereich der justiziellen Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen und der polizeilichen Zusammenarbeit bleiben unberührt.
1. Oversigt
1.1 Referencer
1.2 Identificerede krav
1.3 Relaterede standarder
2. Identificerede krav
3. Relaterede standarder
Standarder
| Kilde |
Krav |
|
SCF
|
Information Sharing With Third Parties
Description
Mechanisms exist to disclose Personal Data (PD) to third-parties only for the purposes identified in the data privacy notice and with the implicit or explicit consent of the data subject.
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
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control:
▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required.
▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization.
▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
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 disclose Personal Data (PD) to third-parties only for the purposes identified in the data privacy notice and with the implicit or explicit consent of the data subject.
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.
|
|