+Άρθρο 36 Προηγούμενη διαβούλευση
---+Άρθρο 36 1.
---+Άρθρο 36 2.
---+Άρθρο 36 3.
---+Άρθρο 36 4.
---+Άρθρο 36 5.
|
Άρθρο 36 Προηγούμενη διαβούλευση
1. Επισκόπηση
| Τίτλος |
Κανονισμός |
|
Άρθρο 36 1.
|
Ο υπεύθυνος επεξεργασίας ζητεί τη γνώμη της εποπτικής αρχής πριν από την επεξεργασία, όταν η δυνάμει του άρθρου 35 εκτίμηση αντικτύπου σχετικά με την προστασία των δεδομένων υποδεικνύει ότι η επεξεργασία θα προκαλούσε υψηλό κίνδυνο ελλείψει μέτρων μετριασμού του κινδύνου από τον υπεύθυνο επεξεργασίας.
|
|
Άρθρο 36 2.
|
Όταν η εποπτική αρχή φρονεί ότι η σχεδιαζόμενη επεξεργασία που αναφέρεται στην παράγραφο 1 παραβαίνει τον παρόντα κανονισμό, ιδίως εάν ο υπεύθυνος επεξεργασίας δεν έχει προσδιορίσει ή μετριάσει επαρκώς τον κίνδυνο, η εποπτική αρχή παρέχει γραπτώς συμβουλές στον υπεύθυνο επεξεργασίας εντός προθεσμίας μέχρι οκτώ εβδομάδων από την παραλαβή του αιτήματος διαβούλευσης, και, όπου απαιτείται, στον εκτελούντα την επεξεργασία, ενώ δύναται να χρησιμοποιήσει οποιαδήποτε από τις εξουσίες της που αναφέρονται στο άρθρο 58. Η εν λόγω προθεσμία μπορεί να παραταθεί κατά έξι εβδομάδες, λόγω της πολυπλοκότητας που χαρακτηρίζει τη σχεδιαζόμενη επεξεργασία. Η εποπτική αρχή ενημερώνει τον υπεύθυνο επεξεργασίας και, όπου απαιτείται, τον εκτελούντα την επεξεργασία για την εν λόγω παράταση εντός ενός μηνός από την παραλαβή του αιτήματος διαβούλευσης, καθώς και για τους λόγους της καθυστέρησης. Οι εν λόγω προθεσμίες μπορούν να αναστέλλονται έως ότου η εποπτική αρχή λάβει τις πληροφορίες που ζήτησε για τους σκοπούς της διαβούλευσης.
|
|
Άρθρο 36 3.
|
Κατά τη διαβούλευση με την εποπτική αρχή δυνάμει της παραγράφου 1, ο υπεύθυνος επεξεργασίας παρέχει στην εποπτική αρχή:
α)
κατά περίπτωση, τις αντίστοιχες αρμοδιότητες του υπευθύνου επεξεργασίας, των από κοινού υπευθύνων επεξεργασίας και των εκτελούντων την επεξεργασία που συμμετέχουν στις εργασίες, ιδίως όσον αφορά επεξεργασία εντός ομίλου επιχειρήσεων,
β)
τους σκοπούς και τα μέσα της σχεδιαζόμενης επεξεργασίας,
γ)
τα μέτρα και τις εγγυήσεις για την προστασία των δικαιωμάτων και των ελευθεριών των υποκειμένων των δεδομένων σύμφωνα με τον παρόντα κανονισμό,
δ)
κατά περίπτωση, τα στοιχεία επικοινωνίας του υπευθύνου προστασίας δεδομένων,
ε)
την εκτίμηση αντικτύπου σχετικά με την προστασία των δεδομένων που προβλέπεται στο άρθρο 35, και
στ)
κάθε άλλη πληροφορία που ζητεί η εποπτική αρχή.
|
|
Άρθρο 36 4.
|
Τα κράτη μέλη ζητούν τη γνώμη της εποπτικής αρχής κατά την εκπόνηση προτάσεων νομοθετικών μέτρων προς θέσπιση από τα εθνικά κοινοβούλια ή κανονιστικών μέτρων που βασίζονται σε τέτοια νομοθετικά μέτρα, τα οποία αφορούν την επεξεργασία.
|
|
Άρθρο 36 5.
|
Κατά παρέκκλιση από την παράγραφο 1, το δίκαιο του κράτους μέλους μπορεί να απαιτεί από τους υπευθύνους επεξεργασίας να διαβουλεύονται και να λαμβάνουν προηγούμενη άδεια από την εποπτική αρχή σε σχέση με την επεξεργασία από υπεύθυνο επεξεργασίας για την εκτέλεση καθήκοντος που ασκείται από τον εν λόγω υπεύθυνο προς το δημόσιο συμφέρον, περιλαμβανομένης της επεξεργασίας σε σχέση με την κοινωνική προστασία και τη δημόσια υγεία.
|
,
1.1 Παραπομπές
1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
1.3 Σχετικά πρότυπα
2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
3. Σχετικά πρότυπα
Πρότυπα
| Πηγή |
Απαίτηση |
|
SCF
|
Risk Catalog
Description
Mechanisms exist to develop and keep current a catalog of applicable risks associated with the organization's business operations and technologies in use.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Documented risk catalog
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Documented risk catalog
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Documented risk catalog
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Documented risk catalog
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Documented risk catalog
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
Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
Level 3 Well Defined
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ 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 RSK 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 develop and keep current a catalog of applicable risks associated with the organization's business operations and technologies in use.
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 Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process and/or transmit Personal Data (PD) to identify and remediate reasonably-expected risks.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
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
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).
Level 3 Well Defined
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ 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 RSK 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 conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process and/or transmit Personal Data (PD) to identify and remediate reasonably-expected risks.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Risk Management (RSK) 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 Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process and/or transmit Personal Data (PD) to identify and remediate reasonably-expected risks.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
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
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).
Level 3 Well Defined
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ 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 RSK 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 conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process and/or transmit Personal Data (PD) to identify and remediate reasonably-expected risks.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Risk Management (RSK) 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.
|
|