+Άρθρο 45 Διαβιβάσεις βάσει απόφαση επάρκειας
---+Άρθρο 45 1.
---+Άρθρο 45 2.
---+Άρθρο 45 3.
---+Άρθρο 45 4.
---+Άρθρο 45 5.
---+Άρθρο 45 6.
---+Άρθρο 45 7.
---+Άρθρο 45 8.
---+Άρθρο 45 9.
|
Άρθρο 45 Διαβιβάσεις βάσει απόφαση επάρκειας
1. Επισκόπηση
| Τίτλος |
Κανονισμός |
|
Άρθρο 45 1.
|
Η διαβίβαση δεδομένων προσωπικού χαρακτήρα προς τρίτη χώρα ή διεθνή οργανισμό μπορεί να πραγματοποιηθεί εφόσον η Επιτροπή έχει αποφασίσει ότι διασφαλίζεται επαρκές επίπεδο προστασίας από την τρίτη χώρα, από έδαφος ή από έναν ή περισσότερους συγκεκριμένους τομείς στην εν λόγω τρίτη χώρα ή από τον εν λόγω διεθνή οργανισμό. Για μια τέτοια διαβίβαση δεν απαιτείται ειδική άδεια.
|
|
Άρθρο 45 2.
|
Κατά την εκτίμηση της επάρκειας του επιπέδου προστασίας, η Επιτροπή λαμβάνει υπόψη, ιδίως, τα ακόλουθα στοιχεία:
α)
το κράτος δικαίου, τον σεβασμό των ανθρώπινων δικαιωμάτων και των θεμελιωδών ελευθεριών, τη σχετική νομοθεσία, τόσο τη γενική όσο και την τομεακή, μεταξύ άλλων όσον αφορά τη δημόσια ασφάλεια, την άμυνα, την εθνική ασφάλεια και το ποινικό δίκαιο και την πρόσβαση των δημόσιων αρχών σε δεδομένα προσωπικού χαρακτήρα, καθώς και την εφαρμογή αυτής της νομοθεσίας, τους κανόνες περί προστασίας δεδομένων, τους επαγγελματικούς κανόνες και τα μέτρα ασφάλειας, περιλαμβανομένων των κανόνων για τις περαιτέρω διαβιβάσεις δεδομένων προσωπικού χαρακτήρα σε άλλη χώρα ή διεθνή οργανισμό που τηρούνται στη συγκεκριμένη τρίτη χώρα ή τον διεθνή οργανισμό, νομολογία, καθώς και ουσιαστικά και εκτελεστά δικαιώματα υποκειμένων των δεδομένων και αποτελεσματικά διοικητικά και δικαστικά μέσα προσφυγής για τα υποκείμενα των δεδομένων των οποίων τα δεδομένα προσωπικού χαρακτήρα διαβιβάζονται,
β)
την ύπαρξη και την αποτελεσματική λειτουργία μίας ή περισσότερων ανεξάρτητων εποπτικών αρχών οι οποίες βρίσκονται στην εν λόγω τρίτη χώρα ή στις οποίες υπόκειται ένας διεθνής οργανισμός, υπεύθυνων να διασφαλίζουν και να επιβάλουν τη συμμόρφωση προς τους κανόνες προστασίας δεδομένων, συμπεριλαμβανομένων επαρκών εξουσιών επιβολής, να συνδράμουν και να συμβουλεύουν τα υποκείμενα των δεδομένων κατά την άσκηση των δικαιωμάτων τους και να συνεργάζονται με τις εποπτικές αρχές των κρατών μελών, και
γ)
τις διεθνείς δεσμεύσεις που έχει αναλάβει η εν λόγω τρίτη χώρα ή ο διεθνής οργανισμός ή άλλες υποχρεώσεις οι οποίες απορρέουν από νομικά δεσμευτικές συμβάσεις ή πράξεις και από τη συμμετοχή τους σε πολυμερή ή περιφερειακά συστήματα, ιδίως όσον αφορά την προστασία δεδομένων προσωπικού χαρακτήρα.
|
|
Άρθρο 45 3.
|
Η Επιτροπή, αφού εκτιμήσει την επάρκεια του επιπέδου προστασίας, μπορεί να αποφασίσει, μέσω εκτελεστικής πράξης, ότι εξασφαλίζεται επαρκές επίπεδο προστασίας κατά την έννοια της παραγράφου 2 του παρόντος άρθρου από τρίτη χώρα ή έδαφος ή έναν ή περισσότερους συγκεκριμένους τομείς σε τρίτη χώρα ή από διεθνή οργανισμό. Η εκτελεστική πράξη προβλέπει μηχανισμό περιοδικής επανεξέτασης, τουλάχιστον ανά τετραετία, στην οποία συνεκτιμώνται όλες οι σχετικές εξελίξεις στην τρίτη χώρα ή τον διεθνή οργανισμό. Η εκτελεστική πράξη προσδιορίζει την εδαφική και τομεακή εφαρμογή της, καθώς και, όπου συντρέχει περίπτωση, την εποπτική αρχή ή τις αρχές που αναφέρονται στο στοιχείο β) της παραγράφου 2 του παρόντος άρθρου. Η εκτελεστική πράξη εκδίδεται σύμφωνα με τη διαδικασία εξέτασης που προβλέπεται στο άρθρο 93 παράγραφος 2.
|
|
Άρθρο 45 4.
|
Η Επιτροπή παρακολουθεί σε συνεχή βάση εξελίξεις σε τρίτες χώρες και διεθνείς οργανισμούς που θα μπορούσαν να επηρεάσουν τη λειτουργία αποφάσεων που εκδίδονται σύμφωνα με την παράγραφο 3 του παρόντος άρθρου και αποφάσεων που εκδίδονται βάσει του άρθρου 25 παράγραφος 6 της οδηγίας 95/46/ΕΚ.
|
|
Άρθρο 45 5.
|
Η Επιτροπή, όταν οι υπάρχουσες πληροφορίες αποκαλύπτουν, κυρίως κατόπιν της επανεξέτασης που αναφέρεται στην παράγραφο 3 του παρόντος άρθρου, ότι μια τρίτη χώρα, έδαφος ή συγκεκριμένος τομέας σε τρίτη χώρα ή διεθνής οργανισμός δεν διασφαλίζει πλέον επαρκές επίπεδο προστασίας κατά την έννοια της παραγράφου 2 του παρόντος άρθρου, καταργεί, τροποποιεί ή αναστέλλει, στον βαθμό που είναι αναγκαίο, την απόφαση της παραγράφου 3 του παρόντος άρθρου μέσω εκτελεστικών πράξεων χωρίς αναδρομική ισχύ. Οι εν λόγω εκτελεστικές πράξεις εκδίδονται σύμφωνα με τη διαδικασία εξέτασης που αναφέρεται στο άρθρο 93 παράγραφος 2. Για δεόντως αιτιολογημένους επιτακτικούς λόγους επείγουσας ανάγκης, η Επιτροπή εκδίδει εκτελεστικές πράξεις άμεσης εφαρμογής σύμφωνα με τη διαδικασία στην οποία παραπέμπει το άρθρο 93 παράγραφος 3.
|
|
Άρθρο 45 6.
|
Η Επιτροπή ξεκινά διαβουλεύσεις με την τρίτη χώρα ή τον διεθνή οργανισμό με σκοπό την επανόρθωση της κατάστασης απόρροια της οποίας είναι η απόφαση που έχει ληφθεί δυνάμει της παραγράφου 5.
|
|
Άρθρο 45 7.
|
Η απόφαση σύμφωνα με την παράγραφο 5 του παρόντος άρθρου δεν θίγει τις διαβιβάσεις δεδομένων προσωπικού χαρακτήρα στην τρίτη χώρα, στο έδαφος ή σε έναν ή περισσότερους συγκεκριμένους τομείς στην εν λόγω τρίτη χώρα ή στον διεθνή οργανισμό σύμφωνα με τα άρθρα 46 έως 49.
|
|
Άρθρο 45 8.
|
Η Επιτροπή δημοσιεύει στην Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και στον ιστότοπό της κατάλογο των τρίτων χωρών, εδαφών και συγκεκριμένων τομέων σε τρίτη χώρα, καθώς και των διεθνών οργανισμών, για τα οποία έχει αποφασίσει ότι διασφαλίζεται ή δεν διασφαλίζεται πλέον επαρκές επίπεδο προστασίας.
|
|
Άρθρο 45 9.
|
Οι αποφάσεις που εκδίδονται από την Επιτροπή βάσει του άρθρου 25 παράγραφος 6 της οδηγίας 95/46/ΕΚ παραμένουν σε ισχύ έως ότου τροποποιηθούν, αντικατασταθούν ή καταργηθούν με απόφαση της Επιτροπής εκδοθείσα σύμφωνα με την παράγραφο 3 ή 5 του παρόντος άρθρου.
|
,
1.1 Παραπομπές
1.2 Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
1.3 Σχετικά πρότυπα
2. Εντοπισμένες απαιτήσεις
3. Σχετικά πρότυπα
Πρότυπα
| Πηγή |
Απαίτηση |
|
SCF
|
Ad-Hoc Transfers
Description
Mechanisms exist to secure ad-hoc exchanges of large digital files with internal or external parties.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data classification program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Content / DNS filtering
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data classification program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Content / DNS filtering
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data classification program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Content / DNS filtering
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data classification program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Content / DNS filtering∙ Data governance program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data classification program
∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC)
∙ Content / DNS filtering∙ Data governance program
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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with DCH domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Data management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ Restrictions for ad-hoc data transfers are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards).
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to document where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and/or processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 DCH 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 secure ad-hoc exchanges of large digital files with internal or external parties.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
|
SCF
|
External Transfer of Sensitive / Regulated Data
Description
Mechanisms exist to restrict and govern the transfer of sensitive and/or regulated data:
(1) Cross-border; and/or
(2) Interorganizational.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Model contracts
∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Model contracts
∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Model contracts
∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Model contracts
∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Model contracts
∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain DCH domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ 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 DCH 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 restrict and govern the transfer of sensitive and/or regulated data to third-countries or international organizations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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.
▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes.
▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
|
SCF
|
Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data privacy program
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data privacy program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data privacy program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data privacy program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data privacy program
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 implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.
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
|
Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data privacy program
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data privacy program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data privacy program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data privacy program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data privacy program
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 implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.
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.
|
|