+Artículo 45 Transferencias basadas en una decisión de adecuación
---+Artículo 45 1.
---+Artículo 45 2.
---+Artículo 45 3.
---+Artículo 45 4.
---+Artículo 45 5.
---+Artículo 45 6.
---+Artículo 45 7.
---+Artículo 45 8.
---+Artículo 45 9.
|
Artículo 45 Transferencias basadas en una decisión de adecuación
-
1. Resumen
| Título |
Regulación |
|
Artículo 45 1.
|
Podrá realizarse una transferencia de datos personales a un tercer país u organización internacional cuando la Comisión haya decidido que el tercer país, un territorio o uno o varios sectores específicos de ese tercer país, o la organización internacional de que se trate garantizan un nivel de protección adecuado. Dicha transferencia no requerirá ninguna autorización específica.
|
|
Artículo 45 2.
|
Al evaluar la adecuación del nivel de protección, la Comisión tendrá en cuenta, en particular, los siguientes elementos:
a)
el Estado de Derecho, el respeto de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, la legislación pertinente, tanto general como sectorial, incluida la relativa a la seguridad pública, la defensa, la seguridad nacional y la legislación penal, y el acceso de las autoridades públicas a los datos personales, así como la aplicación de dicha legislación, las normas de protección de datos, las normas profesionales y las medidas de seguridad, incluidas las normas sobre transferencias ulteriores de datos personales a otro tercer país u organización internacional observadas en ese país u organización internacional, la jurisprudencia, así como el reconocimiento a los interesados cuyos datos personales estén siendo transferidos de derechos efectivos y exigibles y de recursos administrativos y acciones judiciales que sean efectivos;
b)
la existencia y el funcionamiento efectivo de una o varias autoridades de control independientes en el tercer país o a las cuales esté sujeta una organización internacional, con la responsabilidad de garantizar y hacer cumplir las normas en materia de protección de datos, incluidos poderes de ejecución adecuados, de asistir y asesorar a los interesados en el ejercicio de sus derechos, y de cooperar con las autoridades de control de la Unión y de los Estados miembros, y
c)
los compromisos internacionales asumidos por el tercer país u organización internacional de que se trate, u otras obligaciones derivadas de acuerdos o instrumentos jurídicamente vinculantes, así como de su participación en sistemas multilaterales o regionales, en particular en relación con la protección de los datos personales.
|
|
Artículo 45 3.
|
La Comisión, tras haber evaluado la adecuación del nivel de protección, podrá decidir, mediante un acto de ejecución, que un tercer país, un territorio o uno o varios sectores específicos de un tercer país, o una organización internacional garantizan un nivel de protección adecuado a tenor de lo dispuesto en el apartado 2 del presente artículo. El acto de ejecución establecerá un mecanismo de revisión periódica, al menos cada cuatro años, que tenga en cuenta todos los acontecimientos relevantes en el tercer país o en la organización internacional. El acto de ejecución especificará su ámbito de aplicación territorial y sectorial, y, en su caso, determinará la autoridad o autoridades de control a que se refiere el apartado 2, letra b), del presente artículo. El acto de ejecución se adoptará con arreglo al procedimiento de examen a que se refiere el artículo 93, apartado 2.
|
|
Artículo 45 4.
|
La Comisión supervisará de manera continuada los acontecimientos en países terceros y organizaciones internacionales que puedan afectar a la efectiva aplicación de las decisiones adoptadas con arreglo al apartado 3 del presente artículo y de las decisiones adoptadas sobre la base del artículo 25, apartado 6, de la Directiva 95/46/CE.
|
|
Artículo 45 5.
|
Cuando la información disponible, en particular tras la revisión a que se refiere el apartado 3 del presente artículo, muestre que un tercer país, un territorio o un sector específico de ese tercer país, o una organización internacional ya no garantiza un nivel de protección adecuado a tenor del apartado 2 del presente artículo, la Comisión, mediante actos de ejecución, derogará, modificará o suspenderá, en la medida necesaria y sin efecto retroactivo, la decisión a que se refiere el apartado 3 del presente artículo. Dichos actos de ejecución se adoptarán de acuerdo con el procedimiento de examen a que se refiere el artículo 93, apartado 2. Por razones imperiosas de urgencia debidamente justificadas, la Comisión adoptará actos de ejecución inmediatamente aplicables de conformidad con el procedimiento a que se refiere el artículo 93, apartado 3.
|
|
Artículo 45 6.
|
La Comisión entablará consultas con el tercer país u organización internacional con vistas a poner remedio a la situación que dé lugar a la decisión adoptada de conformidad con el apartado 5.
|
|
Artículo 45 7.
|
Toda decisión de conformidad con el apartado 5 del presente artículo se entenderá sin perjuicio de las transferencias de datos personales al tercer país, a un territorio o uno o varios sectores específicos de ese tercer país, o a la organización internacional de que se trate en virtud de los artículos 46 a 49.
|
|
Artículo 45 8.
|
La Comisión publicará en el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea y en su página web una lista de terceros países, territorios y sectores específicos en un tercer país, y organizaciones internacionales respecto de los cuales haya decidido que se garantiza, o ya no, un nivel de protección adecuado.
|
|
Artículo 45 9.
|
Las decisiones adoptadas por la Comisión en virtud del artículo 25, apartado 6, de la Directiva 95/46/CE permanecerán en vigor hasta que sean modificadas, sustituidas o derogadas por una decisión de la Comisión adoptada de conformidad con los apartados 3 o 5 del presente artículo.
|
,
1.1 Referencias
1.2 Requisitos identificados
1.3 Estándares relacionados
2. Requisitos identificados
Requisitos
| Fuente |
Requisito |
3. Estándares relacionados
Estándares
| Fuente |
Requisito |
|
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.
|
|