+Data Subject Rights Management
---+Data Subject Empowerment
---+Enabling Data Subjects To Update Personal Data (PD)
---+Correcting Inaccurate Personal Data (PD)
---+Notice of Correction or Processing Change
---+Appeal Adverse Decision
|
Data Subject Rights Management
Description
Mechanisms exist to facilitate the receipt, validation, fulfillment and documentation of data subject rights requests in accordance with applicable statutory, regulatory and/or 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
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 maintain a process to efficiently and effectively respond to requests, complaints, concerns and/or questions from authenticated data subjects about Personal Data (PD) the organization collects, receives, processes, stores, transmits, shares, updates and/or disposes.
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.
1. Resumen
| Título |
Estándar |
|
Data Subject Empowerment
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to provide authenticated data subjects the ability to:
(1) Access their Personal Data (PD) that is being processed, stored and shared, except where the burden, risk or expense of providing access would be disproportionate to the benefit offered to the data subject through granting access;
(2) Obtain answers on the specifics of how their PD is collected, received, processed, stored, transmitted, shared, updated and/or disposed;
(3) Obtain the source(s) of their PD;
(4) Obtain the categories of their PD being collected, received, processed, stored and shared;
(5) Request correction to their PD due to inaccuracies;
(6) Request erasure of their PD; and
(7) Restrict the further collecting, receiving, processing, storing, transmitting, updated and/or sharing of their PD.
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 provide authenticated data subjects the ability to:
(1) Access their Personal Data (PD) that is being processed, stored and shared, except where the burden, risk or expense of providing access would be disproportionate to the benefit offered to the data subject through granting access;
(2) Obtain answers on the specifics of how their PD is collected, received, processed, stored, transmitted, shared, updated and/or disposed;
(3) Obtain the source(s) of their PD;
(4) Obtain the categories of their PD being collected, received, processed, stored and shared;
(5) Request correction to their PD due to inaccuracies;
(6) Request erasure of their PD; and
(7) Restrict the further collecting, receiving, processing, storing, transmitting, updated and/or sharing of their PD.
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.
|
|
Enabling Data Subjects To Update Personal Data (PD)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to enable data subjects to update their Personal Data (PD).
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Provide users with the ability to correct their personal data
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data subject update process for personal data correction
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Formal data subject update right implementation
∙ Self-service correction capability
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Enterprise self-service privacy portal for data updates
∙ DSAR management for corrections
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Enterprise privacy self-service portal (e.g., OneTrust)
∙ Automated correction workflows
∙ Backend system integration for data updates
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 enable data subjects to update their Personal Data (PD).
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.
|
|
Correcting Inaccurate Personal Data (PD)
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain a process for:
(1) Data subjects to have inaccurate Personal Data (PD) maintained by the organization corrected or amended; and
(2) Disseminating corrections or amendments of PD to other authorized users of the PD.
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 maintain a process for:
(1) Data subjects to have inaccurate Personal Data (PD) maintained by the organization corrected or amended; and
(2) Disseminating corrections or amendments of PD to other authorized users of the PD.
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.
|
|
Notice of Correction or Processing Change
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to notify affected data subjects if their Personal Data (PD) has been corrected, amended or deleted.
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 notify affected data subjects if their Personal Data (PD) has been corrected, amended or deleted.
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.
|
|
Appeal Adverse Decision
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain a process for data subjects to appeal an adverse decision.
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 maintain a process for data subjects to appeal an adverse decision.
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.
|
1.1 Referencias
1.2 Requisitos identificados
1.3 Regulaciones relacionadas
2. Requisitos identificados
Requisitos
| Fuente |
Requisito |
3. Regulaciones relacionadas
Regulaciones
| Fuente |
Regulación |
|
EULAW
|
Artículo 12 Transparencia de la información, comunicación y modalidades de ejercicio de los derechos del interesado
-
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 34 Auskunftsrecht der betroffenen Person
(1) Das Recht auf Auskunft der betroffenen Person gemäß Artikel 15 der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679 besteht ergänzend zu den in § 27 Absatz 2, § 28 Absatz 2 und § 29 Absatz 1 Satz 2 genannten Ausnahmen nicht, wenn - 1.
die betroffene Person nach § 33 Absatz 1 Nummer 1, 2 Buchstabe b oder Absatz 3 nicht zu informieren ist, oder - 2.
die Daten - a)
nur deshalb gespeichert sind, weil sie aufgrund gesetzlicher oder satzungsmäßiger Aufbewahrungsvorschriften nicht gelöscht werden dürfen, oder - b)
ausschließlich Zwecken der Datensicherung oder der Datenschutzkontrolle dienen
und die Auskunftserteilung einen unverhältnismäßigen Aufwand erfordern würde sowie eine Verarbeitung zu anderen Zwecken durch geeignete technische und organisatorische Maßnahmen ausgeschlossen ist.
(2) Die Gründe der Auskunftsverweigerung sind zu dokumentieren. Die Ablehnung der Auskunftserteilung ist gegenüber der betroffenen Person zu begründen, soweit nicht durch die Mitteilung der tatsächlichen und rechtlichen Gründe, auf die die Entscheidung gestützt wird, der mit der Auskunftsverweigerung verfolgte Zweck gefährdet würde. Die zum Zweck der Auskunftserteilung an die betroffene Person und zu deren Vorbereitung gespeicherten Daten dürfen nur für diesen Zweck sowie für Zwecke der Datenschutzkontrolle verarbeitet werden; für andere Zwecke ist die Verarbeitung nach Maßgabe des Artikels 18 der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679 einzuschränken. (3) Wird der betroffenen Person durch eine öffentliche Stelle des Bundes keine Auskunft erteilt, so ist sie auf ihr Verlangen der oder dem Bundesbeauftragten zu erteilen, soweit nicht die jeweils zuständige oberste Bundesbehörde im Einzelfall feststellt, dass dadurch die Sicherheit des Bundes oder eines Landes gefährdet würde. Die Mitteilung der oder des Bundesbeauftragten an die betroffene Person über das Ergebnis der datenschutzrechtlichen Prüfung darf keine Rückschlüsse auf den Erkenntnisstand des Verantwortlichen zulassen, sofern dieser nicht einer weitergehenden Auskunft zustimmt. (4) Das Recht der betroffenen Person auf Auskunft über personenbezogene Daten, die durch eine öffentliche Stelle weder automatisiert verarbeitet noch nicht automatisiert verarbeitet und in einem Dateisystem gespeichert werden, besteht nur, soweit die betroffene Person Angaben macht, die das Auffinden der Daten ermöglichen, und der für die Erteilung der Auskunft erforderliche Aufwand nicht außer Verhältnis zu dem von der betroffenen Person geltend gemachten Informationsinteresse steht.
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 35 Recht auf Löschung
(1) Ist eine Löschung im Fall nicht automatisierter Datenverarbeitung wegen der besonderen Art der Speicherung nicht oder nur mit unverhältnismäßig hohem Aufwand möglich und ist das Interesse der betroffenen Person an der Löschung als gering anzusehen, besteht das Recht der betroffenen Person auf und die Pflicht des Verantwortlichen zur Löschung personenbezogener Daten gemäß Artikel 17 Absatz 1 der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679 ergänzend zu den in Artikel 17 Absatz 3 der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679 genannten Ausnahmen nicht. In diesem Fall tritt an die Stelle einer Löschung die Einschränkung der Verarbeitung gemäß Artikel 18 der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679. Die Sätze 1 und 2 finden keine Anwendung, wenn die personenbezogenen Daten unrechtmäßig verarbeitet wurden. (2) Ergänzend zu Artikel 18 Absatz 1 Buchstabe b und c der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679 gilt Absatz 1 Satz 1 und 2 entsprechend im Fall des Artikels 17 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a und d der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679, solange und soweit der Verantwortliche Grund zu der Annahme hat, dass durch eine Löschung schutzwürdige Interessen der betroffenen Person beeinträchtigt würden. Der Verantwortliche unterrichtet die betroffene Person über die Einschränkung der Verarbeitung, sofern sich die Unterrichtung nicht als unmöglich erweist oder einen unverhältnismäßigen Aufwand erfordern würde. (3) Ergänzend zu Artikel 17 Absatz 3 Buchstabe b der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679 gilt Absatz 1 entsprechend im Fall des Artikels 17 Absatz 1 Buchstabe a der Verordnung (EU) 2016/679, wenn einer Löschung satzungsgemäße oder vertragliche Aufbewahrungsfristen entgegenstehen.
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 57 Auskunftsrecht
(1) Der Verantwortliche hat betroffenen Personen auf Antrag Auskunft darüber zu erteilen, ob er sie betreffende Daten verarbeitet. Betroffene Personen haben darüber hinaus das Recht, Informationen zu erhalten über - 1.
die personenbezogenen Daten, die Gegenstand der Verarbeitung sind, und die Kategorie, zu der sie gehören, - 2.
die verfügbaren Informationen über die Herkunft der Daten, - 3.
die Zwecke der Verarbeitung und deren Rechtsgrundlage, - 4.
die Empfänger oder die Kategorien von Empfängern, gegenüber denen die Daten offengelegt worden sind, insbesondere bei Empfängern in Drittstaaten oder bei internationalen Organisationen, - 5.
die für die Daten geltende Speicherdauer oder, falls dies nicht möglich ist, die Kriterien für die Festlegung dieser Dauer, - 6.
das Bestehen eines Rechts auf Berichtigung, Löschung oder Einschränkung der Verarbeitung der Daten durch den Verantwortlichen, - 7.
das Recht nach § 60, die Bundesbeauftragte oder den Bundesbeauftragten anzurufen, sowie - 8.
Angaben zur Erreichbarkeit der oder des Bundesbeauftragten.
(2) Absatz 1 gilt nicht für personenbezogene Daten, die nur deshalb verarbeitet werden, weil sie aufgrund gesetzlicher Aufbewahrungsvorschriften nicht gelöscht werden dürfen oder die ausschließlich Zwecken der Datensicherung oder der Datenschutzkontrolle dienen, wenn die Auskunftserteilung einen unverhältnismäßigen Aufwand erfordern würde und eine Verarbeitung zu anderen Zwecken durch geeignete technische und organisatorische Maßnahmen ausgeschlossen ist. (3) Von der Auskunftserteilung ist abzusehen, wenn die betroffene Person keine Angaben macht, die das Auffinden der Daten ermöglichen, und deshalb der für die Erteilung der Auskunft erforderliche Aufwand außer Verhältnis zu dem von der betroffenen Person geltend gemachten Informationsinteresse steht. (4) Der Verantwortliche kann unter den Voraussetzungen des § 56 Absatz 2 von der Auskunft nach Absatz 1 Satz 1 absehen oder die Auskunftserteilung nach Absatz 1 Satz 2 teilweise oder vollständig einschränken. (5) Bezieht sich die Auskunftserteilung auf die Übermittlung personenbezogener Daten an Verfassungsschutzbehörden, den Bundesnachrichtendienst, den Militärischen Abschirmdienst und, soweit die Sicherheit des Bundes berührt wird, andere Behörden des Bundesministeriums der Verteidigung, ist sie nur mit Zustimmung dieser Stellen zulässig. (6) Der Verantwortliche hat die betroffene Person über das Absehen von oder die Einschränkung einer Auskunft unverzüglich schriftlich zu unterrichten. Dies gilt nicht, wenn bereits die Erteilung dieser Informationen eine Gefährdung im Sinne des § 56 Absatz 2 mit sich bringen würde. Die Unterrichtung nach Satz 1 ist zu begründen, es sei denn, dass die Mitteilung der Gründe den mit dem Absehen von oder der Einschränkung der Auskunft verfolgten Zweck gefährden würde. (7) Wird die betroffene Person nach Absatz 6 über das Absehen von oder die Einschränkung der Auskunft unterrichtet, kann sie ihr Auskunftsrecht auch über die Bundesbeauftragte oder den Bundesbeauftragten ausüben. Der Verantwortliche hat die betroffene Person über diese Möglichkeit sowie darüber zu unterrichten, dass sie gemäß § 60 die Bundesbeauftragte oder den Bundesbeauftragten anrufen oder gerichtlichen Rechtsschutz suchen kann. Macht die betroffene Person von ihrem Recht nach Satz 1 Gebrauch, ist die Auskunft auf ihr Verlangen der oder dem Bundesbeauftragten zu erteilen, soweit nicht die zuständige oberste Bundesbehörde im Einzelfall feststellt, dass dadurch die Sicherheit des Bundes oder eines Landes gefährdet würde. Die oder der Bundesbeauftragte hat die betroffene Person zumindest darüber zu unterrichten, dass alle erforderlichen Prüfungen erfolgt sind oder eine Überprüfung durch sie stattgefunden hat. Diese Mitteilung kann die Information enthalten, ob datenschutzrechtliche Verstöße festgestellt wurden. Die Mitteilung der oder des Bundesbeauftragten an die betroffene Person darf keine Rückschlüsse auf den Erkenntnisstand des Verantwortlichen zulassen, sofern dieser keiner weitergehenden Auskunft zustimmt. Der Verantwortliche darf die Zustimmung nur insoweit und solange verweigern, wie er nach Absatz 4 von einer Auskunft absehen oder sie einschränken könnte. Die oder der Bundesbeauftragte hat zudem die betroffene Person über ihr Recht auf gerichtlichen Rechtsschutz zu unterrichten. (8) Der Verantwortliche hat die sachlichen oder rechtlichen Gründe für die Entscheidung zu dokumentieren.
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 59 Verfahren für die Ausübung der Rechte der betroffenen Person
(1) Der Verantwortliche hat mit betroffenen Personen unter Verwendung einer klaren und einfachen Sprache in präziser, verständlicher und leicht zugänglicher Form zu kommunizieren. Unbeschadet besonderer Formvorschriften soll er bei der Beantwortung von Anträgen grundsätzlich die für den Antrag gewählte Form verwenden. (2) Bei Anträgen hat der Verantwortliche die betroffene Person unbeschadet des § 57 Absatz 6 und des § 58 Absatz 6 unverzüglich schriftlich darüber in Kenntnis zu setzen, wie verfahren wurde. (3) Die Erteilung von Informationen nach § 55, die Benachrichtigungen nach den §§ 56 und 66 und die Bearbeitung von Anträgen nach den §§ 57 und 58 erfolgen unentgeltlich. Bei offenkundig unbegründeten oder exzessiven Anträgen nach den §§ 57 und 58 kann der Verantwortliche entweder eine angemessene Gebühr auf der Grundlage der Verwaltungskosten verlangen oder sich weigern, aufgrund des Antrags tätig zu werden. In diesem Fall muss der Verantwortliche den offenkundig unbegründeten oder exzessiven Charakter des Antrags belegen können. (4) Hat der Verantwortliche begründete Zweifel an der Identität einer betroffenen Person, die einen Antrag nach den §§ 57 oder 58 gestellt hat, kann er von ihr zusätzliche Informationen anfordern, die zur Bestätigung ihrer Identität erforderlich sind.
|
Incidencias vinculadas
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|