+45 artikla Siirto tietosuojan riittävyyttä koskevan päätöksen perusteella
---+45 artikla 1.
---+45 artikla 2.
---+45 artikla 3.
---+45 artikla 4.
---+45 artikla 5.
---+45 artikla 6.
---+45 artikla 7.
---+45 artikla 8.
---+45 artikla 9.
|
45 artikla Siirto tietosuojan riittävyyttä koskevan päätöksen perusteella
-
1. Yleiskatsaus
| Otsikko |
Sääntely |
|
45 artikla 1.
|
Henkilötietojen siirto johonkin kolmanteen maahan tai kansainväliselle järjestölle voidaan toteuttaa, jos komissio on päättänyt, että kyseinen kolmas maa tai kolmannen maan alue tai yksi tai useampi tietty sektori tai kyseinen kansainvälinen järjestö varmistaa riittävän tietosuojan tason. Tällaiselle siirrolle ei tarvita erityistä lupaa.
|
|
45 artikla 2.
|
Arvioidessaan tietosuojan riittävyyttä komissio ottaa huomioon etenkin seuraavat seikat:
a)
oikeusvaltioperiaate, ihmisoikeuksien ja perusvapauksien kunnioitus, sekä yleinen että alakohtainen asiaankuuluva lainsäädäntö, joka koskee muun muassa yleistä turvallisuutta, puolustusta, kansallista turvallisuutta ja rikosoikeutta sekä viranomaisten pääsyä henkilötietoihin, sekä tällaisen lainsäädännön täytäntöönpano, tietosuojaa koskevat säännöt, ammatilliset säännöt ja turvatoimet, mukaan lukien asianomaisessa kolmannessa maassa tai kansainvälisessä järjestössä noudatettavat säännöt henkilötietojen siirtämisestä edelleen muuhun kolmanteen maahan tai muulle kansainväliselle järjestölle, oikeuskäytäntö sekä rekisteröidyille kuuluvat vaikuttavat ja täytäntöönpanokelpoiset oikeudet ja tehokkaat hallinnolliset ja oikeudelliset muutoksenhakukeinot niitä rekisteröityjä varten, joiden henkilötietoja siirretään;
b)
se, onko kyseisessä kolmannessa maassa tai siinä kolmannessa maassa, jonka alaisuuteen kansainvälinen järjestö kuuluu, vähintään yksi tehokkaasti toimiva riippumaton valvontaviranomainen, joka vastaa tietosuojasääntöjen noudattamisen varmistamisesta ja täytäntöönpanosta, kuten riittävistä valvontavaltuuksista, oikeuksien käyttämistä koskevan avun ja neuvojen tarjoamisesta rekisteröidyille sekä yhteistyön tekemisestä jäsenvaltioiden valvontaviranomaisten kanssa;
c)
asianosaisen kolmannen maan tai kansainvälisen järjestön tekemät kansainväliset sitoumukset tai muut oikeudellisesti sitovista yleissopimuksista tai säädöksistä taikka monenvälisiin tai alueellisiin järjestelmiin osallistumisesta johtuvat velvoitteet, jotka koskevat erityisesti henkilötietojen suojaamista.
|
|
45 artikla 3.
|
Komissio voi arvioituaan suojan riittävyyden päättää täytäntöönpanosäädöksellä, että kolmas maa tai kolmannen maan alue tai yksi tai useampi kolmannessa maassa sijaitseva tietty sektori tai kansainvälinen järjestö tarjoaa tämän artiklan 2 kohdassa tarkoitetun riittävän tietosuojan tason. Täytäntöönpanosäädöksellä on säädettävä mekanismista, joka koskee vähintään joka neljäs vuosi tehtävää määräaikaistarkastelua, jossa on otettava huomioon kaikki asiaan liittyvä kehitys kyseisessä kolmannessa maassa tai kansainvälisessä järjestössä. Täytäntöönpanosäädöksessä määritellään sen maantieteellinen soveltamisala ja alakohtainen soveltaminen ja tarvittaessa nimetään tämän artiklan 2 kohdan b alakohdassa tarkoitettu valvontaviranomainen tai valvontaviranomaiset. Täytäntöönpanosäädös hyväksytään 93 artiklan 2 kohdassa tarkoitettua tarkastelumenettelyä noudattaen.
|
|
45 artikla 4.
|
Komissio seuraa jatkuvasti kolmansissa maissa ja kansainvälisissä järjestöissä tapahtuvaa kehitystä, joka saattaa vaikuttaa tämän artiklan 3 kohdan mukaisesti hyväksyttyjen päätösten ja direktiivin 95/46/EY 25 artiklan 6 kohdan perusteella hyväksyttyjen päätösten toimivuuteen.
|
|
45 artikla 5.
|
Jos saatavilla olevista tiedoista käy ilmi varsinkin tämän artiklan 3 kohdassa tarkoitetun tarkastelun jälkeen, että kolmas maa tai kolmannen maan alue tai yksi tai useampi tietty sektori tai kansainvälinen järjestö ei tarjoa enää tämän artiklan 2 kohdassa tarkoitettua riittävää tietosuojan tasoa, komissio tekee tästä päätöksen ja tarvittaessa kumoaa tämän artiklan 3 kohdassa tarkoitetun päätöksen, muuttaa sitä tai lykkää sen voimaantuloa täytäntöönpanosäädöksellä ilman takautuvaa vaikutusta. Nämä täytäntöönpanosäädökset hyväksytään 93 artiklan 2 kohdassa tarkoitettua tarkastelumenettelyä noudattaen. Komissio hyväksyy 93 artiklan 3 kohdassa tarkoitettua menettelyä noudattaen välittömästi sovellettavia täytäntöönpanosäädöksiä asianmukaisesti perustelluissa erittäin kiireellisissä tapauksissa.
|
|
45 artikla 6.
|
Komissio aloittaa neuvottelut kolmannen maan tai kansainvälisen järjestön kanssa korjatakseen tilanteen, jonka johdosta 5 kohdan mukainen päätös annettiin.
|
|
45 artikla 7.
|
Edellä tämän artiklan 5 kohdan nojalla annettu päätös ei rajoita 46–49 artiklan mukaisesti tehtäviä henkilötietojen siirtoja kolmanteen maahan tai kyseisen kolmannen maan alueelle tai yhdelle tai useammalle tietylle sektorille tai kansainväliselle järjestölle.
|
|
45 artikla 8.
|
Komissio julkaisee Euroopan unionin virallisessa lehdessä ja verkkosivustollaan luettelon niistä kolmansista maista, kolmannen maan alueista ja tietyistä sektoreista sekä kansainvälisistä järjestöistä, joiden osalta se on päättänyt, että tietosuojan taso on tai ei enää ole riittävä.
|
|
45 artikla 9.
|
Komission direktiivin 95/46/EY 25 artiklan 6 kohdan nojalla antamat päätökset pysyvät voimassa, kunnes niitä muutetaan, ne korvataan tai kumotaan tämän artiklan 3 tai 5 kohdan mukaisesti annetulla komission päätöksellä.
|
,
1.1 Viittaukset
1.2 Tunnistetut vaatimukset
1.3 Liittyvät standardit
2. Tunnistetut vaatimukset
Vaatimukset
| Lähde |
Vaatimus |
3. Liittyvät standardit
Standardit
| Lähde |
Vaatimus |
|
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.
|
|