+Article 28 Sous-traitant
---+Article 28 1.
---+Article 28 2.
---+Article 28 3.
---+Article 28 4.
---+Article 28 5.
---+Article 28 6.
---+Article 28 7.
---+Article 28 8.
---+Article 28 9.
---+Article 28 10.
|
Article 28 Sous-traitant
-
1. Vue d’ensemble
| Intitulé |
Réglementation |
|
Article 28 1.
|
Lorsqu'un traitement doit être effectué pour le compte d'un responsable du traitement, celui-ci fait uniquement appel à des sous-traitants qui présentent des garanties suffisantes quant à la mise en œuvre de mesures techniques et organisationnelles appropriées de manière à ce que le traitement réponde aux exigences du présent règlement et garantisse la protection des droits de la personne concernée.
|
|
Article 28 2.
|
Le sous-traitant ne recrute pas un autre sous-traitant sans l'autorisation écrite préalable, spécifique ou générale, du responsable du traitement. Dans le cas d'une autorisation écrite générale, le sous-traitant informe le responsable du traitement de tout changement prévu concernant l'ajout ou le remplacement d'autres sous-traitants, donnant ainsi au responsable du traitement la possibilité d'émettre des objections à l'encontre de ces changements.
|
|
Article 28 3.
|
Le traitement par un sous-traitant est régi par un contrat ou un autre acte juridique au titre du droit de l'Union ou du droit d'un État membre, qui lie le sous-traitant à l'égard du responsable du traitement, définit l'objet et la durée du traitement, la nature et la finalité du traitement, le type de données à caractère personnel et les catégories de personnes concernées, et les obligations et les droits du responsable du traitement. Ce contrat ou cet autre acte juridique prévoit, notamment, que le sous-traitant:
a)
ne traite les données à caractère personnel que sur instruction documentée du responsable du traitement, y compris en ce qui concerne les transferts de données à caractère personnel vers un pays tiers ou à une organisation internationale, à moins qu'il ne soit tenu d'y procéder en vertu du droit de l'Union ou du droit de l'État membre auquel le sous-traitant est soumis; dans ce cas, le sous-traitant informe le responsable du traitement de cette obligation juridique avant le traitement, sauf si le droit concerné interdit une telle information pour des motifs importants d'intérêt public;
b)
veille à ce que les personnes autorisées à traiter les données à caractère personnel s'engagent à respecter la confidentialité ou soient soumises à une obligation légale appropriée de confidentialité;
c)
prend toutes les mesures requises en vertu de l'article 32;
d)
respecte les conditions visées aux paragraphes 2 et 4 pour recruter un autre sous-traitant;
e)
tient compte de la nature du traitement, aide le responsable du traitement, par des mesures techniques et organisationnelles appropriées, dans toute la mesure du possible, à s'acquitter de son obligation de donner suite aux demandes dont les personnes concernées le saisissent en vue d'exercer leurs droits prévus au chapitre III;
f)
aide le responsable du traitement à garantir le respect des obligations prévues aux articles 32 à 36, compte tenu de la nature du traitement et des informations à la disposition du sous-traitant;
g)
selon le choix du responsable du traitement, supprime toutes les données à caractère personnel ou les renvoie au responsable du traitement au terme de la prestation de services relatifs au traitement, et détruit les copies existantes, à moins que le droit de l'Union ou le droit de l'État membre n'exige la conservation des données à caractère personnel; et
h)
met à la disposition du responsable du traitement toutes les informations nécessaires pour démontrer le respect des obligations prévues au présent article et pour permettre la réalisation d'audits, y compris des inspections, par le responsable du traitement ou un autre auditeur qu'il a mandaté, et contribuer à ces audits.
En ce qui concerne le point h) du premier alinéa, le sous-traitant informe immédiatement le responsable du traitement si, selon lui, une instruction constitue une violation du présent règlement ou d'autres dispositions du droit de l'Union ou du droit des États membres relatives à la protection des données.
|
|
Article 28 4.
|
Lorsqu'un sous-traitant recrute un autre sous-traitant pour mener des activités de traitement spécifiques pour le compte du responsable du traitement, les mêmes obligations en matière de protection de données que celles fixées dans le contrat ou un autre acte juridique entre le responsable du traitement et le sous-traitant conformément au paragraphe 3, sont imposées à cet autre sous-traitant par contrat ou au moyen d'un autre acte juridique au titre du droit de l'Union ou du droit d'un État membre, en particulier pour ce qui est de présenter des garanties suffisantes quant à la mise en œuvre de mesures techniques et organisationnelles appropriées de manière à ce que le traitement réponde aux exigences du présent règlement. Lorsque cet autre sous-traitant ne remplit pas ses obligations en matière de protection des données, le sous-traitant initial demeure pleinement responsable devant le responsable du traitement de l'exécution par l'autre sous-traitant de ses obligations.
|
|
Article 28 5.
|
L'application, par un sous-traitant, d'un code de conduite approuvé comme le prévoit l'article 40 ou d'un mécanisme de certification approuvé comme le prévoit l'article 42 peut servir d'élément pour démontrer l'existence des garanties suffisantes conformément aux paragraphes 1 et 4 du présent article.
|
|
Article 28 6.
|
Sans préjudice d'un contrat particulier entre le responsable du traitement et le sous-traitant, le contrat ou l'autre acte juridique visé aux paragraphes 3 et 4 du présent article peut être fondé, en tout ou en partie, sur les clauses contractuelles types visées aux paragraphes 7 et 8 du présent article, y compris lorsqu'elles font partie d'une certification délivrée au responsable du traitement ou au sous-traitant en vertu des articles 42 et 43.
|
|
Article 28 7.
|
La Commission peut établir des clauses contractuelles types pour les questions visées aux paragraphes 3 et 4 du présent article et conformément à la procédure d'examen visée à l'article 93, paragraphe 2.
|
|
Article 28 8.
|
Une autorité de contrôle peut adopter des clauses contractuelles types pour les questions visées aux paragraphes 3 et 4 du présent article et conformément au mécanisme de contrôle de la cohérence visé à l'article 63.
|
|
Article 28 9.
|
Le contrat ou l'autre acte juridique visé aux paragraphes 3 et 4 se présente sous une forme écrite, y compris en format électronique.
|
|
Article 28 10.
|
Sans préjudice des articles 82, 83 et 84, si, en violation du présent règlement, un sous-traitant détermine les finalités et les moyens du traitement, il est considéré comme un responsable du traitement pour ce qui concerne ce traitement.
|
,
1.1 Références
1.2 Exigences identifiées
1.3 Normes associées
2. Exigences identifiées
Exigences
| Source |
Exigence |
3. Normes associées
Normes
| Source |
Exigence |
|
SCF
|
Personal Data (PD) Inventory Automation Support
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to determine if Personal Data (PD) is maintained in electronic form.
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 automatically determine if Personal Data (PD) is maintained in electronic form.
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.
|
|
SCF
|
Data Privacy Requirements for Contractors & Service Providers
Description
Mechanisms exist to include data privacy requirements in contracts and other acquisition-related documents that establish data privacy roles and responsibilities for contractors and service providers.
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 include data privacy requirements in contracts and other acquisition-related documents that establish data privacy roles and responsibilities for contractors and service providers.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:
▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control.
▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
|
SCF
|
Data Privacy Requirements for Contractors & Service Providers
Description
Mechanisms exist to include data privacy requirements in contracts and other acquisition-related documents that establish data privacy roles and responsibilities for contractors and service providers.
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 include data privacy requirements in contracts and other acquisition-related documents that establish data privacy roles and responsibilities for contractors and service providers.
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.
|
|