+Article 35 Analyse d'impact relative à la protection des données
---+Article 35 1.
---+Article 35 2.
---+Article 35 3.
---+Article 35 4.
---+Article 35 5.
---+Article 35 6.
---+Article 35 7.
---+Article 35 8.
---+Article 35 9.
---+Article 35 10.
---+Article 35 11.
|
Article 35 Analyse d'impact relative à la protection des données
-
1. Vue d’ensemble
| Intitulé |
Réglementation |
|
Article 35 1.
|
Lorsqu'un type de traitement, en particulier par le recours à de nouvelles technologies, et compte tenu de la nature, de la portée, du contexte et des finalités du traitement, est susceptible d'engendrer un risque élevé pour les droits et libertés des personnes physiques, le responsable du traitement effectue, avant le traitement, une analyse de l'impact des opérations de traitement envisagées sur la protection des données à caractère personnel. Une seule et même analyse peut porter sur un ensemble d'opérations de traitement similaires qui présentent des risques élevés similaires.
|
|
Article 35 2.
|
Lorsqu'il effectue une analyse d'impact relative à la protection des données, le responsable du traitement demande conseil au délégué à la protection des données, si un tel délégué a été désigné.
|
|
Article 35 3.
|
L'analyse d'impact relative à la protection des données visée au paragraphe 1 est, en particulier, requise dans les cas suivants:
a)
l'évaluation systématique et approfondie d'aspects personnels concernant des personnes physiques, qui est fondée sur un traitement automatisé, y compris le profilage, et sur la base de laquelle sont prises des décisions produisant des effets juridiques à l'égard d'une personne physique ou l'affectant de manière significative de façon similaire;
b)
le traitement à grande échelle de catégories particulières de données visées à l'article 9, paragraphe 1, ou de données à caractère personnel relatives à des condamnations pénales et à des infractions visées à l'article 10; ou
c)
la surveillance systématique à grande échelle d'une zone accessible au public.
|
|
Article 35 4.
|
L'autorité de contrôle établit et publie une liste des types d'opérations de traitement pour lesquelles une analyse d'impact relative à la protection des données est requise conformément au paragraphe 1. L'autorité de contrôle communique ces listes au comité visé à l'article 68.
|
|
Article 35 5.
|
L'autorité de contrôle peut aussi établir et publier une liste des types d'opérations de traitement pour lesquelles aucune analyse d'impact relative à la protection des données n'est requise. L'autorité de contrôle communique cette liste au comité.
|
|
Article 35 6.
|
Avant d'adopter les listes visées aux paragraphes 4 et 5, l'autorité de contrôle compétente applique le mécanisme de contrôle de la cohérence visé à l'article 63, lorsque ces listes comprennent des activités de traitement liées à l'offre de biens ou de services à des personnes concernées ou au suivi de leur comportement dans plusieurs États membres, ou peuvent affecter sensiblement la libre circulation des données à caractère personnel au sein de l'Union.
|
|
Article 35 7.
|
L'analyse contient au moins:
a)
une description systématique des opérations de traitement envisagées et des finalités du traitement, y compris, le cas échéant, l'intérêt légitime poursuivi par le responsable du traitement;
b)
une évaluation de la nécessité et de la proportionnalité des opérations de traitement au regard des finalités;
c)
une évaluation des risques pour les droits et libertés des personnes concernées conformément au paragraphe 1; et
d)
les mesures envisagées pour faire face aux risques, y compris les garanties, mesures et mécanismes de sécurité visant à assurer la protection des données à caractère personnel et à apporter la preuve du respect du présent règlement, compte tenu des droits et des intérêts légitimes des personnes concernées et des autres personnes affectées.
|
|
Article 35 8.
|
Le respect, par les responsables du traitement ou sous-traitants concernés, de codes de conduite approuvés visés à l'article 40 est dûment pris en compte lors de l'évaluation de l'impact des opérations de traitement effectuées par lesdits responsables du traitement ou sous-traitants, en particulier aux fins d'une analyse d'impact relative à la protection des données.
|
|
Article 35 9.
|
Le cas échéant, le responsable du traitement demande l'avis des personnes concernées ou de leurs représentants au sujet du traitement prévu, sans préjudice de la protection des intérêts généraux ou commerciaux ou de la sécurité des opérations de traitement.
|
|
Article 35 10.
|
Lorsque le traitement effectué en application de l'article 6, paragraphe 1, point c) ou e), a une base juridique dans le droit de l'Union ou dans le droit de l'État membre auquel le responsable du traitement est soumis, que ce droit règlemente l'opération de traitement spécifique ou l'ensemble des opérations de traitement en question et qu'une analyse d'impact relative à la protection des données a déjà été effectuée dans le cadre d'une analyse d'impact générale réalisée dans le cadre de l'adoption de la base juridique en question, les paragraphes 1 à 7 ne s'appliquent pas, à moins que les États membres n'estiment qu'il est nécessaire d'effectuer une telle analyse avant les activités de traitement.
|
|
Article 35 11.
|
Si nécessaire, le responsable du traitement procède à un examen afin d'évaluer si le traitement est effectué conformément à l'analyse d'impact relative à la protection des données, au moins quand il se produit une modification du risque présenté par les opérations de 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
|
Risk Catalog
Description
Mechanisms exist to develop and keep current a catalog of applicable risks associated with the organization's business operations and technologies in use.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Documented risk catalog
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Documented risk catalog
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Documented risk catalog
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Documented risk catalog
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Documented risk catalog
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
Risk Management (RSK) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:
▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with RSK domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation.
▪ Risk management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel use an informal process to identify, assess, remediate and report on risk.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
Level 3 Well Defined
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ 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 RSK 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 develop and keep current a catalog of applicable risks associated with the organization's business operations and technologies in use.
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 Protection Officer (DPO)
Description
Mechanisms exist to identify and appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO), or equivalent role:
(1) Based on professional qualifications; and
(2) To be involved in all issues related to how Personal Data (PD) is collected, received, processed, stored, transmitted, shared, updated and/or disposed.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Privacy policy document
∙ Data handling procedures
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Written privacy policy
∙ Data subject request procedures
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Assigned Data Protection Officer (DPO) role(s)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Assigned Data Protection Officer (DPO) role(s)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Assigned Data Protection Officer (DPO) role(s)
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.
▪ Data/process owners work with IT and/or cybersecurity personnel and Data Protection Officers (DPOs) to ensure applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations are properly addressed, including the storage, transmission and processing of sensitive/regulated data.
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).
▪ A Data Protection Officer (DPO) is appointed:
(1) Based on professional qualifications; and
(2) To be involved in all issues related to how Personal Data (PD) is collected, received, processed, stored, transmitted, shared, updated and/or disposed.
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 Protection Officer (DPO)
Description
Mechanisms exist to identify and appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO), or equivalent role:
(1) Based on professional qualifications; and
(2) To be involved in all issues related to how Personal Data (PD) is collected, received, processed, stored, transmitted, shared, updated and/or disposed.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Privacy policy document
∙ Data handling procedures
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Written privacy policy
∙ Data subject request procedures
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Assigned Data Protection Officer (DPO) role(s)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Assigned Data Protection Officer (DPO) role(s)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data privacy program
∙ Assigned Data Protection Officer (DPO) role(s)
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.
▪ Data/process owners work with IT and/or cybersecurity personnel and Data Protection Officers (DPOs) to ensure applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual obligations are properly addressed, including the storage, transmission and processing of sensitive/regulated data.
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).
▪ A Data Protection Officer (DPO) is appointed:
(1) Based on professional qualifications; and
(2) To be involved in all issues related to how Personal Data (PD) is collected, received, processed, stored, transmitted, shared, updated and/or disposed.
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 Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process and/or transmit Personal Data (PD) to identify and remediate reasonably-expected risks.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
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
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).
Level 3 Well Defined
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ 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 RSK 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 conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process and/or transmit Personal Data (PD) to identify and remediate reasonably-expected risks.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Risk Management (RSK) 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 Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
Description
Mechanisms exist to conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process and/or transmit Personal Data (PD) to identify and remediate reasonably-expected risks.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Risk Management Program (RMP)
∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
∙ Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
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
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Risk management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Risk management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ Risk management processes (e.g., risk assessments) and technologies focus on protecting High Value Assets (HVAs), including environments where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and processed.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel implement and maintain a form of Risk Management Program (RMP) that provides operational guidance on how risk is identified, assessed, remediated and reported.
▪ Data/process owners are expected to self-manage risks associated with their systems, applications, services and data, based on the organization's published policies and standards, including the identification, remediation and reporting of risks.
▪ Business process owners (BPOs) are made aware of cybersecurity and data protection risk(s).
Level 3 Well Defined
Risk Management (RSK) 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 RSK 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 RSK domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A risk management team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain RSK domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of risk management operations (e.g., risk management solution, GRC platform and TPRM tool).
▪ 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 RSK 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 conduct a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) on Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) that store, process and/or transmit Personal Data (PD) to identify and remediate reasonably-expected risks.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Risk Management (RSK) 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.
|
|