+Airteagal 7 Leasuithe ar Iarscríbhinn III
---+Airteagal 7 1.
---+Airteagal 7 2.
---+Airteagal 7 3.

Airteagal 7 Leasuithe ar Iarscríbhinn III

-

1. Forbhreathnú

,
Teideal Rialáil
Airteagal 7 1.

Tugtar de chumhacht don Choimisiún gníomhartha tarmligthe i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 97 lena leasaítear Iarscríbhinn III trí chásanna úsáide de chórais intleachta saorga ardriosca a chur leis nó a mhodhnú i gcás ina gcomhlíontar an dá choinníoll seo a leanas:

(a) 

go bhfuil na córais intleachta saorga ceaptha lena n-úsáid in aon cheann de na réimsí a liostaítear in Iarscríbhinn III;

(b) 

go bhfuil an baol ann mar gheall ar na córais intleachta saorga go ndéanfar díobháil don tsláinte agus don tsábháilteacht, nó go n-imreofar drochthionchar ar chearta bunúsacha, agus gurb ionann an riosca sin agus an baol atá ann mar gheall ar na córais intleachta saorga ardriosca dá dtagraítear in Iarscríbhinn III, nó níos mó ná sin, i ndáil lena thromchúisí agus a dhóchúla atá an díobháil sin nó an drochthionchar sin.

Airteagal 7 2.

Agus measúnú á dhéanamh ar an gcoinníoll faoi mhír 1, pointe (b), cuirfidh an Coimisiún na critéir seo a leanas san áireamh:

(a) 

an chríoch atá beartaithe don chóras intleachta saorga;

(b) 

a mhéid a úsáideadh córas intleachta saorga nó a mhéid is dócha go n-úsáidfear é;

(c) 

cineál agus méid na sonraí arna bpróiseáil agus arna n-úsáid ag an gcóras intleachta saorga, go háirithe an ndéantar catagóirí speisialta sonraí pearsanta a phróiseáil nó nach ndéantar;

(d) 

a mhéid a ghníomhaíonn an córas intleachta saorga go neamhspleách agus an fhéidearthacht go sáródh an duine cinneadh nó moltaí, ar cinneadh nó moltaí iad a d’fhéadfadh díobháil a dhéanamh;

(e) 

a mhéid atá díobháil déanta cheana leis an gcóras intleachta saorga, díobháil don tsláinte agus don tsábháilteacht, a imríodh drochthionchar cheana ar chearta bunúsacha mar gheall ar úsáid córais intleachta saorga nó a mhéid atá an úsáid sin ina cúis le húdair imní thromchúiseacha maidir leis an dóchúlacht go ndéanfaí an díobháil nó an drochthionchar sin, faoi mar a léirítear, mar shampla, i dtuairiscí nó i líomhaintí doiciméadaithe arna gcur faoi bhráid na n-údarás inniúil náisiúnta, nó i dtuairiscí eile, de réir mar is iomchuí;

(f) 

méid na díobhála nó an drochthionchair sin a d’fhéadfadh a bheith ann, go háirithe ó thaobh dhéine na díobhála sin agus ó thaobh chumas na díobhála sin difear a dhéanamh do níos mó ná duine amháin nó difear díréireach a dhéanamh do ghrúpa áirithe daoine;

(g) 

maidir le daoine a bhféadfadh díobháil a bheith déanta dóibh nó drochthionchar a bheith imeartha orthu, a mhéid atá na daoine sin ag brath ar an toradh a tháirgtear le córas intleachta saorga, go háirithe toisc nach féidir le réasún gan a bheith páirteach sa toradh sin ar chúiseanna praiticiúla nó dlíthiúla;

(h) 

a mhéid atá éagothroime cumhachta ann nó atá na daoine a bhféadfadh díobháil a bheith déanta dóibh nó drochthionchar a bheith imeartha orthu i staid leochaileach i ndáil le húsáideoir gairmiúil córais intleachta saorga, go háirithe mar gheall ar stádas, údarás, eolas, imthosca eacnamaíocha nó sóisialta, nó aois;

(i) 

a mhéid is féidir an toradh a tháirgtear lena mbaineann córas intleacht shaorga a cheartú nó a mhalartú go héasca, agus na réitigh theicniúla atá ar fáil chun é a cheartú nó a aisiompú á gcur san áireamh, sa chaoi nach measfar torthaí a bhfuil drochthionchar acu ar an tsláinte, ar an tsábháilteacht nó ar chearta bunúsacha a bheith incheartaithe nó inmhalartaithe go héasca;

(j) 

a mhéid a rachadh imscaradh an chórais intleachta saorga chun tairbhe do dhaoine aonair, do ghrúpaí nó don tsochaí i gcoitinne, lena n-áirítear feabhsuithe a d’fhéadfaí a dhéanamh ar shábháilteacht táirgí, agus an dóchúlacht go mbeadh an tairbhe sin ann;

(k) 

i ndáil le dlí an Aontais atá ann faoi láthair, a mhéid a dhéantar foráil maidir leis an méid a leanas:

(i) 

bearta éifeachtacha sásaimh i ndáil leis na rioscaí a bhaineann le córas intleachta saorga agus éilimh ar dhamáistí a eisiamh uathu;

(ii) 

bearta éifeachtacha chun na rioscaí sin a chosc nó a mhaolú go suntasach.

Airteagal 7 3.

Tugtar de chumhacht don Choimisiún gníomhartha tarmligthe i gcomhréir le hAirteagal 97 chun an liosta in Iarscríbhinn III a leasú trí chórais intleachta saorga ardriosca a bhaint i gcás ina gcomhlíontar na coinníollacha seo a leanas:

(a) 

níl aon rioscaí suntasacha do chearta bunúsacha, do shláinte ná do shábháilteacht ag baint leis an gcóras intleachta saorga ardriosca a thuilleadh, agus na critéir a liostaítear i mír 2 á gcur san áireamh;

(b) 

ní laghdaíonn an scriosadh an leibhéal foriomlán cosanta don tsláinte, don tsábháilteacht ná do chearta bunúsacha faoi dhlí an Aontais.

1.1 Tagairtí

1.2 Ceanglais aitheanta

1.3 Caighdeáin ghaolmhara

2. Ceanglais aitheanta

Ceanglais
Foinse Ceanglas

3. Caighdeáin ghaolmhara

Caighdeáin
Foinse Ceanglas
SCF High-Risk Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) Categorization

Description

Mechanisms exist to categorize Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Identify systems that could harm people if misused (e.g., safety devices, sensitive personal data)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ High-risk categorization field in asset inventory
∙ Criteria for high-risk classification

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ High-risk TAAS categorization in CMDB based on potential harm to individuals or society
∙ Enhanced controls for high-risk assets

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Formal high-risk categorization criteria (e.g., aligned with EU AI Act, safety impact)
∙ Risk-based control baselines for high-risk TAAS

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise high-risk asset categorization program integrated with risk management and regulatory obligations
∙ Enhanced assurance for high-risk TAAS

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

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset 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 IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).

Level 3 Well Defined

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset 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 AST 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 categorize a system and/or service as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.

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 High-Risk Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) Categorization

Description

Mechanisms exist to categorize Technology Assets, Applications and/or Services (TAAS) as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.

Possible Solutions & Considerations

Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2

∙ Identify systems that could harm people if misused (e.g., safety devices, sensitive personal data)

Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4

∙ High-risk categorization field in asset inventory
∙ Criteria for high-risk classification

Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6

∙ High-risk TAAS categorization in CMDB based on potential harm to individuals or society
∙ Enhanced controls for high-risk assets

Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8

∙ Formal high-risk categorization criteria (e.g., aligned with EU AI Act, safety impact)
∙ Risk-based control baselines for high-risk TAAS

Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9

∙ Enterprise high-risk asset categorization program integrated with risk management and regulatory obligations
∙ Enhanced assurance for high-risk TAAS

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

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AST 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 AST domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Asset management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Asset 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 IT department establishes, maintains and updates an inventory that contains a listing of all organizational-owned TAASD, at a minimum covering common devices (e.g., laptops, workstations and servers).

Level 3 Well Defined

Asset Management (AST) 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 AST 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 AST domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ An IT Asset Management (ITAM) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AST domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of ITAM operations (e.g., ITAM platform, (e.g., Configuration Management Database (CMBD) Asset 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 AST 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 categorize a system and/or service as "High Risk" if it poses a significant risk of harm to an individual's:
(1) Health;
(2) Safety; and/or
(3) Fundamental human rights.

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.