+Documenting Data Processing Activities
---+Personal Data (PD) Lineage
|
Documenting Data Processing Activities
Description
Mechanisms exist to document Personal Data (PD) processing activities that covers collection, receiving, processing, storage, transmission, sharing, updating and/or disposal actions with sufficient detail to demonstrate conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data classification program ∙ Data privacy program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data classification program ∙ Data privacy program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data classification program ∙ Data privacy program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data classification program ∙ Data privacy program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data classification program ∙ Data privacy program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Product / project management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Privacy (PRI) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with PRI domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRI domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRI domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Data privacy management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Data privacy management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ The data privacy program is developed to work with IT and cybersecurity staff to ensure that applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual data privacy obligations for Personal Data (PD) are properly identified and implemented.
Level 3 Well Defined
Privacy (PRI) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with PRI domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software and customer management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRI domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to document Personal Data (PD) processing activities that covers collection, receiving, processing, storage, transmission, sharing, updating and/or disposal actions with sufficient detail to demonstrate conformity with applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Privacy (PRI) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
1. Panoramica
| Titolo |
Standard |
|
Personal Data (PD) Lineage
|
Description
Mechanisms exist to maintain a process to document the lineage of Personal Data (PD) by recording how the organization collects, receives, processes, stores, transmits, shares, updates and/or disposes PD.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data classification program ∙ Data privacy program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Product / project management
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data classification program ∙ Data privacy program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Product / project management
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data classification program ∙ Data privacy program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Product / project management
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data classification program ∙ Data privacy program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Product / project management
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data classification program ∙ Data privacy program ∙ Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) ∙ Product / project management
SCR-CMM
Level 0 Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 Planned Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 Well Defined
Privacy (PRI) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with PRI domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software and customer management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRI domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to maintain a process to document the lineage of Personal Data (PD) by recording how the organization collects, receives, processes, stores, transmits, shares, updates and/or disposes PD.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Privacy (PRI) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
|
1.1 Riferimenti
1.2 Requisiti identificati
1.3 Regolamentazioni correlate
2. Requisiti identificati
Requisiti
| Fonte |
Requisito |
3. Regolamentazioni correlate
Regolamentazioni
| Fonte |
Regolamentazione |
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 5 Principi applicabili al trattamento di dati personali
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 10 Dati e governance dei dati
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 30 Registri delle attività di trattamento
-
|
|
EULAW
|
Articolo 30 Registri delle attività di trattamento
-
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 70 Verzeichnis von Verarbeitungstätigkeiten
(1) Der Verantwortliche hat ein Verzeichnis aller Kategorien von Verarbeitungstätigkeiten zu führen, die in seine Zuständigkeit fallen. Dieses Verzeichnis hat die folgenden Angaben zu enthalten: - 1.
den Namen und die Kontaktdaten des Verantwortlichen und gegebenenfalls des gemeinsam mit ihm Verantwortlichen sowie den Namen und die Kontaktdaten der oder des Datenschutzbeauftragten, - 2.
die Zwecke der Verarbeitung, - 3.
die Kategorien von Empfängern, gegenüber denen die personenbezogenen Daten offengelegt worden sind oder noch offengelegt werden sollen, - 4.
eine Beschreibung der Kategorien betroffener Personen und der Kategorien personenbezogener Daten, - 5.
gegebenenfalls die Verwendung von Profiling, - 6.
gegebenenfalls die Kategorien von Übermittlungen personenbezogener Daten an Stellen in einem Drittstaat oder an eine internationale Organisation, - 7.
Angaben über die Rechtsgrundlage der Verarbeitung, - 8.
wenn möglich, die vorgesehenen Fristen für die Löschung oder die Überprüfung der Erforderlichkeit der Speicherung der verschiedenen Kategorien personenbezogener Daten und - 9.
wenn möglich, eine allgemeine Beschreibung der technischen und organisatorischen Maßnahmen gemäß § 64.
(2) Der Auftragsverarbeiter hat ein Verzeichnis aller Kategorien von Verarbeitungen zu führen, die er im Auftrag eines Verantwortlichen durchführt, das Folgendes zu enthalten hat: - 1.
den Namen und die Kontaktdaten des Auftragsverarbeiters, jedes Verantwortlichen, in dessen Auftrag der Auftragsverarbeiter tätig ist, sowie gegebenenfalls der oder des Datenschutzbeauftragten, - 2.
gegebenenfalls Übermittlungen von personenbezogenen Daten an Stellen in einem Drittstaat oder an eine internationale Organisation unter Angabe des Staates oder der Organisation und - 3.
eine allgemeine Beschreibung der technischen und organisatorischen Maßnahmen gemäß § 64.
(3) Die in den Absätzen 1 und 2 genannten Verzeichnisse sind schriftlich oder elektronisch zu führen. (4) Verantwortliche und Auftragsverarbeiter haben auf Anforderung ihre Verzeichnisse der oder dem Bundesbeauftragten zur Verfügung zu stellen.
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 76 Protokollierung
(1) In automatisierten Verarbeitungssystemen haben Verantwortliche und Auftragsverarbeiter mindestens die folgenden Verarbeitungsvorgänge zu protokollieren: - 1.
Erhebung, - 2.
Veränderung, - 3.
Abfrage, - 4.
Offenlegung einschließlich Übermittlung, - 5.
Kombination und - 6.
Löschung.
(2) Die Protokolle über Abfragen und Offenlegungen müssen es ermöglichen, die Begründung, das Datum und die Uhrzeit dieser Vorgänge und so weit wie möglich die Identität der Person, die die personenbezogenen Daten abgefragt oder offengelegt hat, und die Identität des Empfängers der Daten festzustellen. (3) Die Protokolle dürfen ausschließlich für die Überprüfung der Rechtmäßigkeit der Datenverarbeitung durch die Datenschutzbeauftragte oder den Datenschutzbeauftragten, die Bundesbeauftragte oder den Bundesbeauftragten und die betroffene Person sowie für die Eigenüberwachung, für die Gewährleistung der Integrität und Sicherheit der personenbezogenen Daten und für Strafverfahren verwendet werden. (4) Die Protokolldaten sind am Ende des auf deren Generierung folgenden Jahres zu löschen. (5) Der Verantwortliche und der Auftragsverarbeiter haben die Protokolle der oder dem Bundesbeauftragten auf Anforderung zur Verfügung zu stellen.
|
|
DELAW
|
BDSG § 79 Datenübermittlung bei geeigneten Garantien
(1) Liegt entgegen § 78 Absatz 1 Nummer 2 kein Beschluss nach Artikel 36 Absatz 3 der Richtlinie (EU) 2016/680 vor, ist eine Übermittlung bei Vorliegen der übrigen Voraussetzungen des § 78 auch dann zulässig, wenn - 1.
in einem rechtsverbindlichen Instrument geeignete Garantien für den Schutz personenbezogener Daten vorgesehen sind oder - 2.
der Verantwortliche nach Beurteilung aller Umstände, die bei der Übermittlung eine Rolle spielen, zu der Auffassung gelangt ist, dass geeignete Garantien für den Schutz personenbezogener Daten bestehen.
(2) Der Verantwortliche hat Übermittlungen nach Absatz 1 Nummer 2 zu dokumentieren. Die Dokumentation hat den Zeitpunkt der Übermittlung, die Identität des Empfängers, den Grund der Übermittlung und die übermittelten personenbezogenen Daten zu enthalten. Sie ist der oder dem Bundesbeauftragten auf Anforderung zur Verfügung zu stellen. (3) Der Verantwortliche hat die Bundesbeauftragte oder den Bundesbeauftragten zumindest jährlich über Übermittlungen zu unterrichten, die aufgrund einer Beurteilung nach Absatz 1 Nummer 2 erfolgt sind. In der Unterrichtung kann er die Empfänger und die Übermittlungszwecke angemessen kategorisieren.
|
Ticket collegati
- Secure Controls Framework -
"The SCF is the Common Controls Framework™ (CCF), the world's most comprehensive cybersecurity and data privacy metaframework - it is also free to use. The entire concept is building secure, compliant and resilient capabilities in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
The SCF is more than just a unified control catalog, since its included content creates a playbook for Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) capabilities. Used globally by organizations of every size, the SCF is a robust and scalable solution for security, compliance and resilience controls. As a comprehensive security framework, the SCF maps 1,400+ controls across 200+ laws, regulations, and industry frameworks so you can implement once and comply everywhere.
Like it or not, cybersecurity is a protracted war on an asymmetric battlefield, where the threats are everywhere and as defenders we have to make the effort to work together to help improve cybersecurity and data privacy practices, since we all suffer when massive data breaches occur or when cyber attacks have physical impacts. Hackers share information on attack methods with other hackers, so why shouldn’t the good guys share information on how to best protect an organization? We decided to take action and make a difference, since we feel it is too important to wait for someone else to fix the problems that exist.
The SCF is made up of volunteers, mainly specialists within the cybersecurity profession, who focus on GRC and the cybersecurity side of data privacy. These are auditors, engineers, architects, incident responders, consultants and other specialists who live and breathe these topics on a daily basis. The end product is "expert-derived content" that makes up the SCF." https://securecontrolsframework.com/
Terms & Conditions
The SCF End User License Agreement (EULA) governs the use of the Secure Controls Framework® (SCF) under the Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License.
|