+92. pants Pilnvaras veikt izvērtēšanas
---+92. pants 1.
---+92. pants 2.
---+92. pants 3.
---+92. pants 4.
---+92. pants 5.
---+92. pants 6.
---+92. pants 7.
|
92. pants Pilnvaras veikt izvērtēšanas
-
1. Pārskats
| Nosaukums |
Regulējums |
|
92. pants 1.
|
MI birojs pēc apspriešanās ar MI padomi var veikt attiecīgā vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļa izvērtēšanu, lai
a)
novērtētu, kā nodrošinātājs ievēro šajā regulā noteiktos pienākumus, ja informācija, kas savākta, ievērojot 91. pantu, nav pietiekama; vai
b)
izmeklētu vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļu ar sistēmiskiem riskiem radītos sistēmiskos riskus Savienības līmenī, jo īpaši pēc tam, kad zinātniskā grupa ir sniegusi kvalificētu brīdinājumu saskaņā ar 90. panta 1. punkta c) apakšpunktu.
|
|
92. pants 2.
|
Komisija var nolemt iecelt neatkarīgus ekspertus, lai tie veiktu izvērtēšanas tās vārdā, tostarp no zinātniskās grupas, kas izveidota, ievērojot 68. pantu. Šim uzdevumam ieceltie neatkarīgie eksperti atbilst 68. panta 2. punktā izklāstītajiem kritērijiem.
|
|
92. pants 3.
|
Šā panta 1. punkta nolūkos Komisija var pieprasīt piekļuvi attiecīgajam vispārīga lietojuma MI modelim, izmantojot API vai vēl citus piemērotus tehniskos līdzekļus un rīkus, tostarp pirmkodu.
|
|
92. pants 4.
|
Piekļuves pieprasījumā norāda pieprasījuma juridisko pamatu, nolūku un pamatojumu un nosaka termiņu, kurā piekļuve jāsniedz, kā arī 101. pantā paredzētos naudas sodus par piekļuves nesniegšanu.
|
|
92. pants 5.
|
Attiecīgā vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļa nodrošinātāji vai tā pārstāvis sniedz pieprasīto informāciju. Juridisku personu gadījumā, uzņēmējsabiedrības vai uzņēmumi, vai – ja nodrošinātājs nav juridiska persona – personas, kas ir pilnvarotas tos pārstāvēt pēc likuma vai pēc to statūtiem, sniedz pieprasīto piekļuvi attiecīgā vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļa nodrošinātāja vārdā.
|
|
92. pants 6.
|
Komisija pieņem īstenošanas aktus, kuros nosaka izvērtēšanu detalizētu kārtību un nosacījumus, tostarp neatkarīgu ekspertu iesaistes detalizētu kārtību un to atlases procedūru. Minētos īstenošanas aktus pieņem saskaņā ar pārbaudes procedūru, kas minēta 98. panta 2. punktā.
|
|
92. pants 7.
|
Pirms pieprasīt piekļuvi attiecīgajam vispārīga lietojuma MI modelim, MI birojs var sākt strukturētu dialogu ar vispārīga lietojuma MI modeļa nodrošinātāju, lai savāktu vairāk informācijas par modeļa iekšējo testēšanu, iekšējiem aizsardzības pasākumiem sistēmisku risku novēršanai un citām iekšējām procedūrām un pasākumiem, ko nodrošinātājs ir veicis, lai mazinātu šādus riskus.
|
,
1.1 Atsauces
1.2 Identificētās prasības
1.3 Saistītie standarti
2. Identificētās prasības
3. Saistītie standarti
Standarti
| Avots |
Prasība |
|
SCF
|
Legal Assessment of Investigative Inquires
Description
Mechanisms exist to determine whether a government agency has an applicable and valid legal basis to request data from the organization and what further steps need to be taken, if necessary.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Legal review
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Legal review
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Legal review
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Legal review
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Legal review
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
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with the organization's legal counsel for guidance on how to respond to legal orders (e.g., court orders and investigations).
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL 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 determine whether a government agency has an applicable and valid legal basis to request data from the organization and what further steps need to be taken, if necessary.
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
|
Legal Assessment of Investigative Inquires
Description
Mechanisms exist to determine whether a government agency has an applicable and valid legal basis to request data from the organization and what further steps need to be taken, if necessary.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Legal review
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Legal review
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Legal review
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Legal review
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Legal review
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
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity.
▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD).
▪ Compliance management controls-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines).
▪ Compliance management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.
▪ External compliance requirements for cybersecurity and data privacy are identified and documented, based on applicable laws, regulations and contractual obligations.
▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with the organization's legal counsel for guidance on how to respond to legal orders (e.g., court orders and investigations).
Level 3 Well Defined
Compliance (CPL) 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 CPL 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 CPL domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners.
▪ A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain CPL domain capabilities.
▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform).
▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with CPL 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 determine whether a government agency has an applicable and valid legal basis to request data from the organization and what further steps need to be taken, if necessary.
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.
|
|