+Artikolu 92 Setgħa li jitwettqu evalwazzjonijiet
---+Artikolu 92 1.
---+Artikolu 92 2.
---+Artikolu 92 3.
---+Artikolu 92 4.
---+Artikolu 92 5.
---+Artikolu 92 6.
---+Artikolu 92 7.

Artikolu 92 Setgħa li jitwettqu evalwazzjonijiet

-

1. Ħarsa ġenerali

,
Artikolu 92 1.

L-Uffiċċju għall-IA, wara li jikkonsulta lill-Bord, jista' jwettaq evalwazzjonijiet tal-mudell tal-IA bi skop ġenerali kkonċernat:

(a) 

biex jivvaluta l-konformità tal-fornitur ma' obbligi skont dan ir-Regolament, meta l-informazzjoni miġbura skont l-Artikolu 91 ma tkunx suffiċjenti; jew,

(b) 

biex jinvestiga r-riskji sistemiċi fil-livell tal-Unjoni ta' mudelli tal-IA bi skop ġenerali b'riskju sistemiku, b'mod partikolari wara allert kwalifikat mill-bord f'konformità mal-Artikolu 90(1), il-punt (a).
Artikolu 92 2.
Il-Kummissjoni tista' tiddeċiedi li taħtar esperti indipendenti biex iwettqu evalwazzjonijiet f'isimha, inkluż mill-bord stabbilit skont l-Artikolu 68. L-esperti indipendenti maħtura għal dan il-kompitu għandhom jissodisfaw il-kriterji mniżżla fl-Artikolu 68(2).
Artikolu 92 3.
Għall-finijiet tal-paragrafu 1, il-Kummissjoni tista' titlob aċċess għall-mudell tal-IA bi skop ġenerali kkonċernat permezz ta' APIs jew mezzi u għodod tekniċi xierqa ulterjuri, inkluż kodiċi tas-sors.
Artikolu 92 4.
It-talba għall-aċċess għandha tiddikjara l-bażi legali, l-iskop u r-raġunijiet tat-talba u tistabbilixxi ż-żmien li fih l-aċċess għandu jiġi pprovdut, u l-multi previsti fl-Artikolu 101 għal meta ma jingħatax l-aċċess.
Artikolu 92 5.
Il-fornituri tal-mudell tal-IA bi skop ġenerali kkonċernat jew ir-rappreżentant tiegħu għandhom ifornu l-informazzjoni mitluba. Fil-każ ta' persuni ġuridiċi, kumpaniji jew ditti, jew meta l-fornitur ma jkollu l-ebda personalità ġuridika, il-persuni awtorizzati biex jirrappreżentawhom skont il-liġi jew l-istatuti tagħhom għandhom jagħtu l-aċċess mitlub f'isem il-fornitur tal-mudell tal-IA bi skop ġenerali kkonċernat.
Artikolu 92 6.
Il-Kummissjoni għandha tadotta atti ta' implimentazzjoni li jistipulaw l-arranġamenti dettaljati u l-kundizzjonijiet għall-evalwazzjonijiet, inkluż l-arranġamenti dettaljati għall-involviment ta' esperti indipendenti, u l-proċedura għall-għażla tagħhom. Dawk l-atti ta' implimentazzjoni għandhom jiġu adottati f'konformità mal-proċedura ta' eżami msemmija fl-Artikolu 98(2).
Artikolu 92 7.
Qabel ma jitlob aċċess għall-mudell tal-IA bi skop ġenerali kkonċernat, l-Uffiċċju għall-IA jista' jibda djalogu strutturat mal-fornitur tal-mudell tal-IA bi skop ġenerali biex jiġbor aktar informazzjoni dwar l-ittestjar intern tal-mudell, is-salvagwardji interni għall-prevenzjoni ta' riskji sistemiċi, u proċeduri u miżuri interni oħra li l-fornitur ikun ħa biex jiġu mitigati dawn ir-riskji.

1.1 Referenzi

1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati

1.3 Standards relatati

2. Rekwiżiti identifikati

Rekwiżiti

3. Standards relatati

Standards
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.