+Artikel 28 Verwerker
---+Artikel 28 1.
---+Artikel 28 2.
---+Artikel 28 3.
---+Artikel 28 4.
---+Artikel 28 5.
---+Artikel 28 6.
---+Artikel 28 7.
---+Artikel 28 8.
---+Artikel 28 9.
---+Artikel 28 10.
|
Artikel 28 Verwerker
-
1. Overzicht
| Titel |
Regelgeving |
|
Artikel 28 1.
|
Wanneer een verwerking namens een verwerkingsverantwoordelijke wordt verricht, doet de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke uitsluitend een beroep op verwerkers die afdoende garanties met betrekking tot het toepassen van passende technische en organisatorische maatregelen bieden opdat de verwerking aan de vereisten van deze verordening voldoet en de bescherming van de rechten van de betrokkene is gewaarborgd.
|
|
Artikel 28 2.
|
De verwerker neemt geen andere verwerker in dienst zonder voorafgaande specifieke of algemene schriftelijke toestemming van de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke. In het geval van algemene schriftelijke toestemming licht de verwerker de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke in over beoogde veranderingen inzake de toevoeging of vervanging van andere verwerkers, waarbij de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke de mogelijkheid wordt geboden tegen deze veranderingen bezwaar te maken.
|
|
Artikel 28 3.
|
De verwerking door een verwerker wordt geregeld in een overeenkomst of andere rechtshandeling krachtens het Unierecht of het lidstatelijke recht die de verwerker ten aanzien van de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke bindt, en waarin het onderwerp en de duur van de verwerking, de aard en het doel van de verwerking, het soort persoonsgegevens en de categorieën van betrokkenen, en de rechten en verplichtingen van de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke worden omschreven. Die overeenkomst of andere rechtshandeling bepaalt met name dat de verwerker:
a)
de persoonsgegevens uitsluitend verwerkt op basis van schriftelijke instructies van de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke, onder meer met betrekking tot doorgiften van persoonsgegevens aan een derde land of een internationale organisatie, tenzij een op de verwerker van toepassing zijnde Unierechtelijke of lidstaatrechtelijke bepaling hem tot verwerking verplicht; in dat geval stelt de verwerker de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke, voorafgaand aan de verwerking, in kennis van dat wettelijk voorschrift, tenzij die wetgeving deze kennisgeving om gewichtige redenen van algemeen belang verbiedt;
b)
waarborgt dat de tot het verwerken van de persoonsgegevens gemachtigde personen zich ertoe hebben verbonden vertrouwelijkheid in acht te nemen of door een passende wettelijke verplichting van vertrouwelijkheid zijn gebonden;
c)
alle overeenkomstig artikel 32 vereiste maatregelen neemt;
d)
aan de in de leden 2 en 4 bedoelde voorwaarden voor het in dienst nemen van een andere verwerker voldoet;
e)
rekening houdend met de aard van de verwerking, de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke door middel van passende technische en organisatorische maatregelen, voor zover mogelijk, bijstand verleent bij het vervullen van diens plicht om verzoeken om uitoefening van de in hoofdstuk III vastgestelde rechten van de betrokkene te beantwoorden;
f)
rekening houdend met de aard van de verwerking en de hem ter beschikking staande informatie de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke bijstand verleent bij het doen nakomen van de verplichtingen uit hoofde van de artikelen 32 tot en met 36;
g)
na afloop van de verwerkingsdiensten, naargelang de keuze van de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke, alle persoonsgegevens wist of deze aan hem terugbezorgt, en bestaande kopieën verwijdert, tenzij opslag van de persoonsgegevens Unierechtelijk of lidstaatrechtelijk is verplicht;
h)
de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke alle informatie ter beschikking stelt die nodig is om de nakoming van de in dit artikel neergelegde verplichtingen aan te tonen en audits, waaronder inspecties, door de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke of een door de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke gemachtigde controleur mogelijk maakt en eraan bijdraagt.
Waar het gaat om de eerste alinea, punt h), stelt de verwerker de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke onmiddellijk in kennis indien naar zijn mening een instructie inbreuk oplevert op deze verordening of op andere Unierechtelijke of lidstaatrechtelijke bepalingen inzake gegevensbescherming.
|
|
Artikel 28 4.
|
Wanneer een verwerker een andere verwerker in dienst neemt om voor rekening van de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke specifieke verwerkingsactiviteiten te verrichten, worden aan deze andere verwerker bij een overeenkomst of een andere rechtshandeling krachtens Unierecht of lidstatelijk recht dezelfde verplichtingen inzake gegevensbescherming opgelegd als die welke in de in lid 3 bedoelde overeenkomst of andere rechtshandeling tussen de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke en de verwerker zijn opgenomen, met name de verplichting afdoende garanties met betrekking tot het toepassen van passende technische en organisatorische maatregelen te bieden opdat de verwerking aan het bepaalde in deze verordening voldoet. Wanneer de andere verwerker zijn verplichtingen inzake gegevensbescherming niet nakomt, blijft de eerste verwerker ten aanzien van de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke volledig aansprakelijk voor het nakomen van de verplichtingen van die andere verwerker.
|
|
Artikel 28 5.
|
Het aansluiten bij een goedgekeurde gedragscode als bedoeld in artikel 40 of een goedgekeurd certificeringsmechanisme als bedoeld in artikel 42 kan worden gebruikt als element om aan te tonen dat voldoende garanties als bedoeld in de leden 1 en 4 van dit artikel worden geboden.
|
|
Artikel 28 6.
|
Onverminderd een individuele overeenkomst tussen de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke en de verwerker kan de in de leden 3 en 4 van dit artikel bedoelde overeenkomst of andere rechtshandeling geheel of ten dele gebaseerd zijn op de in de leden 7 en 8 van dit artikel bedoelde standaardcontractbepalingen, ook indien zij deel uitmaken van de certificering die door een verwerkingsverantwoordelijke of verwerker uit hoofde van de artikelen 42 en 43 is verleend.
|
|
Artikel 28 7.
|
De Commissie kan voor de in de leden 3 en 4 van dit artikel genoemde aangelegenheden en volgens de in artikel 93, lid 2, bedoelde onderzoeksprocedure standaardcontractbepalingen vaststellen.
|
|
Artikel 28 8.
|
Een toezichthoudende autoriteit kan voor de in de leden 3 en 4 van dit artikel genoemde aangelegenheden en volgens het in artikel 63 bedoelde coherentiemechanisme standaardcontractbepalingen opstellen.
|
|
Artikel 28 9.
|
De in de leden 3 en 4 bedoelde overeenkomst of andere rechtshandeling wordt in schriftelijke vorm, waaronder elektronische vorm, opgesteld.
|
|
Artikel 28 10.
|
Indien een verwerker in strijd met deze verordening de doeleinden en middelen van een verwerking bepaalt, wordt die verwerker onverminderd de artikelen 82, 83 en 84 met betrekking tot die verwerking als de verwerkingsverantwoordelijke beschouwd.
|
,
1.1 Referenties
1.2 Geïdentificeerde eisen
1.3 Gerelateerde standaarden
2. Geïdentificeerde eisen
3. Gerelateerde standaarden
Standaarden
| Bron |
Eis |
|
SCF
|
Personal Data (PD) Inventory Automation Support
Description
Automated mechanisms exist to determine if Personal Data (PD) is maintained in electronic form.
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 automatically determine if Personal Data (PD) is maintained in electronic form.
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 Privacy Requirements for Contractors & Service Providers
Description
Mechanisms exist to include data privacy requirements in contracts and other acquisition-related documents that establish data privacy roles and responsibilities for contractors and service providers.
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 include data privacy requirements in contracts and other acquisition-related documents that establish data privacy roles and responsibilities for contractors and service providers.
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 Privacy Requirements for Contractors & Service Providers
Description
Mechanisms exist to include data privacy requirements in contracts and other acquisition-related documents that establish data privacy roles and responsibilities for contractors and service providers.
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 include data privacy requirements in contracts and other acquisition-related documents that establish data privacy roles and responsibilities for contractors and service providers.
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.
|
|