+Artikel 45 Doorgiften op basis van adequaatheidsbesluiten
---+Artikel 45 1.
---+Artikel 45 2.
---+Artikel 45 3.
---+Artikel 45 4.
---+Artikel 45 5.
---+Artikel 45 6.
---+Artikel 45 7.
---+Artikel 45 8.
---+Artikel 45 9.
|
Artikel 45 Doorgiften op basis van adequaatheidsbesluiten
-
1. Overzicht
| Titel |
Regelgeving |
|
Artikel 45 1.
|
Een doorgifte van persoonsgegevens aan een derde land of een internationale organisatie kan plaatsvinden wanneer de Commissie heeft besloten dat het derde land, een gebied of één of meerdere nader bepaalde sectoren in dat derde land, of de internationale organisatie in kwestie een passend beschermingsniveau waarborgt. Voor een dergelijke doorgifte is geen specifieke toestemming nodig.
|
|
Artikel 45 2.
|
Bij de beoordeling van de vraag of het beschermingsniveau adequaat is, houdt de Commissie met name rekening met de volgende aspecten:
a)
de rechtsstatelijkheid, de eerbiediging van de mensenrechten en de fundamentele vrijheden, de toepasselijke algemene en sectorale wetgeving, onder meer inzake openbare veiligheid, defensie, nationale veiligheid en strafrecht en de toegang van overheidsinstanties tot persoonsgegevens, evenals de tenuitvoerlegging van die wetgeving, gegevensbeschermingsregels, beroepsregels en veiligheidsmaatregelen, met inbegrip van regels voor de verdere doorgifte van persoonsgegevens aan een ander derde land of een andere internationale organisatie die in dat land of die internationale organisatie worden nageleefd, precedenten in de rechtspraak, alsmede het bestaan van effectieve en afdwingbare rechten van betrokkenen en effectieve mogelijkheden om administratief beroep of beroep in rechte in te stellen voor betrokkenen wier persoonsgegevens worden doorgegeven;
b)
het bestaan en het effectief functioneren van een of meer onafhankelijke toezichthoudende autoriteiten in het derde land of waaraan een internationale organisatie is onderworpen, welke tot taak heeft of hebben de naleving van de gegevensbeschermingsregels te verzekeren en deze onder meer met passende handhavingsbevoegdheden te handhaven, betrokkenen bij de uitoefening van hun rechten bij te staan en te adviseren en met de toezichthoudende autoriteiten van de lidstaten samen te werken; en
c)
de internationale toezeggingen die het derde land of de internationale organisatie in kwestie heeft gedaan, of andere verplichtingen die voortvloeien uit juridisch bindende overeenkomsten of instrumenten, alsmede uit de deelname van dat derde land of die internationale organisatie aan multilaterale of regionale regelingen, in het bijzonder met betrekking tot de bescherming van persoonsgegevens.
|
|
Artikel 45 3.
|
De Commissie kan, na de beoordeling van de vraag of het beschermingsniveau adequaat is, door middel van een uitvoeringshandeling besluiten dat een derde land, een gebied of één of meerdere nader bepaalde sectoren in een derde land, of een internationale organisatie een passend beschermingsniveau in de zin van lid 2 van dit artikel waarborgt. De uitvoeringshandeling voorziet in een mechanisme voor periodieke toetsing, minstens om de vier jaar, waarbij alle relevante ontwikkelingen in het derde land of de internationale organisatie in aanmerking worden genomen. In de uitvoeringshandeling worden het territoriale en het sectorale toepassingsgebied vermeld, alsmede, in voorkomend geval, de in lid 2, punt b), van dit artikel genoemde toezichthoudende autoriteit(en). De uitvoeringshandeling wordt vastgesteld volgens de in artikel 93, lid 2, bedoelde onderzoeksprocedure.
|
|
Artikel 45 4.
|
De Commissie houdt doorlopend toezicht op ontwikkelingen in derde landen en internationale organisaties die mogelijk gevolgen hebben voor het functioneren van krachtens lid 3 van dit artikel vastgestelde besluiten en van op grond van artikel 25, lid 6, van Richtlijn 95/46/EG vastgestelde besluiten.
|
|
Artikel 45 5.
|
De Commissie gaat, wanneer uit beschikbare informatie blijkt, in het bijzonder naar aanleiding van de in lid 3 van dit artikel bedoelde toetsing, dat een derde land, een gebied of één of meerdere nader bepaalde sectoren in een derde land, of een internationale organisatie niet langer een passend beschermingsniveau in de zin van lid 2 van dit artikel waarborgt, voor zover nodig, bij uitvoeringshandelingen zonder terugwerkende kracht over tot intrekking, wijziging of schorsing van het in lid 3 van dit artikel bedoelde besluit. Die uitvoeringshandelingen worden vastgesteld volgens de in artikel 93, lid 2, bedoelde onderzoeksprocedure. Om naar behoren gemotiveerde dwingende redenen van urgentie, stelt de Commissie onmiddellijk van toepassing zijnde uitvoeringshandelingen vast volgens de in artikel 93, lid 3, bedoelde procedure.
|
|
Artikel 45 6.
|
De Commissie pleegt overleg met het derde land of de internationale organisatie om de situatie naar aanleiding waarvan het besluit overeenkomstig lid 5 is vastgesteld, te verhelpen.
|
|
Artikel 45 7.
|
Een overeenkomstig lid 5 van dit artikel vastgesteld besluit laat de doorgiften van persoonsgegevens aan het derde land, of een gebied of één of meerdere nader bepaalde sectoren in dat derde land, of de internationale organisatie in kwestie overeenkomstig de artikelen 46 tot en met 49 onverlet.
|
|
Artikel 45 8.
|
De Commissie maakt in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie en op haar website een lijst bekend van de derde landen, gebieden en nader bepaalde sectoren in derde landen en internationale organisaties waarvoor zij bij besluit heeft vastgesteld dat deze wel of niet langer een passend beschermingsniveau waarborgen.
|
|
Artikel 45 9.
|
De besluiten die de Commissie op grond van artikel 25, lid 6, van Richtlijn 95/46/EG heeft vastgesteld, blijven van kracht, totdat zij worden gewijzigd, vervangen of ingetrokken bij een overeenkomstig lid 3 of lid 5 van dit artikel vastgesteld besluit van de Commissie.
|
,
1.1 Referenties
1.2 Geïdentificeerde eisen
1.3 Gerelateerde standaarden
2. Geïdentificeerde eisen
3. Gerelateerde standaarden
Standaarden
| Bron |
Eis |
|
SCF
|
Ad-Hoc Transfers
Description
Mechanisms exist to secure ad-hoc exchanges of large digital files with internal or external parties.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data classification program ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Content / DNS filtering
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data classification program ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Content / DNS filtering
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data classification program ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Content / DNS filtering
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data classification program ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Content / DNS filtering∙ Data governance program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data classification program ∙ Secure Baseline Configurations (SBC) ∙ Content / DNS filtering∙ Data governance program
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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with DCH domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Data management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ Restrictions for ad-hoc data transfers are primarily administrative in nature (e.g., policies & standards).
Level 2 Planned Tracked
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to document where sensitive/regulated data is stored, transmitted and/or processed.
Level 3 Well Defined
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling 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 DCH 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 secure ad-hoc exchanges of large digital files with internal or external parties.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
|
SCF
|
External Transfer of Sensitive / Regulated Data
Description
Mechanisms exist to restrict and govern the transfer of sensitive and/or regulated data: (1) Cross-border; and/or (2) Interorganizational.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Model contracts ∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Model contracts ∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Model contracts ∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Model contracts ∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Model contracts ∙ Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Data classification and handling-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Data classification and handling management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ A formalized data classification scheme exists to identify categories of data, based on protection requirements from applicable laws, regulations and/or contractual obligations.
Level 3 Well Defined
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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 DCH 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 DCH 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 DCH domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data classification and handling 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 DCH 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 restrict and govern the transfer of sensitive and/or regulated data to third-countries or international organizations.
Level 4 Quantitatively Controlled
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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
Data Classification & Handling (DCH) 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. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
|
|
SCF
|
Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data privacy program
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data privacy program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data privacy program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data privacy program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data privacy program
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 implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.
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
|
Binding Corporate Rules (BCR)
Description
Mechanisms exist to implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.
Possible Solutions & Considerations
Micro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2
∙ Data privacy program
Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4
∙ Data privacy program
Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6
∙ Data privacy program
Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8
∙ Data privacy program
Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9
∙ Data privacy program
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 implement and manage Binding Corporate Rules (BCR) (e.g., data sharing agreement) to legally-bind all parties engaged in a joint economic activity that contractually states enforceable rights on data subjects with regard to the processing of their personal data.
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.
|
|