+Artikel 28 Personuppgiftsbiträden
---+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 Personuppgiftsbiträden
-
1. Översikt
| Rubrik |
Reglering |
|
Artikel 28 1.
|
Om en behandling ska genomföras på en personuppgiftsansvarigs vägnar ska den personuppgiftsansvarige endast anlita personuppgiftsbiträden som ger tillräckliga garantier om att genomföra lämpliga tekniska och organisatoriska åtgärder på ett sådant sätt att behandlingen uppfyller kraven i denna förordning och säkerställer att den registrerades rättigheter skyddas.
|
|
Artikel 28 2.
|
Personuppgiftsbiträdet får inte anlita ett annat personuppgiftsbiträde utan att ett särskilt eller allmänt skriftligt förhandstillstånd har erhållits av den personuppgiftsansvarige. Om ett allmänt skriftligt tillstånd har erhållits, ska personuppgiftsbiträdet informera den personuppgiftsansvarige om eventuella planer på att anlita nya personuppgiftsbiträden eller ersätta personuppgiftsbiträden, så att den personuppgiftsansvarige har möjlighet att göra invändningar mot sådana förändringar.
|
|
Artikel 28 3.
|
När uppgifter behandlas av ett personuppgiftsbiträde ska hanteringen regleras genom ett avtal eller en annan rättsakt enligt unionsrätten eller enligt medlemsstaternas nationella rätt som är bindande för personuppgiftsbiträdet med avseende på den personuppgiftsansvarige och i vilken föremålet för behandlingen, behandlingens varaktighet, art och ändamål, typen av personuppgifter och kategorier av registrerade, samt den personuppgiftsansvariges skyldigheter och rättigheter anges. I det avtalet eller den rättsakten ska det särskilt föreskrivas att personuppgiftsbiträdet
a)
endast får behandla personuppgifter på dokumenterade instruktioner från den personuppgiftsansvarige, inbegripet när det gäller överföringar av personuppgifter till ett tredjeland eller en internationell organisation, såvida inte denna behandling krävs enligt unionsrätten eller enligt en medlemsstats nationella rätt som personuppgiftsbiträdet omfattas av, och i så fall ska personuppgiftsbiträdet informera den personuppgiftsansvarige om det rättsliga kravet innan uppgifterna behandlas, såvida sådan information inte är förbjuden med hänvisning till ett viktigt allmänintresse enligt denna rätt,
b)
säkerställer att personer med behörighet att behandla personuppgifterna har åtagit sig att iaktta konfidentialitet eller omfattas av en lämplig lagstadgad tystnadsplikt,
c)
ska vidta alla åtgärder som krävs enligt artikel 32,
d)
ska respektera de villkor som avses i punkterna 2 och 4 för anlitandet av ett annat personuppgiftsbiträde,
e)
med tanke på behandlingens art, ska hjälpa den personuppgiftsansvarige genom lämpliga tekniska och organisatoriska åtgärder, i den mån detta är möjligt, så att den personuppgiftsansvarige kan fullgöra sin skyldighet att svara på begäran om utövande av den registrerades rättigheter i enlighet med kapitel III,
f)
ska bistå den personuppgiftsansvarige med att se till att skyldigheterna enligt artiklarna 32–36 fullgörs, med beaktande av typen av behandling och den information som personuppgiftsbiträdet har att tillgå,
g)
beroende på vad den personuppgiftsansvarige väljer, ska radera eller återlämna alla personuppgifter till den personuppgiftsansvarige efter det att tillhandahållandet av behandlingstjänster har avslutats, och radera befintliga kopior såvida inte lagring av personuppgifterna krävs enligt unionsrätten eller medlemsstaternas nationella rätt, och
h)
ska ge den personuppgiftsansvarige tillgång till all information som krävs för att visa att de skyldigheter som fastställs i denna artikel har fullgjorts samt möjliggöra och bidra till granskningar, inbegripet inspektioner, som genomförs av den personuppgiftsansvarige eller av en annan revisor som bemyndigats av den personuppgiftsansvarige.
Med avseende på led h i första stycket ska personuppgiftsbiträdet omedelbart informera den personuppgiftsansvarige om han anser att en instruktion strider mot denna förordning eller mot andra av unionens eller medlemsstaternas dataskyddsbestämmelser.
|
|
Artikel 28 4.
|
I de fall där ett personuppgiftsbiträde anlitar ett annat personuppgiftsbiträde för utförande av specifik behandling på den personuppgiftsansvariges vägnar ska det andra personuppgiftsbiträdet, genom ett avtal eller en annan rättsakt enligt unionsrätten eller enligt medlemsstaternas nationella rätt, åläggas samma skyldigheter i fråga om dataskydd som de som fastställs i avtalet eller den andra rättsakten mellan den personuppgiftsansvarige och personuppgiftsbiträdet enligt punkt 3, och framför allt att ge tillräckliga garantier om att genomföra lämpliga tekniska och organisatoriska åtgärder på ett sådant sätt att behandlingen uppfyller kraven i denna förordning. Om det andra personuppgiftsbiträdet inte fullgör sina skyldigheter i fråga om dataskydd ska det ursprungliga personuppgiftsbiträdet vara fullt ansvarig gentemot den personuppgiftsansvarige för utförandet av det andra personuppgiftsbiträdets skyldigheter.
|
|
Artikel 28 5.
|
Ett personuppgiftsbiträdes anslutning till en godkänd uppförandekod som avses i artikel 40 eller en godkänd certifieringsmekanism som avses i artikel 42 får användas för att visa att tillräckliga garantier tillhandahålls, så som avses punkterna 1 och 4 i den här artikeln.
|
|
Artikel 28 6.
|
Det avtal eller den andra rättsakt som avses i punkterna 3 och 4 i den här artikeln får, utan att det påverkar tillämpningen av ett enskilt avtal mellan den personuppgiftsansvarige och personuppgiftsbiträdet, helt eller delvis baseras på sådana standardavtalsklausuler som avses i punkterna 7 och 8 i den här artikeln, inbegripet när de ingår i en certifiering som i enlighet med artiklarna 42 och 43 beviljats den personuppgiftsansvarige eller personuppgiftsbiträdet.
|
|
Artikel 28 7.
|
Kommissionen får fastställa standardavtalsklausuler för de frågor som avses i punkterna 3 och 4 i den här artikeln, i enlighet med det granskningsförfarande som avses i artikel 93.2.
|
|
Artikel 28 8.
|
En tillsynsmyndighet får fastställa standardavtalsklausuler för de frågor som avses i punkterna 3 och 4 i den här artikeln, i enlighet med den mekanism för enhetlighet som avses i artikel 63.
|
|
Artikel 28 9.
|
Det avtal eller den andra rättsakt som avses i punkterna 3 och 4 ska upprättas skriftligen, inbegripet i ett elektroniskt format.
|
|
Artikel 28 10.
|
Om ett personuppgiftsbiträde överträder denna förordning genom att fastställa ändamålen med och medlen för behandlingen, ska personuppgiftsbiträdet anses vara personuppgiftsansvarig med avseende på den behandlingen, utan att det påverkar tillämpningen av artiklarna 82, 83 och 84.
|
,
1.1 Referenser
1.2 Identifierade krav
1.3 Relaterade standarder
2. Identifierade krav
3. Relaterade standarder
Standarder
| Källa |
Krav |
|
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.
|
|