5.1 General
Every requirement of ISO/IEC 27001 that speaks of information security must be read as extending to the protection of privacy as it may be affected by the processing of personally identifiable information, so the managem
3
artefacts
0
held by a system
0
at each review
hard
to go live
Policy repository / GRC workspace
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review
system holds itEvidence a system already holds
none for this control
periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review
none for this control
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- Documented statement adopting the extended interpretation across the management system · Document repository
- ISMS documentation revised so that security scoped statements now cover privacy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Evidence the extension reached risk criteria, objectives and audit scope, not only the policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
First move
This control is evidenced by people and documents, not systems. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date. Do not try to automate it.
Common gaps auditors find
- Extension declared in the policy and nowhere else, so risk assessment and audit still test security only
- Privacy managed as a parallel system rather than as an extension, producing two registers that disagree
- Clauses that carry no PIMS-specific requirement treated as unaffected by the extension
Do this for your whole sheet
Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.
Build my evidence sheet