5.2.2 Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties
The interested parties of the management system must be extended to include everyone with an interest or responsibility in the processing of personally identifiable information, expressly including the individuals whose
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
- Interested party register naming data subjects, customers, supervisory authorities, other controllers, processors and subcontractors · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- The requirement recorded against each of those parties · Document repository
- Evidence the register is maintained as processing relationships change · 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
- Data subjects omitted from the register, which is the omission the clause exists to prevent
- Supervisory authorities treated as a compliance matter rather than an interested party of the system
- Subcontractors of processors left off entirely
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 sheet5.2.1 Understanding the organization and its context · 5.2.3 Determining the scope of the information security management system