6.2.1 Management direction for information security
The organization must state, in separate privacy policies or by augmenting its information security policies, its support for and commitment to complying with applicable legislation and regulation on the protection of pe
4
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
- Policy text carrying an explicit commitment to applicable privacy legislation, regulation and contractual terms · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Responsibility allocation between the organization, partners, subcontractors and third parties · Vendor register / contract repository
- Evidence that applicable legislation was consulted during policy development and at each maintenance cycle · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- Policy review records with dates and approver · 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
- Commitment stated to the law in general with no identification of which laws apply
- Responsibility allocation absent, so every party assumes another holds the obligation
- Policy maintained on a calendar cycle that ignores regulatory change
- Contractual privacy terms held in contracts but never reflected in policy
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