EvidenceSheet

7.2.7 Joint PII controller

Where the organization is a joint controller, it must determine the respective roles and responsibilities for processing, including privacy and security requirements, transparently and in a contract or similar binding do

5
artefacts
0
held by a system
1
at each review
hard
to go live
Document repository
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

  • Named contact point for individuals and evidence it is reachable · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Binding joint controller agreement covering each of the matters the standard lists · Vendor register / contract repository
  • Identification of every joint controller relationship, distinguished from processor relationships · Document repository
  • Breach responsibility allocation naming who notifies whom and within what time · Document repository
  • Information made available to individuals about the essence of the arrangement · Document repository

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

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

7.2.6 Contracts with PII processors · 7.2.8 Records related to processing PII