Patent Issued for Data processing and scanning systems for assessing vendor risk (USPTO 11151233): OneTrust LLC

2021 NOV 09 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Insurance Daily News -- From Alexandria, Virginia, NewsRx journalists report that a patent by the inventors Barday, Kabir A. (Atlanta, GA, US), Brannon, Jonathan Blake (Smyrna, GA, US), Jones, Kevin (Atlanta, GA, US), Sabourin, Jason L. (Brookhaven, GA, US), Shah, Milap (Bangalore, IN), Viswanathan, Subramanian (Marietta, GA, US), filed on April 30, 2020, was published online on October 19, 2021.

The patent’s assignee for patent number 11151233 is OneTrust LLC (Atlanta, Georgia, United States).

News editors obtained the following quote from the background information supplied by the inventors: “Over the past years, privacy and security policies, and related operations have become increasingly important. Breaches in security, leading to the unauthorized access of personal data (which may include sensitive personal data) have become more frequent among companies and other organizations of all sizes. Such personal data may include, but is not limited to, personally identifiable information (PII), which may be information that directly (or indirectly) identifies an individual or entity. Examples of PII include names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, and biometric identifiers such as a person’s fingerprints or picture. Other personal data may include, for example, customers’ Internet browsing habits, purchase history, or even their preferences (e.g., likes and dislikes, as provided or obtained through social media).

“Many organizations that obtain, use, and transfer personal data, including sensitive personal data, have begun to address these privacy and security issues. To manage personal data, many companies have attempted to implement operational policies and processes that comply with legal requirements, such as Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) or the U.S.’s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) protecting a patient’s medical information. Many regulators recommend conducting privacy impact assessments, or data protection risk assessments along with data inventory mapping. For example, the GDPR requires data protection impact assessments. Additionally, the United Kingdom ICO’s office provides guidance around privacy impact assessments. The OPC in Canada recommends certain personal information inventory practices, and the Singapore PDPA specifically mentions personal data inventory mapping.

“In implementing these privacy impact assessments, an individual may provide incomplete or incorrect information regarding personal data to be collected, for example, by new software, a new device, or a new business effort, for example, to avoid being prevented from collecting that personal data, or to avoid being subject to more frequent or more detailed privacy audits. In light of the above, there is currently a need for improved systems and methods for monitoring compliance with corporate privacy policies and applicable privacy laws in order to reduce a likelihood that an individual will successfully “game the system” by providing incomplete or incorrect information regarding current or future uses of personal data.

“Organizations that obtain, use, and transfer personal data often work with other organizations (“vendors”) that provide services and/or products to the organizations. Organizations working with vendors may be responsible for ensuring that any personal data to which their vendors may have access is handled properly. However, organizations may have limited control over vendors and limited insight into their internal policies and procedures. Therefore, there is currently a need for improved systems and methods that help organizations ensure that their vendors handle personal data properly.”

As a supplement to the background information on this patent, NewsRx correspondents also obtained the inventors’ summary information for this patent: “A computer-implemented data processing method for monitoring one or more system inputs as input of information related to a privacy campaign, according to various embodiments, comprises: (A) actively monitoring, by one or more processors, one or more system inputs from a user as the user provides information related to a privacy campaign, the one or more system inputs comprising one or more submitted inputs and one or more unsubmitted inputs, wherein actively monitoring the one or more system inputs comprises: (1) recording a first keyboard entry provided within a graphical user interface that occurs prior to submission of the one or more system inputs by the user, and (2) recording a second keyboard entry provided within the graphical user interface that occurs after the user inputs the first keyboard entry and before the user submits the one or more system inputs; (B) storing, in computer memory, by one or more processors, an electronic record of the one or more system inputs; (C) analyzing, by one or more processors, the one or more submitted inputs and one or more unsubmitted inputs to determine one or more changes to the one or more system inputs prior to submission, by the user, of the one or more system inputs, wherein analyzing the one or more submitted inputs and the one or more unsubmitted inputs to determine the one or more changes to the one or more system inputs comprises comparing the first keyboard entry with the second keyboard entry to determine one or more differences between the one or more submitted inputs and the one or more unsubmitted inputs, wherein the first keyboard entry is an unsubmitted input and the second keyboard entry is a submitted input; (D) determining, by one or more processors, based at least in part on the one or more system inputs and the one or more changes to the one or more system inputs, whether the user has provided one or more system inputs comprising one or more abnormal inputs; and (E) at least partially in response to determining that the user has provided one or more abnormal inputs, automatically flagging the one or more system inputs that comprise the one or more abnormal inputs in memory.

“A computer-implemented data processing method for monitoring a user as the user provides one or more system inputs as input of information related to a privacy campaign, in various embodiments, comprises: (A) actively monitoring, by one or more processors, (i) a user context of the user as the user provides the one or more system inputs as information related to the privacy campaign and (ii) one or more system inputs from the user, the one or more system inputs comprising one or more submitted inputs and one or more unsubmitted inputs, wherein actively monitoring the user context and the one or more system inputs comprises recording a first user input provided within a graphical user interface that occurs prior to submission of the one or more system inputs by the user, and recording a second user input provided within the graphical user interface that occurs after the user inputs the first user input and before the user submits the one or more system input; (B) storing, in computer memory, by one or more processors, an electronic record of user context of the user and the one or more system inputs from the user; (C) analyzing, by one or more processors, at least one item of information selected from a group consisting of (i) the user context and (ii) the one or more system inputs from the user to determine whether abnormal user behavior occurred in providing the one or more system inputs, wherein determining whether the abnormal user behavior occurred in providing the one or more system inputs comprises comparing the first user input with the second user input to determine one or more differences between the one or more submitted inputs and the one or more unsubmitted inputs, wherein the first user input is an unsubmitted input and the second user input is a submitted input; and (D) at least partially in response to determining that abnormal user behavior occurred in providing the one or more system inputs, automatically flagging, in memory, at least a portion of the provided one or more system inputs in which the abnormal user behavior occurred.

“A computer-implemented data processing method for monitoring a user as the user provides one or more system inputs as input of information related to a privacy campaign, in various embodiments, comprises: (A) actively monitoring, by one or more processors, a user context of the user as the user provides the one or more system inputs, the one or more system inputs comprising one or more submitted inputs and one or more unsubmitted inputs, wherein actively monitoring the user context of the user as the user provides the one more system inputs comprises recording a first user input provided within a graphical user interface that occurs prior to submission of the one or more system inputs by the user, and recording a second user input provided within the graphical user interface that occurs after the user provides the first user input and before the user submits the one or more system inputs, wherein the user context comprises at least one user factor selected from a group consisting of: (i) an amount of time the user takes to provide the one or more system inputs, (ii) a deadline associated with providing the one or more system inputs, (iii) a location of the user as the user provides the one or more system inputs; and (iv) one or more electronic activities associated with an electronic device on which the user is providing the one or more system inputs; (B) storing, in computer memory, by one or more processors, an electronic record of the user context of the user; (C) analyzing, by one or more processors, the user context, based at least in part on the at least one user factor, to determine whether abnormal user behavior occurred in providing the one or more system inputs, wherein determining whether the abnormal user behavior occurred in providing the one or more system inputs comprises comparing the first user input with the second user input to determine one or more differences between the first user input and the second user input, wherein the first user input is an unsubmitted input and the second user input is a submitted input; and (D) at least partially in response to determining that abnormal user behavior occurred in providing the one or more system inputs, automatically flagging, in memory, at least a portion of the provided one or more system inputs in which the abnormal user behavior occurred.

“A computer-implemented data processing method for scanning one or more webpages to determine vendor risk, in various embodiments, comprises: (A) scanning, by one or more processors, one or more webpages associated with a vendor; (B) identifying, by one or more processors, one or more vendor attributes based on the scan; (C) calculating a vendor risk score based at least in part on the one or more vendor attributes; and (D) taking one or more automated actions based on the vendor risk rating.

“A computer-implemented data processing method for generating an incident notification for a vendor, according to particular embodiments, comprises: receiving, by one or more processors, an indication of a particular incident; determining, by one or more processors based on the indication of the particular incident, one or more attributes of the particular incident; determining, by one or more processors based on the one or more attributes of the particular incident, a vendor associated with the particular incident; determining, by one or more processors based on the vendor associated with the particular incident, a notification obligation for the vendor associated with the particular incident; generating, by one or more processors in response to determining the notification obligation, a task associated with satisfying the notification obligation; presenting, by one or more processors on a graphical user interface, an indication of the task associated with satisfying the notification obligation; detecting, by one or more processors on a graphical user interface, a selection of the indication of the task associated with satisfying the notification obligation; and presenting, by one or more processors on a graphical user interface, detailed information associated with the task associated with satisfying the notification obligation.”

The claims supplied by the inventors are:

“1. A computer-implemented method for determining vendor privacy standard compliance, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more computer processors, an indication of a first privacy standard and a second privacy standard, wherein the first privacy standard and the second privacy standard are applicable to a particular vendor; generating, by the one or more computer processors, a compliance questionnaire comprising a plurality of questions, wherein the plurality of questions is included in the compliance questionnaire based on an ontology comprising a mapping of data controls required for compliance with the first privacy standard to the plurality of questions and data controls for compliance with the second privacy standard to the plurality of questions; providing, by the one or more computer processors, the compliance questionnaire for display to a user on a graphical user interface via a user device; receiving, by the one or more computer processors, vendor information associated with the particular vendor and originating from the user, the vendor information comprising a response to each of the plurality of questions in the compliance questionnaire; generating, by the one or more computer processors, a first compliance determination for the first privacy standard based on the response to each of the plurality of questions mapped in the ontology for the data controls required for compliance with the first privacy standard, wherein the first compliance determination indicates an extent the particular vendor is in compliance with the first privacy standard; generating, by the one or more computer processors, a second compliance determination for the second privacy standard based on the response to each of the plurality of questions mapped in the ontology for the data controls required for compliance with the second privacy standard, wherein the second compliance determination indicates an extent the particular vendor is in compliance with the second privacy standard; and providing, by the one or more computer processors, the first compliance determination and the second compliance determination for display to the user on the graphical user interface via the user device.

“2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more data controls required for compliance with the first privacy standard and the one or more data controls required for compliance with the second privacy standard comprises at least one of controls to access sensitive data, controls on modification of sensitive data, or controls on storing of sensitive data.

“3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving, by the one or more computer processors, data associated with the response provided for at least one of the plurality of questions and originating from the user; and generating, by the one or more computer processors, a confidence level for the response to the at least one of the plurality of questions based at least in part on the data, wherein: the data substantiates the response provided for the at least one of the plurality of questions, the confidence level for the response provided for the at least one of the plurality of questions represents a confidence the particular vendor is in compliance with a data control in the one or more data controls required for compliance with the first privacy standard, and the first compliance determination is generated based at least in part on the confidence level for the response provided for the at least one of the plurality of questions.

“4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the compliance questionnaire is performed using at least one of pattern matching or a machine learning technique to identify the plurality of questions to include in the compliance questionnaire.

“5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising customizing, by the one or more processors, the plurality of questions so that each of the plurality of questions can be presented in a natural language form.

“6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: generating a first confidence score, by the one or more computer processors, for the first compliance determination; and generating a second confidence score, by the one or more computer processors, for the second compliance determination, wherein the first confidence score and the second confidence score are provided for display on the graphical user interface to the user.

“7. A vendor compliance system comprising: one or more computer processors; and computer memory including computer-executable instructions configured to, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to at least: receive an indication of a particular vendor; receive an indication of a selection of a first user-selectable control displayed on a graphical user interface, wherein the first user-selectable control identifies a first privacy standard applicable to the particular vendor; receive an indication of a selection of a second user-selectable control displayed on the graphical user interface, wherein the second user-selectable control identifies a second privacy standard applicable to the particular vendor; generate a compliance questionnaire comprising a plurality of questions, wherein the plurality of questions is included in the compliance questionnaire based on an ontology comprising a mapping of data controls required for compliance with the first privacy standard to the plurality of questions and data controls for compliance with the second privacy standard to the plurality of questions; provide the compliance questionnaire for display to a user; receive a response to each of the plurality of questions originating from the user; generate a first compliance determination for the first privacy standard based on the response to each of the plurality of questions mapped in the ontology for the data controls required for compliance with the first privacy standard, wherein the first compliance determination indicates an extent the particular vendor is in compliance with the first privacy standard; generate a second compliance determination for the second privacy standard based on the response to each of the plurality of questions mapped in the ontology for the data controls required for compliance with the second privacy standard, wherein the second compliance determination indicates an extent the particular vendor is in compliance with the second privacy standard; and provide the first compliance determination and the second compliance determination for display to the user.

“8. The vendor compliance system of claim 7, wherein the one or more data controls required for compliance with the first privacy standard and the one or more data controls required for compliance with the second privacy standard comprises at least one of controls to access sensitive data, controls on modification of sensitive data, or controls on storing of sensitive data.

“9. The vendor compliance system of claim 7, wherein the computer-executable instructions are configured to, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to at least: receive data associated with the response provided for at least one of the plurality of questions and originating from the user; and generate a confidence level for the response to the at least one of the plurality of questions based at least in part on the data, wherein: the data substantiates the response provided for the at least one of the plurality of questions, the confidence level for the response provided for the at least one of the plurality of questions represents a confidence the particular vendor is in compliance with a data control in the one or more data controls required for compliance with the first privacy standard, and the first compliance determination is generated based at least in part on the confidence level for the response provided for the at least one of the plurality of questions.

“10. The vendor compliance system of claim 7, wherein the computer-executable instructions are configured to, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to at least generate the compliance questionnaire by performing at least one of pattern matching or a machine learning technique to identify the plurality of questions to include in the compliance questionnaire.

“11. The vendor compliance system of claim 7, wherein the computer-executable instructions are configured to, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to at least customize the plurality of questions so that each of the plurality of questions can be presented in a natural language form.

“12. The vendor compliance system of claim 7, wherein the computer-executable instructions are configured to, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the system to at least: generate a first confidence score for the first compliance determination; and generate a second confidence score for the second compliance determination, wherein the first confidence score and the second confidence score are provided for display on the graphical user interface to the user.”

There are additional claims. Please visit full patent to read further.

For additional information on this patent, see: Barday, Kabir A. Data processing and scanning systems for assessing vendor risk. U.S. Patent Number 11151233, filed April 30, 2020, and published online on October 19, 2021. Patent URL: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=11151233.PN.&OS=PN/11151233RS=PN/11151233

(Our reports deliver fact-based news of research and discoveries from around the world.)