Patent Issued for Privacy management systems and methods (USPTO 11144622): OneTrust LLC

2021 NOV 03 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Insurance Daily News -- OneTrust LLC (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) has been issued patent number 11144622, according to news reporting originating out of Alexandria, Virginia, by NewsRx editors.

The patent’s inventors are Brannon, Jonathan Blake (Smyrna, GA, US), Clearwater, Andrew (Brunswick, ME, US), Hecht, Trey (Atlanta, GA, US), Johnson, Wesley (Atlanta, GA, US), Pavlichek, Nicholas Ian (Atlanta, GA, US), Philbrook, Brian (Atlanta, GA, US), Thielova, Linda (London, GB).

This patent was filed on March 4, 2020 and was published online on October 12, 2021.

From the background information supplied by the inventors, news correspondents obtained the following quote: “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.”

Supplementing the background information on this patent, NewsRx reporters 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 generating one or more notifications for a data breach experienced by an entity with respect to a plurality of territories, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, an indication of an occurrence of the data breach; at least partially in response to receiving the indication of the occurrence of the data breach, providing, by the one or more processors, a graphical user interface for display via a user device to a user, wherein the graphical user interface provides a prompt requesting at least one of territories in which the entity conducts business or territories affected by the occurrence of the data breach; receiving, by the one or more processors, an indication of a first territory and a second territory originating from the user; at least partially in response to receiving the indication of the first territory and the second territory, generating a master questionnaire comprising a plurality of questions, wherein the plurality of questions is included in the master questionnaire based at least in part on an ontology comprising a mapping of one or more data breach reporting requirements for the first territory to one or more of the plurality of questions and one or more data breach reporting requirements for the second territory to one or more of the plurality of questions; causing, by the one or more processors, a request for an answer to each of the plurality of questions in the master questionnaire from the user; receiving, by the one or more processors, input indicating the answer to each of the plurality of questions in the master questionnaire originating from the user; determining, by the one or more processors, based at least in part on the answer to at least one of the plurality of questions, to include the first territory in a listing of jurisdictions presented to the user on the graphical user interface; determining, by the one or more processors, based at least in part on the answer to at least one of the plurality of questions, to not include the second territory in the listing of jurisdictions presented to the user on the graphical user interface; causing, by the one or more processors, the listing of jurisdictions to be presented via the graphical user interface, wherein the listing of jurisdictions comprises an indication of the first territory and does not comprise an indication of the second territory; and at least partially in response to determining to disclose the data breach for the first territory, automatically generating, by the one or more processors, a first notification for the first territory.

“2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein automatically generating the first notification for the first territory comprises generating a notification selected from a group consisting of: (a) an electronic notification; and (b) a paper notification.

“3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein one or more of the plurality of questions in the master questionnaire comprise a question requesting data selected from a group consisting of: (a) a number of data subjects affected by the data breach; (b) a business sector associated with the data breach; and © a date of discovery of the data breach.

“4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining a status of the data breach based on the answer to at least one of the plurality of questions in the master questionnaire.

“5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising automatically causing, by the one or more processors, the first notification to be sent for the first territory.

“6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein: the graphical user interface further provides a prompt requesting at least one of business sectors in which the entity conducts business or business sectors affected by the occurrence of the data breach; the indication originating from the user further comprises of a business sector; and the plurality of questions is included in the master questionnaire based at least in part on the ontology comprising a mapping of the one or more data breach reporting requirements for the first territory and the business sector to the one or more of the plurality of questions and the one or more data breach reporting requirements for the second territory and the business sector to one or more of the plurality of questions.

“7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 further comprising: causing, by the one or more processors, a request for an answer to each of a plurality of questions in a disclosure questionnaire from the user; receiving, by the one or more processors, input indicating the answer to each of the plurality of questions in the disclosure questionnaire originating from the user; and determining, by the one or more processors, based at least in part on the answer to at least one of the plurality of questions in the disclosure questionnaire, the first notification for the first territory.

“8. The computer-implemented method of claim 7, wherein the plurality of questions in the disclosure questionnaire is based on a breach notification template.

“9. A system for generating a notification for a data breach experienced by an entity with respect to a first territory, the system comprising: one or more processors; and computer memory including computer-executable instructions configured to, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to at least: receive a request from a user to determine whether to disclose the data breach for the first territory; and at least partially in response to receiving the request to determine whether to disclose the data breach for the first territory: generate a master questionnaire comprising a plurality of questions, wherein the plurality of questions is included in the master questionnaire based at least in part on an ontology comprising a mapping of one or more data breach reporting requirements for the first territory to one or more of the plurality of questions; cause a request for an answer from the user to each of the plurality of questions of the data breach master questionnaire; receive input indicating the answer originating from the user to each of the plurality of questions of the data breach master questionnaire; determine, based at least in part on the answer to at least one of the plurality of questions, to include the first territory in the listing of affected jurisdictions presented to the user on a graphical user interface; cause the listing of jurisdictions to be presented to the user via the graphical user interface, wherein the listing of jurisdictions comprises an indication of the first territory; and at least partially in response to determining to disclose the data breach for the first territory, automatically generate the notification for the first territory.

“10. The system of claim 9, wherein the input indicating the answer to one of the plurality of questions of the master questionnaire comprises a selection of one or more business sectors from a listing of a plurality of business sectors.

“11. The system of claim 9, wherein the computer-executable instructions are configured to, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to at least receive the request to determine whether to disclose the data breach for the first territory based at least in part on receiving an automated notification of the data breach.

“12. The system of claim 9, wherein the computer-executable instructions are configured to, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to at least automatically cause the notification to be sent for the first territory.

“13. The system of claim 9, wherein: the request from the user further comprises determining whether to disclose the data breach for a second territory, the plurality of questions is included in the master questionnaire based at least in part on the ontology comprising a mapping of one or more data breach reporting requirements for the second territory to one or more of the plurality of questions, and the computer-executable instructions are configured to, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to at least: determine, based at least in part on the answer to at least one of the plurality of questions, to not include the second territory in the listing of jurisdictions presented to the user on a graphical user interface; and cause the listing of jurisdictions to be presented to the user via the graphical user interface, wherein the listing of jurisdictions does not comprise an indication of the second territory.

“14. The system of claim 9, wherein the computer-executable instructions are configured to, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to at least: cause a request for an answer to each of a plurality of questions in a disclosure questionnaire from the user; receive input indicating the answer to each of the plurality of questions in the disclosure questionnaire originating from the user; and determine based at least in part on the answer to at least one of the plurality of questions in the disclosure questionnaire, the notification for the first territory.”

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

For the URL and additional information on this patent, see: Brannon, Jonathan Blake. Privacy management systems and methods. U.S. Patent Number 11144622, filed March 4, 2020, and published online on October 12, 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=11144622.PN.&OS=PN/11144622RS=PN/11144622

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