Patent Issued for Privacy management systems and methods (USPTO 11188862): OneTrust LLC

2021 DEC 21 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Insurance Daily News -- According to news reporting originating from Alexandria, Virginia, by NewsRx journalists, a patent by the inventors Brannon, Jonathan Blake (Smyrna, GA, US), Chennur, Rajanandini (Atlanta, GA, US), Clearwater, Andrew (Atlanta, GA, US), Hecht, Trey (Atlanta, GA, US), Johnson, Wesley (Atlanta, GA, US), Pavlichek, Nicholas Ian (Atlanta, GA, US), Philbrook, Brian (Atlanta, GA, US), filed on May 3, 2021, was published online on November 30, 2021.

The assignee for this patent, patent number 11188862, is OneTrust LLC (Atlanta, Georgia, United States).

Reporters 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.”

In addition to obtaining background information on this patent, NewsRx editors 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 system comprising: processing hardware; computer memory communicatively coupled to the processing hardware; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium communicatively coupled to the processing hardware, and storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the processing hardware is configured for executing the computer-executable instructions and thereby performing operations comprising: detecting a user selection of a territory on a graphical user interface; determining a first set of regulations based on the territory; generating a first compliance readiness questionnaire based on the first set of regulations, the first compliance readiness questionnaire comprising a first plurality of questions; determining a second set of regulations based on the territory; generating a second compliance readiness questionnaire based on the second set of regulations, the second compliance readiness questionnaire comprising a second plurality of questions; generating a master compliance readiness questionnaire comprising a plurality of master questions; generating an ontology that maps: a first question of the plurality of master questions to a first question of the first plurality of questions, and the first question of the plurality of master questions to a first question of the second plurality of questions; receiving a request to determine an extent of compliance with the first set of regulations and the second set of regulations; generating a prompt to a user requesting an answer to the first question of the plurality of master questions in response to receiving the request; receiving and storing input from the user indicating the answer to the first question of the plurality of master questions; generating a second prompt to the user requesting an answer to a second question of the plurality of master questions; receiving and storing input from the user indicating the answer to the second question of the plurality of master questions; accessing the ontology; populating the first question of the first plurality of questions with the answer to the first question of the plurality of master questions using the ontology; populating the first question of the second plurality of questions with the answer to the first question of the plurality of master questions using the ontology; populating a second question of the first plurality of questions with the answer to the second question of the plurality of master questions using the ontology; populating a second question of the second plurality of questions with the answer to the second question of the plurality of master questions using the ontology; determining a first extent of compliance with the first set of regulations based on the first question of the first plurality of questions by determining a first percentage of compliance with the first set of regulations based on the first plurality of questions; determining a second extent of compliance with the second set of regulations based on the first question of the second plurality of questions by determining a second percentage of compliance with the second set of regulations based on the second plurality of questions; and presenting the first extent of compliance as a first indication of the first percentage of compliance and the second extent of compliance as a second indication of the second percentage of compliance to the user on the graphical user interface.

“2. The system of claim 1, wherein: the first set of regulations comprises first regulations applicable to the territory in a first time period; the second set of regulations comprises second regulations applicable to the territory in a second time period; and the first time period is distinct from the second time period.

“3. The system of claim 1, wherein detecting the user selection of the territory on the graphical user interface comprises: generating a graphical representation of a map; presenting the graphical representation of the map on the graphical user interface; and detecting the user selection of the first territory on the graphical representation of the map.

“4. The system of claim 1, wherein presenting the first extent of compliance and the second extent of compliance to the user on the graphical user interface comprises: generating a comparison between the first extent of compliance and the second extent of compliance; and presenting the comparison to the user on the graphical user interface.

“5. The system of claim 1, wherein detecting the user selection of the territory on the graphical user interface comprises: generating a listing of a plurality of territories; presenting the listing of the plurality of territories on the graphical user interface; and detecting the user selection of the first territory on the listing of the plurality of territories.

“6. The system of claim 1, wherein determining the first set of regulations comprises: generating a listing of a plurality of sets of regulations associated with the territory; presenting the listing of the plurality of sets of regulations on the graphical user interface; detecting a user selection of the first set of regulations on the listing of the plurality of sets of regulations; and determining the first set of regulations based on the user selection of the first set of regulations.

“7. A method comprising: receiving, by computing hardware, an indication of a user selection of a territory on a graphical user interface; determining, by the computing hardware, a first set of requirements and a second set of requirements based on the territory; generating, by the computing hardware, a first compliance readiness questionnaire comprising a first plurality of questions based on the first set of requirements; generating, by the computing hardware, a second compliance readiness questionnaire comprising a second plurality of questions based on the second set of requirements; generating, by the computing hardware, a master compliance readiness questionnaire comprising a plurality of master questions; generating, by the computing hardware, an ontology that maps: a first question of the plurality of master questions to a first question of the first plurality of questions, and the first question of the plurality of master questions to a first question of the second plurality of questions; receiving, by the computing hardware, a request to determine an extent of compliance with the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements; generating, by the computing hardware, a first prompt to a user requesting an answer to the first question of the plurality of master questions in response to receiving the request; receiving, by the computing hardware, the answer to the first question of the plurality of master questions; generating, by the computing hardware, a second prompt to the user requesting an answer to a second question of the plurality of master questions; receiving, by the computing hardware, the answer to the second question of the plurality of master questions; accessing, by the computing hardware, the ontology; populating, by the computing hardware in computer memory, the first question of the first plurality of questions and the first question of the second plurality of questions with the answer to the first question of the plurality of master questions using the ontology; populating, by the computing hardware in computer memory, a second question of the first plurality of questions and a second question of the second plurality of questions with the answer to the second question of the plurality of master questions using the ontology; determining, by the computing hardware, a first extent of compliance with the first set of requirements based on the first plurality of questions by determining a first percentage of compliance with the first set of requirements based on the first plurality of questions; determining, by the computing hardware, a second extent of compliance with the second set of requirements based on the second plurality of questions by determining a second percentage of compliance with the second set of requirements based on the second plurality of questions; and presenting, by the computing hardware on the graphical user interface, the first extent of compliance as a first indication of the first percentage of compliance and the second extent of compliance as a second indication of the second percentage of compliance to the user on the graphical user interface.

“8. The method of claim 7, wherein presenting the first extent of compliance and the second extent of compliance further comprises presenting, on the graphical user interface, a visual representation of the territory proximate to the first indication of the first percentage of compliance and the second indication of the second percentage of compliance.

“9. The method of claim 7, wherein at least one of the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements is associated with an Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework.

“10. The method of claim 7, wherein at least one of the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements is associated with one or more of an industry standard or a privacy standard.”

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

For more information, see this patent: Brannon, Jonathan Blake. Privacy management systems and methods. U.S. Patent Number 11188862, filed May 3, 2021, and published online on November 30, 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=11188862.PN.&OS=PN/11188862RS=PN/11188862

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