Patent Issued for Privacy management systems and methods (USPTO 11238390): OneTrust LLC
2022 FEB 18 (NewsRx) -- By a
Patent number 11238390 is assigned to
The following quote was obtained by the news editors 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
“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 the background information obtained for this patent, NewsRx journalists 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 data processing method for determining a required data privacy activity comprising: receiving, by one or more computer processors from a user via a first graphical user interface, an indication of a first jurisdiction and an indication of a second jurisdiction; retrieving, by the one or more computer processors based at least in part on the first jurisdiction, a first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction from a data structure using an ontology mapping the first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction to a second data privacy requirement for the second jurisdiction; retrieving, by the one or more computer processors based on the ontology mapping the first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction to the second data privacy requirement for the second jurisdiction, the second data privacy requirement for the second jurisdiction from the data structure using the ontology; retrieving, by the one or more computer processors based on the first jurisdiction, a first enforcement parameter from the data structure using the ontology, wherein the first enforcement parameter indicates a first number of enforcement actions associated with the first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction performed in a particular time period; retrieving, by the one or more computer processors based at least in part on the second jurisdiction, a second enforcement parameter from the data structure using the ontology, wherein the second enforcement parameter indicates a second number of enforcement actions associated with the second data privacy requirement for the second jurisdiction performed in the particular time period; determining, by the one or more computer processors, a first reporting score for the first jurisdiction based on a first business value for the first jurisdiction and the first enforcement parameter; determining, by the one or more computer processors, a second reporting score for the second jurisdiction based on a second business value for the second jurisdiction and the second enforcement parameter; determining, by the one or more computer processors, that satisfying the first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction conflicts with satisfying the second data privacy requirement for the second jurisdiction; in response to determining that satisfying the first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction conflicts with satisfying the second data privacy requirement for the second jurisdiction, automatically, by the one or more computer processors: calculating a first risk level associated with not satisfying the first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction using the first reporting score for the first jurisdiction; and calculating a second risk level associated with not satisfying the second data privacy requirement for the second jurisdiction using the second reporting score for the second jurisdiction; performing, by the one or more computer processors, a comparison of the first risk level with the second risk level to determine which of the first risk level and the second risk level is a lowest risk level; determining, by the one or more computer processors based on the lowest risk level, a required data privacy activity; mapping, by the one or more computer processors, the required data privacy activity to a master question in a master questionnaire; electronically generating, by the one or more computer processors, a second graphical user interface comprising the master questionnaire; electronically receiving, by the one or more computer processors, data responsive to the master question via the second graphical user interface; generating, by the one or more computer processors, an electronic link associating the data responsive to the master question with the required data privacy activity in the data structure using the ontology; wherein: calculating the first risk level associated with not satisfying the first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction comprises determining a first fine imposition rate for violations of the first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction; and calculating the second risk level associated with not satisfying the second data privacy requirement for the second jurisdiction comprises determining a second fine imposition rate for violations of the second data privacy requirement for the second jurisdiction.
“2. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 1, further comprising automatically performing the required data privacy activity.
“3. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 1, wherein the first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction comprises a first personal data retention policy; and wherein the second data privacy requirement for the second jurisdiction comprises a second personal data retention policy.
“4. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 1, wherein calculating the first risk level associated with not satisfying the first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction comprises determining a first penalty for not satisfying the first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction; and wherein calculating the second risk level associated with not satisfying the second data privacy requirement for the second jurisdiction comprises determining a second penalty for not satisfying the second data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction.
“5. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 1, wherein calculating the first risk level associated with not satisfying the first data privacy requirement for the first jurisdiction comprises determining a first volume of data processed in the first jurisdiction; and wherein calculating the second risk level associated with not satisfying the second data privacy requirement for the second jurisdiction comprises determining a second volume of data processed in the first jurisdiction.
“6. The computer-implemented data processing method of claim 1, further comprising presenting, on the generating a third graphical user interface comprising a recommended course of action comprising an indication of the required data privacy activity.”
There are additional claims. Please visit full patent to read further.
URL and more information on this patent, see: Brannon,
(Our reports deliver fact-based news of research and discoveries from around the world.)
Patent Issued for Systems and methods for integrating data (USPTO 11238018): Express Scripts Strategic Development Inc.
Attorney Crump files second lawsuit against State Farm
Advisor News
- Americans’ saving, investment product savvy improves, study finds
- Bull or bear? What are financial advisors’ market expectations for 2025?
- Panel: Is the American retirement system ‘broken’?
- Goldman Sachs, others weigh in on what’s ahead for the market in 2025
- How is consumers’ investing confidence impacting the need for advisors?
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
- Addiction Recovery Care has cut almost a quarter of its workforce
- OPINION: Colorado must be a trailblazer on youth mental health services and solve the commercial insurance problem
- West Virginians say medications have helped them lose weight, but coverage can be a problem
- A Yankee Notebook: The public-private schism
- Insurance is what makes US health-care prices so high
More Health/Employee Benefits NewsLife Insurance News