Patent Issued for Privacy management systems and methods (USPTO 11410106): OneTrust LLC

2022 AUG 25 (NewsRx) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Insurance Daily News -- OneTrust LLC (Atlanta, Georgia, United States) has been issued patent number 11410106, according to news reporting originating out of Alexandria, Virginia, by NewsRx editors.

The patent’s inventors are 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).

This patent was filed on November 24, 2021 and was published online on August 9, 2022.

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 method comprising: generating, by computing hardware, a graphical user interface based on a master compliance readiness questionnaire for a first set of requirements for a first regulation and a second set of requirements for a second regulation applicable to operations performed by an entity, wherein generating the graphical user interface comprises: configuring a first prompt for requesting a first answer to a first master question of the master compliance readiness questionnaire, and configuring a second prompt for requesting a second answer to a second master question of the master compliance readiness questionnaire; providing, by the computing hardware, the graphical user interface for display, wherein displaying the graphical user interface involves providing the first prompt requesting the first answer to the first master question and providing the second prompt requesting the second answer to the second master question; receiving, by the computing hardware, the first answer and the second answer; accessing, by the computing hardware, an ontology that maps a data structure to the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements, wherein the data structure is configured to be populated via the master compliance readiness questionnaire; updating, by the computing hardware, a first element of the data structure for the entity with the first answer, wherein the ontology maps the first element to a first requirement of the first set of requirements and a first requirement of the second set of requirements; updating, by the computing hardware, a second element of the data structure for the entity with the second answer, wherein the ontology maps the second element to a second requirement of the first set of requirements and a second requirement of the second set of requirements; determining, by the computing hardware, a first percentage of compliance with the first regulation based on the first element of the data structure that has been updated with the first answer and the second element of the data structure that has been updated with the second answer; determining, by the computing hardware, a second percentage of compliance with the second regulation based on the first element of the data structure that has been updated with the first answer, the second element of the data structure that has been updated with the second answer, and a third element of the data structure having a mapping via the ontology to the second set of requirements and lacking a mapping via the ontology to the first set of requirements; and updating, by the computing hardware, the graphical user interface to present the first percentage of compliance and the second percentage of compliance.

“2. The method of claim 1, wherein updating the graphical user interface to present the first percentage of compliance and the second percentage of compliance comprises: generating a comparison between the first percentage of compliance and the second percentage of compliance; and updating the graphical user interface to present the comparison.

“3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first regulation and the second regulation are related to at least one of: an environmental, social, and governance framework; an industry standard; or a privacy standard.

“4. The method of claim 1, wherein the graphical user interface is configured with a list of regulations and the method further comprises: receiving, by the computing hardware, a first indication of a selection of the first regulation from the list of regulations; and receiving, by the computing hardware, a second indication of a selection of the second regulation from the list of regulations.

“5. The method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving, by the computing hardware, supporting data associated with the first answer; and determining, by the computing hardware, a confidence level for the first answer, wherein: the supporting data substantiates the first answer, the confidence level for the first answer represents a confidence that the entity complies with at least one of the first requirement of the first set of requirements or the first requirement of the second set of requirements, and at least one of the first percentage of compliance or the second percentage of compliance is determined based on the confidence level for the first answer.

“6. The method of claim 5, wherein determining the confidence level for the first answer is based on a source of the supporting data.

“7. The method of claim 5, wherein the supporting data comprises at least one of unsubstantiated data provided by the entity, substantiated data based on a remote interview with the entity, or substantiated data based on an audit of the entity.

“8. A system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions; and a processing device communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein, the processing device is configured to execute the instructions and thereby perform operations comprising: generating a graphical user interface based on a master compliance readiness questionnaire for a first set of requirements for a first regulation and a second set of requirements for a second regulation applicable to operations performed by an entity, wherein generating the graphical user interface comprises: configuring a first prompt for requesting a first answer to a first master question of the master compliance readiness questionnaire, and configuring a second prompt for requesting a second answer to a second master question of the master compliance readiness questionnaire; providing the graphical user interface for display, wherein displaying the graphical user interface involves providing the first prompt requesting the first answer to the first master question and providing the second prompt requesting the second answer to the second master question; receiving the first answer and the second answer; accessing an ontology that maps a data structure to the first set of requirements and the second set of requirements, wherein the data structure is configured to be populated via the master compliance readiness questionnaire; updating a first element of the data structure for the entity with the first answer, wherein the ontology maps the first element to a first requirement of the first set of requirements and a first requirement of the second set of requirements; updating a second element of the data structure for the entity with the second answer, wherein the ontology maps the second element to a second requirement of the first set of requirements and a second requirement of the second set of requirements; determining a first percentage of compliance with the first regulation based on the first element of the data structure that has been updated with the first answer and the second element of the data structure that has been updated with the second answer; determining a second percentage of compliance with the second regulation based on the first element of the data structure that has been updated with the first answer, the second element of the data structure that has been updated with the second answer, and a third element of the data structure having a mapping via the ontology to the second set of requirements and lacking a mapping via the ontology to the first set of requirements; and updating the graphical user interface to present the first percentage of compliance and the second percentage of compliance.

“9. The system of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an indication that a third regulation is no longer applicable to the entity; and editing, based on the indication, the master compliance readiness questionnaire to remove a third master question associated with a third requirement of a third set of requirements for the third regulation.

“10. The system of claim 8, wherein the first regulation and the second regulation related to at least one of: an environmental, social, and governance framework; an industry standard; or a privacy standard.

“11. The system of claim 8, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving supporting data associated with the first answer; determining a confidence level for the first answer, wherein: the supporting data substantiates the first answer, and the confidence level for the first answer represents a confidence that the entity complies with at least one of the first requirement of the first set of requirements or the first requirement of the second set of requirements; and updating a fourth element of the data structure for the entity with the confidence level for the first answer.

“12. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise updating the graphical user interface to present the confidence level for the first answer.

“13. The system of claim 11, wherein the supporting data comprises at least one of unsubstantiated data provided by the entity, substantiated data based on a remote interview with the entity, or substantiated data based on an audit of the entity.”

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 11410106, filed November 24, 2021, and published online on August 9, 2022. 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=11410106.PN.&OS=PN/11410106RS=PN/11410106

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