Skip to main content

PRI-30: Personal Data (PD) Retention & Disposal

PRI 8 — High Identify

Mechanisms exist to: (1) Retain Personal Data (PD), including metadata, for an organization-defined time period to fulfill the purpose(s) identified in the notice or as required by law; (2) Dispose of, destroys, erases, and/or anonymizes the PD, regardless of the method of storage; and (3) Use organization-defined techniques or methods to ensure secure deletion or destruction of PD (including originals, copies and archived records).

Renumbered: Formerly PRI-05 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization: (1) Retain Personal Data (PD), including metadata, for an organization-defined time period to fulfill the purpose(s) identified in the notice or as required by law; (2) Dispose of, destroys, erases, and/or anonymizes the PD, regardless of the method of storage; and (3) Use organization-defined techniques or methods to ensure secure deletion or destruction of PD (including originals, copies and archived records)?

General (41)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF) U4.2 U4.2-POF1 U4.3 U4.3-POF1 U4.3-POF2 U4.3-POF3
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) C1.1-POF3 C1.2 C1.2-POF1 C1.2-POF2 CC6.5 CC6.5-POF2 P4.0 P4.2 P4.2-POF1 P4.3 P4.3-POF2 P4.3-POF3
CIS CSC 8.1 3.5
CIS CSC 8.1 IG1 3.5
CIS CSC 8.1 IG2 3.5
CIS CSC 8.1 IG3 3.5
CSA CCM 4.1.0 DSP-16
GovRAMP SI-12
GovRAMP Low SI-12
GovRAMP Low+ SI-12
GovRAMP Moderate SI-12
GovRAMP High SI-12
ISO 27002 2022 5.33 8.10
ISO 27017 2015 18.1.4
ISO 27018 2025 5.33 8.10
ISO 29100 2024 6.5 6.6
NIST 800-53 R4 DM-2
NIST 800-53 R5.2 AC-04(25) SI-12 SI-12(03)
NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) SI-12
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) SI-12
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) SI-12
NIST 800-53B R5 (privacy) (source) SI-12 SI-12(03)
NIST 800-82 R3 AC-04(25) SI-12 SI-12(03)
NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay SI-12
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay SI-12
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay SI-12
NIST 800-161 R1 SI-12
NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline SI-12
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 SI-12
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) ID.AM-07
PCI DSS 4.0.1 (source) 9.4.6 9.4.7 10.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A (source) 9.4.6
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ A-EP (source) 9.4.6 10.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B (source) 9.4.6
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ B-IP (source) 9.4.6
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C (source) 9.4.6 10.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ C-VT (source) 9.4.6
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Merchant (source) 9.4.6 9.4.7 10.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ D Service Provider (source) 9.4.6 9.4.7 10.5.1
PCI DSS 4.0.1 SAQ P2PE (source) 9.4.6
SCF DPMP 2026 5.0
US (20)
Framework Mapping Values
USA Federal CMS MARS-E 2.0 SI-12 DM-2 DM-2.a
USA Federal Data Privacy Framework 2023 II.5.b
USA Federal CJIS Security Policy 6.0 4.2.2 4.2.3.1 4.2.3.2 4.3 SI-12 SI-12(3)
USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (low) SI-12
USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (moderate) SI-12
USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (high) SI-12
USA Federal FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) SI-12
USA Federal IRS 1075 2021 SI-12
USA Federal GLBA CFR 314 2023 314.4(c)(6)(i)
USA Federal FIPPS 1973 4.0
USA Illinois BIPA 2008 15(a)
USA Montana CDPA 2025 30-14-2808(4)(e) 30-14-2811(2)(a)(iii) 30-14-2811(2)(c) 30-14-2813(2)(b)
USA New York SHIELD Act 2019 899-bb.2(b)(ii)(C)(4)
USA Oregon CPA 2023 Section 4(7)(a)
USA Tennessee TIPA 2025 47-18-3203(a)(2)(C)(i)(a) 47-18-3204(a)(4)
USA Texas BC521 2009 521.052(b) 521.052(b)(1) 521.052(b)(2) 521.052(b)(3)
USA Texas DIR SCSC 2.2 2025 SI-12
USA Texas TRAIGA 2025 Sec. 2 / 503.001(f)
USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 1 SI-12
USA Texas TX-RAMP Level 2 SI-12
EMEA (15)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA Austria FAPPD 2000 § 13(3) § 37(2)
EMEA Belgium Act 8 1992 Title 2, Chapter II, Art. 30
EMEA Switzerland FADP 2025 2.1.6.4
EMEA Germany C5 2026 OPS-11.01B.1 OPS-11.01B.2 OPS-11.02B
EMEA Germany FDPA 2017 3.1.47.5 3.2.48(2)2 3.3.58(2) 3.4.62(5)4 3.4.75(2) 3.4.75(4)
EMEA EU AI Act Article 10.5(e)
EMEA EU GDPR 2016 Article 5.1(e)
EMEA Greece PIRPPD 1997 B.4.1.d B.4.2
EMEA Hungary Act CXII 2011 II.8.9(1)(b) II.13.15(3) II.13.17(2)(a) II.13.17(2)(b) II.13.17(2)(c) II.13.17(2)(d) II.13.17(2)(e) II.14.20(4)(d) II.15.21(7)
EMEA Italy PDPC 2018 Article 99(3)
EMEA Kenya DPA 2019 IV.25(g) IV.34(1)(b) IV.34(3) IV.39(1) IV.39(1)(a) IV.39(1)(b) IV.39(1)(c) IV.39(1)(d) IV.39(2)
EMEA Nigeria DPR 2019 3.1(9)(a)
EMEA Saudi Arabia PDPL Article 11.4 Article 18.1 Article 18.2.a Article 18.2.b
EMEA Serbia 87/2018 II.8 III.3.30-1(1)
EMEA South Africa POPIA 2013 3.A.3.14(1) 3.A.3.14(1)(a) 3.A.3.14(1)(b) 3.A.3.14(1)(c) 3.A.3.14(1)(d) 3.A.3.14(2) 3.A.3.14(3) 3.A.3.14(3)(a) 3.A.3.14(3)(b) 3.A.3.14(4) 3.A.3.14(5) 3.A.3.14(6) 3.A.3.14(6)(a) 3.A.3.14(6)(b) 3.A.3.14(6)(c) 3.A.3.14(6)(d) 3.A.3.14(7)
APAC (10)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australian Privacy Principles 2026 4.11.2 4.11.2.a 4.11.2.b 4.11.2.c 4.11.2.d
APAC China Privacy Law 2021 Article 19 Article 47
APAC Hong Kong PDO 2022 26(1) 26(1)(a) 26(1)(b) 26(2) 26(2)(a) 26(2)(b) Schedule 1 - 2(2) Schedule 1 - 2(3)
APAC India ITR 2011 5(4)
APAC Japan APPI 2020 IV.2.35-2(5)
APAC South Korea PIPA 2011 III.1.21(1) III.1.21(2) III.1.21(3) III.1.21(4)
APAC Malaysia PDPA 2010 10(1) 10(2)
APAC New Zealand Privacy Act of 2020 3.1.22.9
APAC Philippines DPA 2012 III.11(e) III.11(f)
APAC Singapore PDPA 2012 5.22A(1) 5.22A(2)
Americas (5)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Bahamas DPA 2003 II.5(1)(e) II.9(1) II.9(1)(a) II.9(1)(b) II.9(1)(c)
Americas Brazil LGPD 2018 II.IV.16 II.IV.16.I II.IV.16.II II.IV.16.III II.IV.16.IV
Americas Canada PIPEDA 2000 P5-4.5.3 P7-4.7.5
Americas Chile Act 19628 1999 I.6
Americas Mexico FDPA 2010 II.11

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Privacy (PRI) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with PRI domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRI domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRI domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Data privacy management-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Data privacy management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ The data privacy program is developed to work with IT and cybersecurity staff to ensure that applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual data privacy obligations for Personal Data (PD) are properly identified and implemented.

Level 3 — Well Defined

Privacy (PRI) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with PRI domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRI domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A data privacy team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRI domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of data privacy operations (e.g., privacy notice management software and customer management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRI domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to: (1) Retain Personal Data (PD), including metadata, for an organization-defined time period to fulfill the purpose(s) identified in the notice or as required by law; (2) Dispose of, destroys, erases, and/or anonymizes the PD, regardless of the method of storage; and (3) Use organization-defined techniques or methods to ensure secure deletion or destruction of PD (including originals, copies and archived records).

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Privacy (PRI) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). ▪ Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs). ▪ Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties. ▪ Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review). ▪ Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.

Level 5 — Continuously Improving

Privacy (PRI) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PRI-30_A01 techniques used to dispose of information following the retention period are defined.
  2. PRI-30_A02 techniques used to destroy information following the retention period are defined.
  3. PRI-30_A03 techniques used to erase information following the retention period are defined.
  4. PRI-30_A04 organization-defined techniques are used to dispose of information following the retention period.
  5. PRI-30_A05 organization-defined techniques are used to destroy information following the retention period.
  6. PRI-30_A06 organization-defined techniques are used to erase information following the retention period.
  7. PRI-30_A07 information within the system is retained in accordance with applicable laws, Executive Orders, directives, regulations, policies, standards, guidelines and operational requirements.
  8. PRI-30_A08 information output from the system is retained in accordance with applicable laws, Executive Orders, directives, regulations, policies, standards, guidelines and operational requirements.
  9. PRI-30_A09 information within the system is managed in accordance with applicable laws, Executive Orders, directives, regulations, policies, standards, guidelines and operational requirements.
  10. PRI-30_A10 information output from the system is managed in accordance with applicable laws, Executive Orders, directives, regulations, policies, standards, guidelines and operational requirements.

Evidence Requirements

E-AST-11 Data Retention Program

Documented evidence of a formal data retention program that governs the retention and destruction of data types.

Asset Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Data classification program
  • Data privacy program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Product / project management

Small

  • Data classification program
  • Data privacy program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Product / project management

Medium

  • Data classification program
  • Data privacy program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Product / project management

Large

  • Data classification program
  • Data privacy program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Product / project management

Enterprise

  • Data classification program
  • Data privacy program
  • Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)
  • Product / project management

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.