PRI-41.1: Personal Data (PD) Exports
Mechanisms exist to export a data subject's available Personal Data (PD) in a readily usable format, upon an authenticated request.
Renumbered: Formerly PRI-06.7 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization export a data subject's available Personal Data (PD) in a readily usable format, upon an authenticated request?
General (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF) | A5.1-POF3 D6.7 |
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | P6.7-POF2 |
| APEC Privacy Framework 2015 | 8(a) 8(b) 8(b)(i) 8(b)(ii) 8(b)(iii) 8(b)(iv) |
| NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 | CT.DM-P6 |
| OECD Privacy Principles | 7(b) 7(b)(iv) |
| SCF DPMP 2026 | 5.7 |
US (8)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA California CCPA 2025 | 7024(g) |
| USA Colorado Colorado Privacy Act 2021 | 6-1-1306(1)(e) |
| USA Montana CDPA 2025 | 30-14-2808(1)(d) |
| USA Oregon CPA 2023 | Section 3(1)(a)(C) Section 3(2) |
| USA Oregon 646A 2025 | 646A.574(1)(a)(C) |
| USA Tennessee TIPA 2025 | 47-18-3203(a)(2)(D) |
| USA Texas CDPA 2025 | 541.051(b)(4) |
| USA Virginia CDPA 2023 | 59.1-577.A.4 |
EMEA (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU GDPR 2016 | Article 20.1 Article 20.1(b) |
| EMEA UK DPA 2018 | Section 52(1) Section 52(2) Section 52(3) Section 52(5) |
| EMEA Kenya DPA 2019 | IV.38(1) IV.38(2) |
| EMEA Nigeria DPR 2019 | 3.1(14) |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC India DPDPA 2023 | 11(1)(a) |
| APAC New Zealand Privacy Act of 2020 | 4.1.58(1) 4.1.58(1)(a) 4.1.58(1)(b) 4.1.58(1)(c) 4.1.58(1)(d) 4.1.58(1)(e) 4.1.58(1)(f) |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Brazil LGPD 2018 | III.19.I |
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 export a data subject's available Personal Data (PD) in a readily usable format, upon an authenticated request.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Assessment Objectives
- PRI-41.1_A01 Personal Data (PD) is capable of being digitally exported in a secure manner upon request by the data subject.
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