Cover
Photo: StockSnap (CC0)
Spotlight
PAGE: https://alison.com/course/iso-27701-data-protection-and-privacy-information-management
PROMISE: Map your extension privacy practices to ISO 27701 standards to verify jurisdictional legal fit.
WHO: Developers or product owners validating their extension’s privacy stance against international standards.
WHYNOW: Privacy regulations are tightening globally, making standard-aligned documentation necessary for trust.
DESC: Learn about forming an Information Security Management System according to ISO 27701 with this FREE online course.
BEFORE: Privacy policies are written without a recognized standard structure.
BEFORE: Data retention limits are guessed rather than defined by control objectives.
BEFORE: Legal compliance checks are ad hoc and lack documentation.
AFTER: Policies follow ISO 27701 Annex A control objectives.
AFTER: Retention practices map to specific privacy management controls.
AFTER: Compliance evidence is structured around standard legal obligations.
GAIN: A structured set of privacy management controls from Annex A.
GAIN: Clear alignment between privacy and general information security standards.
GAIN: Specific knowledge of legal obligations for personal data access.
STEP: Reader lacks a clear framework to structure their privacy data handling. || Explain the ways in which Annex A provides privacy management controls and objectives for organizations || Apply specific Annex A controls to your extension’s data collection and processing flows.
STEP: Uncertainty about how privacy requirements interact with existing security mandates. || Indicate the relationship between ISO 27701 and ISO 2700 || Align the extension’s privacy policy with the broader information security management system.
STEP: Fear of non-compliance with specific regional data protection laws. || GDPR || Compare the extension’s retention and consent features against GDPR requirements.
STEP: No clear audit trail for how user data requests are handled internally. || Summarize the key legal obligations organizations have regarding processing personal data access requests || Update internal workflows to document how data access requests are processed and logged.
NOTFOR: Readers needing immediate legal advice on specific local statutes.
NOTFOR: Organizations without any existing information security framework.
FACT: Average duration: 3-4 Hours
FACT: CPD-accredited certificate available
FACT: Intermediate level
COVERS: Describe the responsibilities outlined in a contract for processing Personally Identifiable Information (PII)
COVERS: Indicate the relationship between ISO 27701 and ISO 2700
COVERS: Explain the ways in which Annex A provides privacy management controls and objectives for organizations
COVERS: Summarize the key legal obligations organizations have regarding processing personal data access requests
COVERS: State the controls in ISO 27701 that enhance the privacy framework by addressing processes such as consent management
COVERS: Outline the methods in which ISO 27701 certification is available only as an extension of an ISO 27001 certificate
COVERS: Identify the importance of a comprehensive information security program that includes people and processes
COVERS: Risk Management
COVERS: GDPR
COVERS: Compliance
COVERS: Information Security
MODULE: Data Protection With ISO 27701 || Introduction to ISO 27701 and Its Structure | Introduction to Standards of ISO 27000 Family and Their Differences | Introduction to GDPR Guidance and Certification Process | Introduction to the Controls in ISO 27701
What you are probably seeing
The user’s dashboard shows a spike in user queries about data deletion after the Onerep sunset notice, but the app logs indicate no change in data storage levels.
The admin interface lists user accounts that have not synced in over a year, yet their personal data remains active in the database without an automated purge flag.
Why it happens
Older data retention practices were designed for indefinite sync history, creating a gap between the promise of user control and the actual database architecture.
The privacy policy text was likely written before the service ended, leaving it outdated and misaligned with current data handling realities.
What changed recently
Step by step
1. Map every field in the extension’s local storage and cloud database to see which items are retained versus deleted.
2. Read the current jurisdiction’s data minimization laws to identify which retained fields are legally prohibited or require explicit consent.
3. Update the privacy policy to explicitly state how long each data type is kept and when it is permanently erased.
4. Build an automated job that flags accounts inactive for a specific period for review or deletion to reduce liability.
5. Separate sync settings from core user data in the code so that disabling one does not prevent the deletion of the other.
Ways to go further
Start here: ISO 27701 – Data Protection and Privacy Information Management Open the free course on Alison ↗
Affiliate links: CHEAPUNO may earn a commission if you buy through them, at no extra cost to you.
Other problems readers raise
How to secure physical recovery keys for encrypted backups
Does your backup support Linux for cross-OS freelance files?
Is your business data vulnerable to US cloud laws?
How to stop MCP server rebinding attacks targeting localhost