Framework overlap

Does Azure Security Benchmark cover Barbados Data Protection Act 2019?

You hold Azure Security Benchmark and have been told to do Barbados Data Protection Act 2019. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

39% of Barbados Data Protection Act 2019 you already have

Azure Security Benchmark already covers about 39% of Barbados Data Protection Act 2019, leaving 14 of 23 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 7 Likely covered 2 New work 14

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in Azure Security Benchmark reaches these. This is the list to scope.

BB-DPA-10
Section 10 - Right of Access
BB-DPA-11
Section 11 - Right to Rectification
BB-DPA-12
Section 12 - Right to Erasure
BB-DPA-13
Section 13 - Right to Restriction of Processing
BB-DPA-15
Section 18 - Automated Decision-Making Including Profiling
BB-DPA-18
Section 25 - Binding Corporate Rules
BB-DPA-19
Sections 29-49 - General Exemptions
BB-DPA-23
Sections 76-89 - Enforcement Provisions
BB-DPA-3
Section 3 - Application of Act
BB-DPA-5
Section 5 - Fairness of Processing
BB-DPA-6
Section 6 - Lawfulness of Processing
BB-DPA-7
Section 7 - Conditions for Consent
BB-DPA-8
Section 8 - Child's Consent
BB-DPA-9
Section 9 - Sensitive Personal Data
Show the 9 you already have
BB-DPA-1
Section 1 - Short Title
BB-DPA-14
Section 15 - Right to Data Portability
BB-DPA-16
Section 22 - General Principle for Transfers
BB-DPA-2
Section 2 - Interpretation
BB-DPA-20
Sections 50-60 - Registration and Responsibilities
BB-DPA-21
Sections 61-69 - Data Privacy Officer
BB-DPA-4
Section 4 - Principles Relating to Processing
BB-DPA-17
Section 24 - Appropriate Safeguards
BB-DPA-22
Sections 70-75 - Commissioner Functions

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Azure Security Benchmark to that control. Likely covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified fact.

Coverage is not symmetric. Run it the other way and you will get a different number; both are correct.

From 332,959 cross-framework control mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.

Try another pair ยท Today's edition