Framework overlap

Does Canadian PIPEDA cover Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11)?

You hold Canadian PIPEDA and have been told to do Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11). Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

30% of Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11) you already have

Canadian PIPEDA already covers about 30% of Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11), leaving 16 of 23 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 7 New work 16

No control in Canadian PIPEDA maps directly to one in Angola Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 22/11). Everything counted as covered is covered because both map to the same third standard, which is what a crosswalk is, but it is an inference rather than a lookup.

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in Canadian PIPEDA reaches these. This is the list to scope.

AO-PDPL-1
Scope and Application
AO-PDPL-13
Cross-Border Transfers
AO-PDPL-14
Video Surveillance and Location Data
AO-PDPL-15
Direct Marketing and Cookies
AO-PDPL-16
Employee Monitoring
AO-PDPL-17
Children's Data
AO-PDPL-20
APD Cooperation and Audits
AO-PDPL-21
Sanctions and Liability
AO-PDPL-22
Sectoral Rules Health and Financial
AO-PDPL-23
Training and Awareness
AO-PDPL-4
Sensitive Data
AO-PDPL-5
APD Notification and Authorisation
AO-PDPL-6
Information to Data Subjects
AO-PDPL-7
Right of Access
AO-PDPL-8
Right of Rectification, Erasure and Blocking
AO-PDPL-9
Right to Object
Show the 7 you already have
AO-PDPL-10
Security Measures
AO-PDPL-11
Confidentiality Obligations
AO-PDPL-12
Processor Agreements
AO-PDPL-18
Breach Response
AO-PDPL-19
Records of Processing
AO-PDPL-2
General Processing Principles
AO-PDPL-3
Lawful Basis

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Canadian PIPEDA 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