Does Chile Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 21.719) cover Code of Conduct on Data Protection for Research (GDPR Article 40)?

50% of Code of Conduct on Data Protection for Research (GDPR Article 40) you already have

Chile Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 21.719) already covers about 50% of Code of Conduct on Data Protection for Research (GDPR Article 40), leaving 10 of 20 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 10 New work 10

No control in Chile Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 21.719) maps directly to one in Code of Conduct on Data Protection for Research (GDPR Article 40). 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 Chile Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 21.719) reaches these. This is the list to scope.

RDCOC-ADH-01

Adherence Procedures

RDCOC-APP-01

Supervisory Authority / EDPB Approval

RDCOC-AUD-01

Audits and Compliance Reviews

RDCOC-COM-01

Complaint Handling

RDCOC-GOV-01

Code Owner and Governance

RDCOC-MON-01

Accredited Monitoring Body

RDCOC-REV-01

Periodic Review and Update

RDCOC-RIG-01

Data Subject Rights and Information in Research

RDCOC-SAN-01

Sanctions and Suspension

RDCOC-TRN-01

Training and Awareness

Show the 10 you already have

RDCOC-ANO-01

Anonymisation Criteria

RDCOC-BRE-01

Breach Notification Procedures

RDCOC-CON-01

Consent and Broad Consent

RDCOC-DPI-01

Data Protection Impact Assessments

RDCOC-LAW-01

Lawful Basis for Research

RDCOC-PRO-01

Processor Engagements

RDCOC-PSE-01

Pseudonymisation Standards

RDCOC-RET-01

Retention and Archival

RDCOC-SCO-01

Scope of Processing Activities

RDCOC-TRA-01

International Data Transfers

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Chile Personal Data Protection Law (Law No. 21.719) 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 · Today's edition