Framework overlap

Does GDPR cover South Korea PIPA?

You hold GDPR and have been told to do South Korea PIPA. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

63% of South Korea PIPA you already have

GDPR already covers about 63% of South Korea PIPA, leaving 3 of 8 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 3 Likely covered 2 New work 3

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in GDPR reaches these. This is the list to scope.

PIPA-Breach-Notification-Article34-Insurance-Reserves-Article39-3-Damages-Civil-Liability
Korea PIPA Breach Notification + Article 34 + Insurance Reserves + Article 39-3 + Civil Liability
PIPA-Lawful-Basis-Notice-Consent-Article15-16-17-22-Direct-Marketing-Withdrawal
Korea PIPA Lawful Basis + Notice + Consent + Article 15-16-17 + Direct Marketing
PIPA-Scope-Application-Act10465-2011-2020-2023Amendments-PIPC-KISA-Universal-Application
Korea PIPA Scope and Application + Act No. 10465 + 2011 Enactment + 2020 + 2023 Amendments + PIPC and KISA
Show the 5 you already have
PIPA-CPO-DPO-Privacy-Officer-PIA-Personal-Information-Impact-Assessment-Articles-31-33
Korea PIPA CPO + DPO + Privacy Officer + PIA + Personal Information Impact Assessment + Articles 31-33
PIPA-Cross-Border-Transfer-Articles-28-8-28-9-Adequacy-Standard-Contract-Certification-EU
Korea PIPA Cross-Border Transfer + Articles 28-8 + 28-9 + Adequacy + EU 2021
PIPA-Data-Subject-Rights-Access-Correction-Erasure-Portability-Automated-Decisions-Articles-35-37-2
Korea PIPA Data Subject Rights + Access + Correction + Erasure + Portability + Article 35-37
PIPA-Pseudonymisation-Article-28-2-3-Enforcement-PIPC-Investigation-Surcharges-3-Percent-Revenue-Article64-2
Korea PIPA Pseudonymisation + Article 28-2 + Enforcement + PIPC + Surcharges 3% + Article 63 + 64-2
PIPA-Sensitive-Information-Unique-ID-Resident-Registration-Numbers-CCTV-Articles-23-24-25
Korea PIPA Sensitive Information + Unique ID + RRN + CCTV + Articles 23-25

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in GDPR 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