Framework overlap

Does NIST SP 1800-32 cover Albania Law on Protection of Personal Data (Law No. 9887, 2008, amended 2014)?

You hold NIST SP 1800-32 and have been told to do Albania Law on Protection of Personal Data (Law No. 9887, 2008, amended 2014). Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

32% of Albania Law on Protection of Personal Data (Law No. 9887, 2008, amended 2014) you already have

NIST SP 1800-32 already covers about 32% of Albania Law on Protection of Personal Data (Law No. 9887, 2008, amended 2014), leaving 15 of 22 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 7 New work 15

No control in NIST SP 1800-32 maps directly to one in Albania Law on Protection of Personal Data (Law No. 9887, 2008, amended 2014). 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 NIST SP 1800-32 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

AL-DPA-10
Security of Processing
AL-DPA-11
Processor Obligations
AL-DPA-13
Data Protection Officer
AL-DPA-16
Employee Data
AL-DPA-18
Children's Data
AL-DPA-19
Records of Processing
AL-DPA-2
Data Quality Principles
AL-DPA-20
Investigations and Sanctions
AL-DPA-21
Direct Access by Public Authorities
AL-DPA-22
Data Protection Training
AL-DPA-4
Sensitive Data
AL-DPA-5
Notification to IDP Commissioner
AL-DPA-6
Data Subject Rights - Information
AL-DPA-8
Right of Rectification and Erasure
AL-DPA-9
Right to Object and Automated Decisions
Show the 7 you already have
AL-DPA-1
Scope and Definitions
AL-DPA-12
International Data Transfers
AL-DPA-14
Direct Marketing
AL-DPA-15
Video Surveillance
AL-DPA-17
Breach Handling
AL-DPA-3
Lawful Basis for Processing
AL-DPA-7
Right of Access

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in NIST SP 1800-32 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