20 articles
The choice is decided by who is buying, not by which framework is better. A practical decision guide, plus why sequencing ISO first makes the SOC 2 cheaper and the reverse is not true.
Not a table of statutory contrasts. The seven places where the two regimes diverge enough to change your data model, your consent screens and your engineering backlog.
The designation is discretionary, so the useful question is not whether you are one but what it would cost to be treated as one. Three additional duties, and why we tell large consumer platforms to assume it.
The requirement is not the expensive part — the architecture is. A three-tier design that meets 180 days in Indian jurisdiction at roughly a fifth of the licensing-led cost.
Most SOC 2 reports are filed unread, which makes them a compliance ritual rather than assurance. Five checks any procurement or risk reviewer can run, and what each one catches.
The Act set the principles. The Rules set the engineering requirements. Here is what changes in your systems — notice structure, breach clocks, and verifiable parental consent.
Deleting the row is the easy part. The obligation reaches analytics copies, backups, processor-held data and — the unresolved question — models trained on data that has since been withdrawn.
Most AI impact assessments are too heavy to trigger or too light to matter. A twelve-question threshold, a full template that forces the analysis before design locks, and what ISO 42001 auditors actually examine.
Role determination is the first decision and the one most often got wrong. A practical walkthrough of provider versus deployer obligations for Indian firms serving European customers.
A consent banner records a choice. A consent architecture enforces it. Here is the two-hour test that shows which one you have — and how to fix the gap.
The failure is never detection. It is authorisation — nobody knows who can file, and the person who does is asleep. Here is how to build a reporting capability that survives a Saturday.
Compliance programmes fail in engineering organisations when they add steps. Make the existing pull-request workflow the control instead, and the evidence collects itself.
The 2022 revision added eleven controls. Four of them are where most first certifications lose weeks. A clause-level look at what auditors actually ask for.
Boards do not fund amber. Calibrated estimation produces defensible loss-exposure ranges from expert judgement — here is the method and its failure modes.
Nobody reaches least privilege by reviewing 900 IAM roles. You get there by removing the classes of permission that cause breaches, in a specific order.
Uniform assessment means no vendor gets real scrutiny. Tier by what the vendor can actually reach, then vary depth — including the questions AI vendors need that nobody asks.
You cannot govern an AI inventory you do not have. Four discovery methods that surface built, bought and embedded AI — including the tools nobody put through procurement.
Access review is one control that answers ISO 27001, SOC 2, DPDPA, PCI DSS and NIST CSF. Here is how to build the library so a single implementation serves all of them.
Independence is not a job title. It is a reporting line, a documented advice trail, and protection from consequence. Here is what regulators look for and what fails.
The first certifiable AI management system standard, read from the implementer side: what Annex A demands, what integrates with an existing ISMS, and what does not.
Browse every topic, or looking for working artefacts rather than analysis? Browse the resource library — registers, checklists and templates from live engagements.
