In dit dossier
Personal data · Risk management · AI governance · Compliance · Sovereignty
Map data flows and responsibilities
How do you build an actionable data map? Follow one processing activity from collection through copies, exports, backups and deletion. The register describes purposes, data categories, applications, providers, access, retention, owners and control evidence. The aim is to explain a decision, handle a request and verify a change. Examples concern methodology; legal classification depends on context and should be checked against original sources.
Lees de gids ENNieuwsoverzicht
Alle internationale nieuwsberichten →Opgeslagen koppen · vernieuwen niet beschikbaar · Laatst succesvol opgehaald : 22 okt 2026 21:20
AI-governance: van ethische principes naar op bewijs gebaseerde praktijk - Vietnam.vn
via Google News · aggregatorServiceNow lanceert AI Passport en breidt AI-governance uit - Dutch IT Leaders
via Google News · aggregatorSAS AI Navigator geeft AI-governance een boost - Emerce
via Google News · aggregatorAantal ransomware-aanvallen bijna verviervoudigd - Dutch IT Leaders
via Google News · aggregatorReferenties: gegevens, gebruik en grenzen
Documentatie geraadpleegd op .
De uitgebreide toelichtingen zijn in deze editie beschikbaar in het Engels.
| Bron en doel | Gecontroleerde gegevens of maatstaf | Praktisch gebruik | Te behouden beperking |
|---|---|---|---|
| FIRST · Traffic Light Protocol Indicate who may receive redistributed information. |
TLP 2.0 uses RED, AMBER, GREEN and CLEAR; AMBER+STRICT restricts sharing to the recipient organisation. Labels must not be translated. | Keep the marking with the information and check recipients before forwarding. Ask the source to clarify any ambiguity. | TLP is neither a formal classification nor a reuse licence. It does not guarantee content accuracy. |
| NIST · AI Risk Management Framework Organise management of AI-related risks. |
The AI RMF Core is organised around Govern, Map, Measure and Manage. It is a voluntary risk-management framework. | Define intended use, affected people and error consequences. Connect each risk to an evaluation, owner and stop or recovery mechanism. | The framework certifies neither a model nor an application. Using it does not remove the need to examine applicable requirements. |
| NIST · Privacy Framework Examine risks to people arising from data processing. |
The Privacy Framework is a voluntary privacy risk-management tool. It is distinct from a universal legal compliance checklist. | Describe actual processing: data, purposes, recipients, access and retention. Compare documents, settings and deletion or retrieval tests. | Using the framework alone does not determine compliance with applicable law. Processing context and jurisdiction still need examination. |
Publicatie en zichtbaarheid in AI-zoeken
De uitgebreide toelichtingen zijn in deze editie beschikbaar in het Engels.
Assign publication decisions to an owner
Public publication and private access require different evidence. Snippet and AI participation choices must be linked to the relevant service and property.
- Record owner, scope, effective choice and inherited publication settings.
- Protect private resources through authorisation; robots.txt publicly reveals listed paths.
- Date acceptance evidence and review documentation again when the service changes.
Compare AI controls and report data →
References reviewed
security.txt en melding
De uitgebreide toelichtingen zijn in deze editie beschikbaar in het Engels.
Preserve contact scope when domains change
A migration, provider delegation or subdomain change can make a disclosure channel ambiguous. Domain governance should therefore include publication and review of security.txt.
- Check each relevant host: a parent domain’s file does not automatically apply to its subdomains.
- Compare Canonical URIs with actual retrieval and document provider redirects.
- Review contacts, keys, policy and expiry when responsibility transfers; preserve older versions as history.
Read the security.txt reference and disclosure cases →
Sources checked on · IETF · RFC 9116 · §2.5, §3, §5