# ISO/IEC 27701:2025 A.3.14 — Protection of records

- Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27701-2025/a-3-14-protection-of-records
- Section: [Compliance](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance) › [ISO/IEC 27701:2025 PIMS Controls](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27701-2025) › Security considerations
- Last updated: 2026-06-05
- Publisher: iCompaas, Inc. (https://www.icompaas.com)

**ISO/IEC 27701:2025**·Annex A `A.3.14`·high·Component: **Security considerations**

## What this control requires

> Protect records related to PII from loss, falsification, unauthorized access or release. Implementation: Implement record protections, backups and access controls. Justification: Preserves integrity and availability for audits/requests.
> 
> — ISO/IEC 27701:2025, Annex A A.3.14

### In plain English

Protect records related to PII from loss, falsification, unauthorized access or release. In practice, this means you can prove you implement protection of records-level controls on a defined cadence.

## Why it matters

ISO 27701 is the international way to evidence the GDPR principle of accountability: certified PIMS controls translate directly into the records, contracts and rights-handling that supervisory authorities want, and into the privacy-engineering evidence SOC 2 + Privacy auditors and enterprise procurement teams ask for.

This control is rated **high**. Auditors expect a named owner, a remediation SLA, and a tooling artefact that evidences continuous operation.

## What an auditor looks for

PIMS auditors expect ISO 27001 to be implemented first and then the 27701-additional controls tested. For PII controllers they look at lawful-basis and rights-handling evidence; for PII processors they look at customer-instructions, sub-processor controls and return/transfer/disposal evidence.

Within **Security considerations**, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Annex A A.3.14) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles.

## How to implement

1.  Write a short policy stating intent, scope and named owner.
2.  Encode it as a platform guardrail — SCP, Azure Policy initiative, Organisation Policy, or repository policy.
3.  Wire a monitoring signal that catches drift (CSPM rule, SIEM rule, scheduled query, Workspace alert) and ticket it.
4.  Review on a documented cadence and capture the review in the risk register or compliance tracker.

### Operational checklist

-   **Implement.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Protect.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Record.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence.
-   **Scope:** protection of records.

## Evidence to collect

-   **Infra Scan.** Continuous infrastructure-posture telemetry — AWS Config, Azure Policy compliance, GCP Organisation Policy, Wiz / Prisma findings.
-   **Policy Document.** A signed and version-controlled policy / standard / procedure document.

Signed policies, procedures, and registers document the safeguard. Infrastructure posture tooling (AWS/Azure/GCP configuration, encryption, backup, logging) verifies technical enforcement. Focus: Protection of records.

## How it maps to other frameworks

Computed from shared tags, control component and key-operation subjects — handy when you are reconciling controls across an audit.

-   [**SOC 2 (2017 TSC) P4.2** — Personal Information Retention Aligned with Privacy Objectives](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria/p4-2-personal-information-retention-aligned-with-privacy-objectives)

## Related controls in ISO/IEC 27701:2025

-   [**Annex A A.3.24** — Information backup](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27701-2025/a-3-24-information-backup)

## References

-   [ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27 — ISO/IEC 27701:2025](https://www.iso.org/standard/85819.html)
-   Catalogue identifier: `Annex A A.3.14`

Topics: data protectionbusiness continuitybackup recoverylogging retention