menu

News

2 new Authority Documents have been added to the UCF

January 14, 2019 | Weekly Updates

Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, Act 452 of 2004, Sections 445.61 thru 445.72a
AD ID: 764
Status: Released
Availability: Free
Citation Format: § (Legal)
Document Type: Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, Act 452 of 2004, Sections 445.61 thru 445.72a
Originator: Michigan State Legislature
Parent Category: North America
Effective Date: 2005-03-01
Language: eng

Click here to launch this Authority Document in the Common Controls Hub

This Authority Document has 136 citations mapped to 33 UCF Common Control IDs. The document as a whole was last reviewed and released on 2019-01-07.

Percent (%) of Citations with multiple mandates: 9.7%

Percent (%) of terms that were non-standard: 17.60% The number of non-standard terms doesn't affect UCF users as the UCF team have already mapped those terms to standard terms in the Compliance Dictionary.

Percent (%) of terms mapped into the AD's glossary: 18.9% Primary verbs and nouns not mapped into an AD's glossary can point to the AD's authors not paying attention to the definitions of their terms.

Percent (%) of terms where fewer than 5 other ADs referenced the term: 6.6% Any term in this category is not very widely used by the rest of the compliance community and therefore will more than likely need to be further investigated for any implications it might bring.

Percent (%) of mandates where only 1 to 5 other ADs mapped to the Common Control: 21.4% Mandates that aren't widely called for will take longer to implement than mandates that are more familiar.

Number of mandates where 0 other ADs mapped to the Common Control: 0% These mandates are only called for by this AD, making them particularly thorny to implement, as this AD is the "lone wolf" in asking for them to be followed.


Tennessee Code, Title 47, Chapter 1,8 Part 21, Identity Theft Deterrence, Sections 47-18-2101 thru 47-18-2110
AD ID: 802
Status: Released
Availability: Free
Citation Format: § (Legal)
Document Type: Tennessee Code, Title 47, Chapter 1,8 Part 21, Identity Theft Deterrence, Sections 47-18-2101 thru 47-18-2110
Originator: Tennessee General Assembly
Parent Category: North America
Effective Date: 2005-07-01
Language: eng

Click here to launch this Authority Document in the Common Controls Hub

This Authority Document has 167 citations mapped to 40 UCF Common Control IDs. The document as a whole was last reviewed and released on 2019-01-08.

Percent (%) of Citations with multiple mandates: 8.7%

Percent (%) of terms that were non-standard: 17.30% The number of non-standard terms doesn't affect UCF users as the UCF team have already mapped those terms to standard terms in the Compliance Dictionary.

Percent (%) of terms mapped into the AD's glossary: 6.6% Primary verbs and nouns not mapped into an AD's glossary can point to the AD's authors not paying attention to the definitions of their terms.

Percent (%) of terms where fewer than 5 other ADs referenced the term: 4.2% Any term in this category is not very widely used by the rest of the compliance community and therefore will more than likely need to be further investigated for any implications it might bring.

Percent (%) of mandates where only 1 to 5 other ADs mapped to the Common Control: 18.2% Mandates that aren't widely called for will take longer to implement than mandates that are more familiar.

Number of mandates where 0 other ADs mapped to the Common Control: 0% These mandates are only called for by this AD, making them particularly thorny to implement, as this AD is the "lone wolf" in asking for them to be followed.


News

2 new Authority Documents have been added to the UCF

January 7, 2019 | Weekly Updates

California Civil Code Title 1.81 Customer Records § 1798.80-1798.84
AD ID: 846
Status: Released
Availability: Free
Citation Format: § (Legal)
Document Type: California Civil Code Title 1.81 Customer Records § 1798.80-1798.84
Originator: California Legislature
Parent Category: North America
Effective Date: 2008-01-01
Language: eng

Click here to launch this Authority Document in the Common Controls Hub

This Authority Document has 217 citations mapped to 57 UCF Common Control IDs. The document as a whole was last reviewed and released on 2019-01-02.

Percent (%) of Citations with multiple mandates: 7.8%

Percent (%) of terms that were non-standard: 24.30% The number of non-standard terms doesn't affect UCF users as the UCF team have already mapped those terms to standard terms in the Compliance Dictionary.

Percent (%) of terms mapped into the AD's glossary: 4.7% Primary verbs and nouns not mapped into an AD's glossary can point to the AD's authors not paying attention to the definitions of their terms.

Percent (%) of terms where fewer than 5 other ADs referenced the term: 32.3% Any term in this category is not very widely used by the rest of the compliance community and therefore will more than likely need to be further investigated for any implications it might bring.

Percent (%) of mandates where only 1 to 5 other ADs mapped to the Common Control: 20% Mandates that aren't widely called for will take longer to implement than mandates that are more familiar.

Number of mandates where 0 other ADs mapped to the Common Control: 0.9% These mandates are only called for by this AD, making them particularly thorny to implement, as this AD is the "lone wolf" in asking for them to be followed.


2017 New Mexico Statutes Chapter 57 - Trade Practices and Regulations Article 12C - Data Breach Notification Section 57-12C-1
AD ID: 2962
Status: Released
Availability: Free
Citation Format: § (Legal)
Document Type: 2017 New Mexico Statutes Chapter 57 - Trade Practices and Regulations Article 12C - Data Breach Notification Section 57-12C-1
Originator: New Mexico State Legislature
Parent Category: North America
Effective Date: 2017-06-16
Language: eng

Click here to launch this Authority Document in the Common Controls Hub

This Authority Document has 56 citations mapped to 24 UCF Common Control IDs. The document as a whole was last reviewed and released on 2019-01-03.

Percent (%) of Citations with multiple mandates: 5.9%

Percent (%) of terms that were non-standard: 18.30% The number of non-standard terms doesn't affect UCF users as the UCF team have already mapped those terms to standard terms in the Compliance Dictionary.

Percent (%) of terms mapped into the AD's glossary: 6.3% Primary verbs and nouns not mapped into an AD's glossary can point to the AD's authors not paying attention to the definitions of their terms.

Percent (%) of terms where fewer than 5 other ADs referenced the term: 1.8% Any term in this category is not very widely used by the rest of the compliance community and therefore will more than likely need to be further investigated for any implications it might bring.

Percent (%) of mandates where only 1 to 5 other ADs mapped to the Common Control: 0% Mandates that aren't widely called for will take longer to implement than mandates that are more familiar.

Number of mandates where 0 other ADs mapped to the Common Control: 0% These mandates are only called for by this AD, making them particularly thorny to implement, as this AD is the "lone wolf" in asking for them to be followed.