Build a time-aware evidence pack showing who processes customer PII, where, under which controls and terms, and how customers were informed.
The evidence fields below map to withdrawn ISO/IEC 27018:2019. Check the current 2025 edition, the applicable customer contract, and processor and transfer law before treating the pack as sufficient.
A needs more than a current list. The evidence pack should show what each downstream provider does, which customer services and PII it affects, where processing can occur, how obligations flow down, when customers were told, how objections were resolved, what controls operated, and what happened at exit.
1
Section 1
What must the subprocessor register establish?
Give each relationship a stable record. Identify the legal entity, contracted service, role, processing purpose and operations, PII categories, affected customer services, access type, possible storage and access countries, onward providers, responsible owner, approval, start date, review date, and exit status.
Link the record to the customer instruction and processing terms that authorize the activity. Record whether customer consent is specific or general, the applicable notice period and channel, the objection or termination route, and any customer-specific restriction.
A downstream provider belongs in this pack when it processes customer PII on the public-cloud provider's behalf while the provider performs the customer's instructions. Include backup, disaster-recovery, support, observability, and other providers when they meet that test. Distinguish a supplier with no PII processing, or one used only for a separate provider-controlled purpose, by documenting the actual data flow, purpose, and permissions rather than relying on its title.
Identity and scope: corporate record, signed order or agreement, service description, architecture and data-flow map, and processing inventory entry.
Authority: customer terms, instruction source, consent model, notice requirement, country and transfer review, and approval.
Controls: completed due diligence, control mapping, scoped assurance, exceptions, remediation, access design, incident route, retention, deletion, and exit plan.
ISO/IEC 27018:2019 Annex A.8.1, A.11.12, and A.12.1 provide the historical criteria used here for disclosure, contractual flow-down, and possible processing countries.
Code of practice for protection of personally identifiable information (PII) in public clouds acting as PII processors
2
Section 2
Which due-diligence and contract evidence is needed?
Keep the risk assessment and the facts behind it: service architecture, access paths, countries, PII sensitivity and volume, tenant isolation, privileged access, encryption, logging, resilience, restoration, vulnerability management, incident history, disposal, and unresolved findings.
Map the signed terms to the provider's customer obligations. The 2019 guidance says the contract should specify minimum technical and organizational measures that meet the provider's security and PII-protection obligations and should prevent unilateral reduction by the subprocessor.
Due-diligence record: questions, documents reviewed, scope and period, reviewer, findings, supplier responses, decision, and date.
Assurance record: covered entity, service, locations, controls, subservice organizations, period, exceptions, management response, and the reviewer's conclusion.
Contract record: instructions and purpose limits, confidentiality, controls, incident and disclosure cooperation, audit evidence, countries, onward processing, return or deletion, and termination.
Exception record: unmet obligation, affected customers, compensating measure, approver, owner, due date, expiry, and closure evidence.
Where the GDPR applies, Article 28 requires prior specific or general written authorization for another processor and places the same data-protection obligations on that processor by contract; the initial processor remains fully liable to the controller for the subprocessor's performance.
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data
Recommended next step
Maintain a subprocessor evidence pack
Link each provider's scope, authority, controls, notice history, operating samples, findings, and exit result.
Preserve the exact notice sent, the change it described, recipient population, contractual channel, send date, delivery result, promised notice period, effective date, objections, responses, customer-specific blocks, withdrawals, and termination outcomes. A current web list cannot prove that notice preceded use.
Under the 2019 guidance, relevant customers should be told before a is used. Disclosed information should include relevant names, possible processing countries, and how the subprocessor is obliged to meet or exceed the provider's obligations. Timely change notice should allow objection or termination.
Link every notice to the approved supplier record and planned activation date.
Show which customers and service plans were affected; do not infer delivery from a page publication date alone.
Record each objection's ground, decision owner, response, remedy, and final outcome.
When security risk limits public detail, keep the controlled disclosure and evidence that customers knew how to request it.
Where applicable, GDPR Article 28 distinguishes specific from general authorization and requires the processor to inform the controller of intended additions or replacements when general authorization is used, giving an opportunity to object.
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data
ISO/IEC 27018:2019 Annex A.8.1 is the historical criterion used here for pre-use disclosure, relevant names, possible processing countries, obligation flow-down, and timely change notice.
Code of practice for protection of personally identifiable information (PII) in public clouds acting as PII processors
4
Section 4
What operating and exit evidence should be sampled?
For the review period, sample actual user and privileged access, region configuration, data transfers, restoration events, incident communications, government-request handling, control changes, assurance exceptions, remediation, and retention or deletion jobs. Match samples to the approved entity, service, account, country, and period.
At exit, retain evidence that new transfers stopped, accounts and keys were revoked, integrations were removed, customer PII and working copies were returned or deleted, backups entered the documented expiry process, and registers and customer-facing lists were updated.
A certificate without service, location, control, and period scope does not establish that the approved processing was covered.
A contract without configuration and operating samples does not establish that the service used the approved region or access model.
A deletion attestation that omits backups, onward providers, exceptions, or completion date leaves the exit result unresolved.
The 2019 ISO/IEC 27018 listing provides historical context for cloud PII processor controls still referenced in older evidence packs.
Code of practice for protection of personally identifiable information (PII) in public clouds acting as PII processors
5
Section 5
When should the evidence pack be refreshed?
Refresh before onboarding and when the service, legal entity, ownership, processing purpose, PII, access, country, onward provider, control set, assurance scope, contract, customer commitment, incident history, or exit status changes.
Set both a scheduled review and event triggers. A review can reuse evidence only when its entity, service, location, control, and period still match the decision being supported.
Mark superseded documents without deleting the history needed to prove earlier notice and approval.
Track open findings and conditional approvals to a named owner, due date, escalation rule, and closure evidence.
Reconcile the register with procurement, architecture, access, network, finance, and customer-notice records to find unrecorded or retired providers.
The GDPR source supports processor and subprocessor governance context when ISO/IEC 27018 evidence is mapped to binding EU privacy duties.
Where the GDPR applies, Article 28 requires prior specific or general written authorization for another processor and places the same data-protection obligations on that processor by contract; the initial processor remains fully liable to the controller for the subprocessor's performance.
Where applicable, GDPR Article 28 distinguishes specific from general authorization and requires the processor to inform the controller of intended additions or replacements when general authorization is used, giving an opportunity to object.
"protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data"
The 2019 ISO/IEC 27018 listing provides historical context for cloud PII processor controls still referenced in older evidence packs.
ISO/IEC 27018:2019 Annex A.8.1, A.11.12, and A.12.1 provide the historical criteria used here for disclosure, contractual flow-down, and possible processing countries.
ISO/IEC 27018:2019 Annex A.8.1 is the historical criterion used here for pre-use disclosure, relevant names, possible processing countries, obligation flow-down, and timely change notice.
"Code of practice for protection of personally identifiable information (PII) in public clouds acting as PII processors"