Privacy Act 1988 (Australia)vsIceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018)
See exactly how Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) controls map to Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) maps to Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018) with 25% coverage across 12 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 48 Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) controls identifies 36 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Privacy Act 1988 (Australia): Data Subject Rights.
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 48 controls analysed | 701 frameworks | 337K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 20 of 20 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 337K+ mappings across 701 frameworks.
Privacy Act 1988 (Australia): Data Subject Rights(1 mappings)
Privacy Act 1988 (Australia): Data Security(8 mappings)
Privacy Act 1988 (Australia): Data Governance(10 mappings)
Privacy Act 1988 (Australia): Accountability & Compliance(1 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) comparisons
Other Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 701 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 701 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (337K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) and Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018)?
Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) has 48 controls across its framework, while Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018) covers 8 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 12 overlapping controls (25% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Privacy Act 1988 (Australia): Data Subject Rights, where 6 Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) controls have no direct Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018) equivalent.
How many controls map between Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) and Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018)?
Of 48 total Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) controls, 12 map directly to Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018) controls — representing 25% coverage. The remaining 36 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) to Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018)?
36 Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) controls have no direct equivalent in Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018). The highest concentration of gaps is in Privacy Act 1988 (Australia): Data Subject Rights with 6 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) and Iceland Data Protection and Processing of Personal Data Act (Act No. 90/2018)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Privacy Act 1988 (Australia): Data Subject Rights (6 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.