Even where surveillance is necessary it may run only if the legitimate interest is not overridden by data subjects' interests and rights; the balance is mandatory and must be struck case by case, not by reference to abstract or similar cases. What decides it is how intense the intrusion is, shaped by the type of information, its scope and density, the size of the area, the number and proportion of people affected, the situation, their interests, the alternatives and the nature of the analysis. A dashcam kept for accident evidence, for example, must not record traffic and people by the road constantly.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.