Prevention and monitoring measures

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video focuses on how to arrange proportionate protective measures. Follow the sequence of decisions in the example rather than simply memorising a list. Notice who is involved, what information is needed and the expected result. These points help turn the content into a practice that another person can verify. Trust depends on identity protection and proper response to pressure. Anonymity differs from confidentiality. Latvian law includes direct and indirect adverse consequences, threats and attempts, subject to the protection conditions.

Protection may involve management awareness, limited access and checking sensitive personnel changes. Measures must fit the situation without unnecessary identification. General surveillance is not automatically justified. Consider the protected person’s needs.

Apply the following rule: Reports can go to competent authorities or through the contact point and specified organisations. Since 1 March 2026 KNAB is the contact point. It advises, refers, supervises compliance and examines cases where no competent institution can be determined. It does not replace every sector authority’s powers. Internal reporting is encouraged only under section 5(4); public disclosure has separate section 4 conditions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Provide secure contact and a pressure-reporting route. Check relevant changes, grounds and conflicts proportionately. Limit data, review changed risks and specify access to the protection plan and how its effect will be checked. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

A plan sent to the whole department reveals identity. Revised arrangements use a limited team, neutral communication and relevant changes only. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Does a protective purpose justify widespread naming? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Confidentiality still applies. Disclosure needs necessity and legal grounds; consider less identifying alternatives.

One mistake to avoid is: revealing identity through the protection plan.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team treats KNAB as the only investigator for every sector. What needs clarification?

KNAB has performed contact-point functions since March 2026, but the competent institution examines the particular breach. The contact point helps identify it and also examines statutory cases where competence cannot be determined. Check the current official route. A private software provider does not become a competent public authority.