The DSCI Privacy Framework recommends that a privacy program must be tailored based on several practical and operational inputs. These include:
* Reported privacy incidents (to identify risk patterns and weaknesses)
* Contractual obligations (which dictate processing standards for third parties)
* Exposure to personal information (understanding where and how personal data is processed)
* Regulatory compliance (to ensure adherence to national and international laws) All four listed aspects contribute to the risk-based and dynamic implementation of privacy strategies within an organization.

Privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) are critical for operationalizing privacy principles. According to the DPF:
* Data minimization (I): Collect only necessary data
* Data scrambling (III), Obfuscation (VI), and Encryption (VII): Techniques to protect identity and data content
* Data loss prevention (IV): Prevent unauthorized sharing or leakage
Data mirroring and intrusion prevention systems are primarily security mechanisms and not specifically privacy-focused. Data portability, while a right, is not a technology per se for "upholding" privacy but for enabling user control.
Thus, C includes the most appropriate privacy technologies.

The issue presented refers to a lack of technical ability or insufficient infrastructure to prevent data leakage, which is indicative of a "Capability Problem." In DSCI terminology:
* Visibility = Lack of knowledge of data or process
* Capability = Inability to perform required action
* Enforcement = Lack of governance mechanisms
* Demonstration = Lack of evidence of implementation
This situation clearly reflects an inability (capability gap) to restrict external data transfers effectively.