* Risk Appetite:
* Risk appetite defines the level of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. It serves as a benchmark for evaluating and prioritizing risk responses.
* Prioritizing Risk Responses:
* When determining how to address risks, the primary consideration should be whether the residual risk falls within the organization's risk appetite.
* If a risk exceeds the appetite, it needs to be mitigated, transferred, or avoided. If it is within the appetite, it might be accepted.
* Influence of Other Factors:
* Residual Risk: Important but must be evaluated against the risk appetite to determine if it is acceptable.
* Mitigation Cost: Relevant for decision-making but secondary to aligning with risk appetite.
* Inherent Risk: Initial risk assessment before controls are applied, but prioritization is based on residual risk and risk appetite.
* References:
* The CRISC Review Manual highlights the role of risk appetite in guiding the prioritization of risk responses (CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 3: Risk Response and Mitigation, Section 3.2.1 Prioritizing Risk Responses).

Understanding the Question:
The question focuses on the primary reason for communicating risk assessment results to data owners.
Analyzing the Options:
A: Design of appropriate controls:This is important but not the primary reason for communication.
B: Industry benchmarking of controls:This is secondary to the main goal of communicating risk.
C: Prioritization of response efforts:This enables data owners to allocate resources and address the most critical risks first.
D: Classification of information assets:This is typically part of the initial risk assessment process, not the main communication goal.
Detailed Explanation:
Communication of Risk Assessment Results:Ensuring data owners understand the results of risk assessments allows them to make informed decisions on where to focus their efforts.
Prioritization:Data owners can prioritize their actions based on the assessed risk levels, ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently to mitigate the most significant risks.
References:
CRISC Review Manual, Chapter 3: Risk Response and Reporting, details the importance of communicating risk assessment results for effective risk management and response prioritization.

A key outcome of risk ownership is that risk responsibilities are addressed, as this means that the risk owner has the authority and accountability to manage the risk, and that the roles and expectations of the other stakeholders are clearly defined and agreed upon. Risk ownership is the process of assigning a person or entity with the responsibility to manage a particular risk. Risk ownership helps to ensure that the risk is properly identified, assessed, and treated, and that the risk status and performance are monitored and reported.
The other options are not key outcomes of risk ownership, although they may be related or beneficial aspects of it. Risk-related information is communicated is an outcome of risk reporting, which is a part of risk monitoring and control. Risk-oriented tasks are defined is an outcome of risk response planning, which is a part of risk treatment. Business process risk is analyzed is an outcome of risk assessment, which is a part of risk identification and analysis. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter
2: IT Risk Identification, page 47.

Local laws and regulations should be the primary consideration when assessing the risk of using IoT devices to collect and process PII, because they define the legal obligations and liabilities of the organization and the individuals involved. Non-compliance with local laws and regulations can result in fines, lawsuits, reputational damage, and loss of trust. Therefore, it is essential to understand and adhere to the applicable laws and regulations in the jurisdictions where the IoT devices operate and where the PII is stored, processed, and transferred.
References
*Considerations for Managing Internet of Things (IoT) Cybersecurity and Privacy Risks
*The Internet of Things (IoT) and Digitally Stored PII: Avoidable or Inevitable?
*Security Issues in IoT: Challenges and Countermeasures

Key risk indicators (KRIs) are metrics that provide information on the level of exposure to a given operational risk1. KRIs have upper and lower acceptable risk limits (warning thresholds) that trigger actions when exceeded2. These thresholds are based on the organization's risk appetite or tolerance, which is the amount and type of risk that the organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives3. Therefore, changes in risk appetite or tolerance would prompt changes in KRI thresholds, as the organization would need to adjust its risk monitoring and response accordingly. The other options are not the primary factors that would prompt changes in KRI thresholds, although they may have some influence on the risk management process. References = Risk IT Framework; IT Risk Resources; ISACA Risk Starter Kit; Key Risk Indicators; Key Risk Indicators: A Practical Guide