CIPP-US Certified Information Privacy Professional/United States (CIPP/US) Questions and Answers

The correct answer is C. If SMH must make a notification in any other state in which it operates, it must also make a notification to individuals in New York. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), SMH is required to notify the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and the affected individuals of a data breach involving unsecured protected health information (PHI) within 60 days of discovery1. However, HIPAA does not preempt state laws that provide greater protection to individuals or impose additional obligations on covered entities2. Therefore, SMH must also comply with the state breach notification laws of the states where it operates, including New York.

According to the New York State Information Security Breach and Notification Act, any person or business that owns or licenses computerized data that includes private information of a resident of New York must disclose any breach of the security of the system to such resident in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, unless the exposure of the private information was inadvertent and unlikely to result in misuse or financial harm3. Private information includes personal information (such as name, number, or other identifier) plus one or more of the following data elements: social security number; driver’s license number or non-driver identification card number; account number, credit or debit card number, in combination with any required security code, access code, password or other information that would permit access to an individual’s financial account; biometric information; or a user name or e-mail address in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account3.

Therefore, if SMH’s data breach involved any of these data elements of New York residents, SMH must notify them of the breach, regardless of whether SMH is compliant with HIPAA, has more than 500 patients in New York, or offers credit monitoring services. SMH must also notify the New York Attorney General, the Department of State, and the Division of State Police within 10 days of notifying the affected individuals3. Additionally, SMH must notify the New York Department of Health if the breach involved electronic health records4.

References: https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/-/media/Files/PDPC/PDF-Files/Other-Guides/Guide-on-Managing-and-Notifying-Data-Breaches-under-the-PDPA-15-Mar-2021.pdf?la=en

https://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/resources_centre/publications/files/guidance_note_dbn_e.pdf

Under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), a business that collects personal information of California residents must notify them of a data breach if their personal information is subject to unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure as a result of the business’s violation of the duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. However, the CCPA excludes encrypted or redacted personal information from the definition of personal information, unless the encryption key or security credential is also compromised. Therefore, Privacy Is Hiring Inc. would need to notify the affected individuals only if the encryption keys were also taken along with the credit card information, as this would render the encryption ineffective and expose the personal information to unauthorized access. The other options are not relevant to the CCPA notification requirement, although they may be relevant to other laws or best practices. References: CCPA (Section 1798.150), IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide (p. 63-64)

 According to the web search results from my predefined tool, Vermont became the first state to pass a law specifically regulating the practices of data brokers in 2018. The law defines a data broker as “a business, or unit or units of a business, separately or together, that knowingly collects and sells or licenses to third parties the brokered personal information of a consumer with whom the business does not have a direct relationship.” The law requires data brokers to register with the Secretary of State, pay a registration fee, provide information about their data collection and opt-out practices, and implement security measures to protect the personal information they collect and sell. The law also imposes additional obligations on data brokers that possess the personal information of minors. The law aims to increase the transparency and accountability of the data broker industry and to protect the privacy rights of consumers12. References:

Registered Data Brokers in the United States: 2021 | Privacy Rights …

Am I A Data Broker?: A Quick Primer on State Laws Regulating a … - Taft

The data privacy leader needs to identify all the personal data that the Company has received from the retailer, as well as the purposes, retention periods, and sharing practices of such data. Since the data inventory is obsolete, the data privacy leader cannot rely on it to provide accurate and complete information. Therefore, the next best source of information is to interview the key marketing personnel who are responsible for the partnership with the retailer and the use of the personal data. The marketing personnel can provide insights into the data flows, the data categories, the data processing activities, and the data protection measures that the Company has implemented. They can also help the data privacy leader to locate the relevant documents, contracts, and records that can support the investigation. References: [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 5: Data Management, p. 97-98; IAPP Privacy Tech Vendor Report, Data Mapping and Inventory, p. 9-10.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) is a federal law that regulates the privacy of wire, oral, and electronic communications. The ECPA prohibits the intentional interception, use, or disclosure of such communications, unless authorized by law or by the consent of one of the parties to the communication12. The ECPA also provides exceptions for certain types of communications, such as those made in the normal course of business, those made for law enforcement purposes, or those made for foreign intelligence purposes12.

One of the exceptions to the ECPA ban on interception is where one of the parties has given consent. This means that if a person who is a party to a communication agrees to have it intercepted, the interception is lawful under the ECPA. Consent can be express or implied, depending on the circumstances and the expectations of the parties3. For example, if a person calls a customer service line and hears a recorded message that the call may be monitored or recorded, the person has impliedly consented to the interception of the call. However, if a person calls a friend and does not know that the friend has a third party listening in on the call, the person has not consented to the interception of the call.

References: 1: Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523 2: [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 8, Section 8.2.1. 3: [Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations], pp. 77-78.

The Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN) is a network for privacy enforcement authorities (PEAs) to share knowledge, experience and best practices on the practical aspects of privacy enforcement and cooperation. GPEN was created in response to the OECD Recommendation on Cross-border Cooperation in the Enforcement of Laws Protecting Privacy, which called for member countries to foster the establishment of an informal network of PEAs. GPEN’s main purpose is to facilitate cross-border cooperation and coordination among PEAs, especially in cases involving multiple jurisdictions or regions. GPEN also aims to enhance information sharing, promote awareness and education, and support capacity building among PEAs. References:

Home (public) | Global Privacy Enforcement Network

Global Privacy Enforcement Network - International Association of Privacy Professionals

International Partnerships - Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Specialised networks – Global Privacy Assembly

Action Plan for the Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN)

[IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide], Chapter 6, page 213.

The Civil Rights Act, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Age Discrimination Act, and Equal Pay Act are all federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination based on certain protected characteristics, such as race, sex, disability, age, and pay1234 These laws also afford certain classes of employees’ privacy protection by limiting inquiries concerning their personal information that may reveal their protected status or be used for discriminatory purposes. For example:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from making pre-employment inquiries that express a preference, limitation, or specification based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, unless they are bona fide occupational qualifications.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, which amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employers from making pre-employment inquiries about whether an applicant is pregnant or intends to become pregnant, unless they are related to the ability to perform the job.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits employers from making pre-employment inquiries about whether an applicant has a disability or the nature or severity of a disability, unless they are related to the ability to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits employers from making pre-employment inquiries about an applicant’s age, unless they are related to a bona fide occupational qualification or a lawful affirmative action plan.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits employers from making pre-employment inquiries about an applicant’s salary history, unless they are made for a lawful purpose other than determining the applicant’s pay.

Option A is incorrect because these laws do not require employers not to discriminate against certain classes when employees use personal information. Rather, they require employers not to discriminate against certain classes in any aspect of employment, such as hiring, firing, pay, promotion, training, benefits, etc1234 The use of personal information by employees is not directly addressed by these laws, although it may be subject to other privacy laws or policies.

Option B is incorrect because these laws do not require that employers provide reasonable accommodations to certain classes of employees. Rather, only the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities and workers with limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, respectively, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship to the employer. The other laws do not have a similar requirement, although they may prohibit employers from denying equal opportunities to certain classes of employees.

Option C is correct because these laws afford certain classes of employees’ privacy protection by limiting inquiries concerning their personal informationthat may reveal their protected status or be used for discriminatory purposes, as explained above.

Option D is incorrect because these laws do not permit employers to use or disclose personal information specifically about employees who are members of certain classes. Rather, these laws generally prohibit employers from using or disclosing personal information that is protected by these laws for any unlawful or discriminatory purpose, unless an exception applies. For example, employers may use or disclose such information for legitimate business reasons, such as complying with reporting requirements, administering benefits, or conducting investigations.

References: 1: Facts About Equal Pay and Compensation Discrimination 2: Pregnancy Discrimination and Pregnancy-Related Disability Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3: Regulations, Guidance and Policy | Equal Opportunity Guidance | OEEOWE 4: Age Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission : Pre-Employment Inquiries and Medical Questions & Examinations | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission : Employee Medical Information | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission : Employee Privacy Rights | U.S. Department of Labor : Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission : Fact Sheet: Pregnancy Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission : The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Primer for Small Business : Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission : Equal Pay Act of 1963 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

In the United States, there is no comprehensive federal law that regulates employee monitoring in the private sector. Instead, there are various federal and state laws that address specific aspects of monitoring, such as electronic communications, video surveillance, GPS tracking, and biometric data. Generally, these laws provide more protection for employees’ privacy when they are using their own devices or personal accounts, or when they are outside of work hours or premises. However, when employees are using company-owned devices or accounts, or when they are performing work-related tasks, employers have broad authority to monitor their activities, as long as they have a legitimate business interest and do not violate any specific laws. Employers are also advised to inform employees of their monitoring practices and obtain their consent, either explicitly or implicitly, to avoid potential legal disputes or employee backlash123 References: https://www.jibble.io/article/us-employee-monitoring

https://www.worktime.com/most-asked-questions-on-us-employee-monitoring-laws

The FCRA requires that an employer who takes an adverse action against an applicant or employee based on information in a consumer report must provide a notice of the adverse action to the individual. The notice must include the name, address, and phone number of the CRA that supplied the report; astatement that the CRA did not make the decision and cannot explain why the adverse action was taken; a notice of the individual’s right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of the information in the report; and a notice of the individual’s right to obtain a free copy of the report from the CRA within 60 days12. References:

CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 141, Answer A, Explanation A.

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.2, p. 101-102.

Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Section 615, Subsection (a).

Nevada’s privacy law, Senate Bill 260 (SB 260), is an amendment to the existing Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 603A that was enacted in June 2021 and will take effect on October 1, 2021. SB 260 expands the scope and definition of “covered information” under NRS 603A to include any information that identifies, relates to, describes, or is capable of being associated with a consumer, such as name, address, email, phone number, social security number, biometric data, geolocation data, and online identifiers. SB 260also grants Nevada consumers the right to opt out of the sale of their covered information by an operator of a website or online service that collects and maintains such information.

Under SB 260, an operator is defined as a person who owns or operates a website or online service for commercial purposes, collects and maintains covered information from consumers who reside in Nevada and use or visit the website or online service, and purposefully directs its activities toward Nevada. A sale is defined as the exchange of covered information for monetary consideration by the operator to a person for the person to license or sell the covered information to additional persons. However, there are some exceptions to the definition of a sale, such as:

If the consumer has consented to the sale after being provided with clear and conspicuous notice of the sale and the opportunity to opt out.

If the sale is to a person who processes the covered information on behalf of the operator.

If the sale is to a person with whom the consumer has a direct relationship for the purposes of providing a product or service requested by the consumer.

If the sale is to a person for purposes that are consistent with the reasonable expectations of the consumer considering the context in which the consumer provided the covered information to the operator.

If the sale is to a person who is an affiliate of the operator.

If the sale is to a person as an asset that is part of a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, or other transaction in which the person assumes control of all or part of the operator’s assets.

To comply with SB 260, an operator that sells covered information must provide a designated request address through which a consumer may submit a verified request to opt out of the sale. The designated request address may be an email address, a toll-free telephone number, or an Internet website. The operator must respond to the verified request within 60 days, and may extend the response period for an additional 30 days if reasonably necessary. The operator must also provide a notice to the consumer that identifies the categories of covered information that the operator collects and the categories of third parties to whom the operator may disclose the covered information.

Therefore, the best privacy compliance step for SuperMart to comply with SB 260 is to provide a mechanism for consumers to opt out of sales, as this is the core requirement of the law. Option A is the correct answer.

Option B is incorrect, as SB 260 does not grant consumers the right to access or delete their covered information, unlike other state privacy laws such as the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) or the Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA).

Option C is incorrect, as SB 260 does not require operators to provide a notice of financial incentive for any loyalty programs offered to their customers, unlike the CCPA.

Option D is incorrect, as SB 260 does not impose service provider restrictions on the vendors of the operators, unlike the CCPA or the VCDPA.

References:

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 10: State Data Security Laws, pp. 229-230.

CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 33.

Privacy by Design is a concept that the FTC endorsed in its 2012 report on protecting consumer privacy1. It seeks to deliver the maximum degree of privacy by ensuring that personal data are automatically protected in any given IT system or business practice2. It asserts that data held by an organization ultimately belongs to the consumer and organizations should ensure that data subjects are properly informed about how their data is collected and used3. Privacy by Design requires companies to build in consumers’ privacy protections at every stage in developing their products, including reasonable security for consumer data, limited collection and retention of such data, and reasonable procedures to promote data accuracy1. References: 1: FTC Report of 2012, p. 22-23; 2: Global Data Review3; 3: Termly4.

The HITECH Act was enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to promote the adoption and use of health information technology, especially electronic health records (EHRs), in the United States. The HITECH Act established the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Programs, which provide financial incentives to eligible health care providers who demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology. Meaningful use is defined as using EHRs to improve quality, safety, efficiency, and coordination of care, as well as to engage patients and protect their privacy and security. To qualify for the incentive payments, health care providers must meet certain objectives and measures that demonstrate meaningful use of EHRs as part of their regular care. Some of these objectives and measures include:

Protect electronic protected health information (ePHI)

Generate prescriptions electronically

Implement clinical decision support (CDS)

Use computerized provider order entry (CPOE) for medication, laboratory, and diagnostic imaging orders

Timely patient access to electronic files

Exchange health information with other providers and public health agencies

Report clinical quality measures and public health data

Therefore, the correct answer is A. Making EHRs part of regular care is an important action that a health care provider must take if she wants to qualify for funds under the HITECH Act. References:

What is the HITECH Act? 2024 Update, section “The Meaningful Use Program”

The HITECH Act explained: Definition, compliance, and violations, section “HITECH Act definition and summary” and “Why was the HITECH Act created and why is it important?”

Proposed Rulemaking to Implement HITECH Act Modifications, section “The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act”

Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Audits, section “The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, or Recovery Act)”

What is HITECH Compliance? Understanding and Meeting HITECH Requirements, section “HITECH Compliance Requirements”

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its 2012 report, “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers”1, which outlined a framework for privacy protection based on three main principles: privacy by design, simplified consumer choice, and greater transparency. The report also identified five priority areas for the FTC’s privacy enforcement and policy efforts, which were:

Data brokers

Large platform providers

Mobile

Promoting enforceable self-regulatory codes

International data transfers

Do Not Track was not one of the five priority areas, but rather a specific mechanism for implementing the principle of simplified consumer choice. The report endorsed the development of a Do Not Track system that would allow consumers to opt out of online behavioral advertising across websites and platforms1. The report also noted the progress made by various stakeholders, such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA), and browser companies, in advancing the Do Not Track initiative1. References: 1: Federal Trade Commission, Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers (March 2012), available at 1.

The false statement regarding the provisions of the EPPA is C. Employers are prohibited from administering psychological testing based on personality traits such as honesty, preferences or habits. The EPPA does not regulate psychological testing, only polygraph testing. Psychological testing is a broad term that covers various types of assessments that measure cognitive abilities, personality traits, interests, values, and skills. Employers may use psychological testing for various purposes, such as hiring, promotion, training, or development, as long as they comply with other laws and regulations, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines, and the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. However, employers should be careful to ensure that thepsychological tests they use are valid, reliable, job-related, and nondiscriminatory, and that they respect the privacy and dignity of the test takers. References:

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 4: Workplace Privacy, pp. 115-116.

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section IV: Workplace Privacy, Subsection A: Employee Privacy Expectations, Topic 2: Employee Polygraph Protection Act.

IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 142.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the primary federal agency that regulates advertising and marketing practices in the United States, including those targeting children via the Internet. The FTC enforces the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which requires operators of websites and online services directed to children under 13 to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children. The FTC also enforces the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce, such as making false or misleading claims in advertising. The FTC has issued guidelines and reports on various aspects of digital advertising to children, such as sponsored content, influencers, data collection, persuasive design, and behavioral marketing. The FTC also hosts workshops and events to examine the impact of digital advertising on children and their ability to distinguish ads from entertainment. References:

FTC website

Digital Advertising to Children

IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 5: Marketing and Privacy, pp. 169-170

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records and gives parents or eligible students the right to access, amend, and control the disclosure of their records. FERPA applies to all educational agencies and institutions that receive funds under any program administered by the U.S. Department of Education12

FERPA requires schools to do all of the following:

Verify the identity of students who make requests for access to their records. Schools must use reasonable methods to identify and authenticate the identity of parents, students, school officials, and any other parties to whom they disclose education records12

Provide students with access to their records within a specified amount of time. Schools must provide parents or eligible students with an opportunity to inspect and review the student’s education records within 45 days of receiving a request. Schoolsare not required to provide copies of records unless it is impossible for parents or eligible students to review the records at the school12

Respond to all reasonable student requests regarding explanation of their records. Schools must provide parents or eligible students with an opportunity to request the amendment of the student’s education records that they believe are inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise in violation of the student’s privacy rights. Schools must consider the request and decide whether to amend the records within a reasonable time. If the school decides not to amend the records, it must inform the parent or eligible student of their right to a hearing on the matter12

FERPA does not require schools to do the following:

Obtain student authorization before releasing directory information in their records. Directory information is information contained in a student’s education record that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed. Examples of directory information include the student’s name, address, phone number, e-mail address, date and place of birth, major field of study, participation in sports and activities, dates of attendance, degrees and awards received, and most recent school attended. Schools may disclose directory information without consent unless the parent or eligible student has opted out of such disclosure. Schools must notify parents and eligible students of the types of information they designate as directory information and of their right to opt out of directory information disclosure12

Therefore, the correct answer is D. Obtain student authorization before releasing directory information in their records.

References:

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4: Federal Privacy Laws, Section 4.3: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights is a set of principles proposed by the Obama administration in 2012 to protect the privacy of consumers online and offline. The principles are based on the Fair Information Practice Principles, which are widely accepted as the foundation of privacy protection. One of the principles is the right to reasonable limits on the personal data that a company retains, which means that companies should collect and keep only the personal data they need for legitimate purposes, and dispose of it securely when it is no longer needed. This principle would best reform the company’s privacy program in the scenario, as it would address the major concerns that Roberta identified in her report, such as the lack of rules and procedures for purging and destroying outdated data, and the excessive access to customer information by low-level employees. By implementing reasonable limits on the personal data that the company retains, the company would reduce the risk of data breaches, enhance customer trust, and comply with state breach notification laws. References:

Fact Sheet: Plan to Protect Privacy in the Internet Age by Adopting a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 1: Introduction to U.S. Privacy Law, Section 1.2: The Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights

The federal act that does NOT contain provisions for preempting stricter state laws is the Telemarketing Consumer Protection and Fraud Prevention Act1. This act authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to establish and enforce rules for telemarketing practices, such as the Do Not Call Registry, the prohibition of robocalls, and the disclosure of material information2. However, the act also explicitly states that it does not "annul, alter, or affect, or exempt any person subject to the provisions of this section from complying with, the laws of any State with respect to telemarketing practices, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with any provision of this section, and then only to the extent of the inconsistency"1. This means that states can enact and enforce their own laws regarding telemarketing, as long as they are not less protective than the federal law. In contrast, the other three acts listed in the question do contain preemption clauses that limit or override the authority of states to regulate certain aspects of electronic communications, online privacy, and credit transactions345. References: 1: Telemarketing Consumer Protection and Fraud Prevention Act2: Telemarketing Sales Rule | Federal Trade Commission3: CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business4: Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA”) | Federal Trade Commission5: Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 - Wikipedia : IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 5: Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Privacy, p. 144-145, 149-150, 154-155

 Matt’s decision to report the marketer’s activities is based on his suspicion that the marketer violated the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which is a federal law that regulates the online collection, use, and disclosure of personal information from children under 13 years of age1. According to COPPA, operators of websites or online services that are directed to children or knowingly collect personal information from children must:

Provide notice to parents about their information practices and obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children12.

Give parents the choice of consenting to the operator’s collection and internal use of a child’s information, but prohibiting the operator from disclosing that information to third parties (unless disclosure is integral to the site or service, in which case, this must be made clear to parents)12.

Provide parents access to their child’s personal information to review and/or have the information deleted and give parents the opportunity to prevent further use or online collection of a child’s personal information12.

Maintain the confidentiality, security, and integrity of information they collect from children, including by taking reasonable steps to release such information only to parties capable of maintaining its confidentiality and security12.

Retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to protect against its unauthorized access or use12.

Establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and integrity of personal information collected from children12.

In Matt’s case, he did not receive any notice from the marketer about the survey or the contest, nor did he give his consent for the collection or disclosure of his son’s personal information. He also did not have any access or control over his son’s information or the ability to prevent further use or collection. Moreover, he noticed that his son’s information seemed to have been shared with other marketers, as evidenced by the commercial emails in his son’s inbox. These actions indicate that the marketer did not comply with COPPA’s requirements and may have exposed his son’s information to unauthorized or inappropriate parties. Therefore, Matt decided to report the marketer’s activities to the proper authorities, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which enforces COPPA and can impose civil penalties for violations13. References: 1: Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act | Federal Trade Commission, 1. 2: 16 CFR Part 312 – Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule, 3. 3: Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act - Wikipedia, 2.

Based on the incident, the FTC’s enforcement actions against the marketer would most likely include the violation of collecting information from a childunder the age of thirteen without obtaining verifiable parental consent, as required by the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule. The COPPA Rule applies to operators of commercial websites and online services (including mobile apps) that collect, use, or disclose personal information from children under 13, and operators of general audience websites or online services that have actual knowledge that they are collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children under 13. The COPPA Rule also applies to websites or online services that are directed to children under 13 and that collect personal information from users of any age. The COPPA Rule defines personal information to include full name, address, phone number, email address, date of birth, and other identifiers that permit the physical or online contacting of a specific individual. The COPPA Rule requires operators to post a clear and comprehensive online privacy policy describing their information practices for personal information collected online from children; provide direct notice to parents and obtain verifiable parental consent, with limited exceptions, before collecting personal information online from children; give parents the choice of consenting to the operator’s collection and internal use of a child’s information, but prohibiting the operator from disclosing that information to third parties (unless disclosure is integral to the site or service, in which case, this must be made clear to parents); provide parents access to their child’s personal information to review and/or have the information deleted; give parents the opportunity to prevent further use or online collection of a child’s personal information; maintain the confidentiality, security, and integrity of information they collect from children, including by taking reasonable steps to release such information only to parties capable of maintaining its confidentiality and security; and retain personal information collected online from a child for only as long as is necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected and delete the information using reasonable measures to protect against its unauthorized access or use. The FTC has the authority to seek civil penalties and injunctive relief for violations of the COPPA Rule. The FTC has brought numerous enforcement actions against operators for violating the COPPA Rule, resulting in millions of dollars in penalties and orders to delete illegally collected data. References:

Children’s Privacy | Federal Trade Commission

Kids’ Privacy (COPPA) | Federal Trade Commission

FTC Is Escalating Scrutiny of Dark Patterns, Children’s Privacy

FTC to Crack Down on Companies that Illegally Surveil Children Learning Online

FTC Takes Action Against Company for Collecting Children’s Personal Information Without Parental Permission

[IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide], Chapter 5, pages 165-168.

 The most important step for the HR department to take when implementing this new software is to provide notice to employees that their emails will be scanned by the software and creating automated profiles. This is because the software involves the collection and use of personal information from employees, which may implicate their privacy rights and expectations. By providing notice, the HR department can inform employees about the purpose, scope, and consequences of the software, as well as their choices and rights regarding their data. Notice is also a key element of transparency and accountability, which are essential principles of privacy management. Providing notice can also help the HR department comply with various privacy laws and regulations that may apply to the software, such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and state privacy laws. Notice can also help the HR department avoid potential legal risks and liabilities that may arise from the software, such as claims of invasion of privacy, breach of contract, or violation of employee rights. References:

U.S. Private-Sector Privacy, Third Edition by Peter P. Swire, DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, pp. 97-98.

U.S. Private-Sector Privacy, Third Edition by Peter P. Swire, DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo, Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1, pp. 125-126.

U.S. Private-Sector Privacy, Third Edition by Peter P. Swire, DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo, Chapter 6, Section 6.2.1, pp. 153-154.

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide by Mike Chapple and Joe Shelley, Chapter 4, Section 4.1, pp. 113-114.

The scenario describes how the company had no adequate rules about access to customer information and how low-level employees had access to all of the company’s customer data, including financial records. This indicates that the company did not implement proper access controls to limit who can access, use, or disclose customer information based on their roles and responsibilities. Access controls are one of the key elements of information security and privacy, as they help prevent unauthorized or inappropriate access to sensitive data. Without access controls, the company’s customer information was vulnerable to mishandling by employees or outsiders who could exploit the weaksecurity measures. Therefore, the most likely cause of the breach was mishandling of information caused by lack of access controls. References:

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4: Information Management from a U.S. Perspective, Section 4.2: Information Security, p. 113-114

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain I: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, Objective I.C: Describe the role of information security in privacy, Subobjective I.C.1: Identify the key elements of information security, p. 8

The Dodd-Frank Act was established to prevent the risky financial practices that led to the 2007–2008 financial crisis, which included issues similar to Noah’s experience with buying stocks without understanding the risks. The act includes provisions forconsumer protection in financial services and aims to prevent abusive practices in the financial industry

The state UDAP statute, which stands for Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices, is a law that protects consumers from unfair or deceptive business practices. In this case, the employer’s failure to protect the employee’s personal information from a phishing attack could be considered an unfair or deceptive act or practice that harmed the employee. The employee could sue the employer under the state UDAP statute for damages, injunctive relief, or other remedies. The other options are not relevant to this scenario, as they deal with different aspects of data protection, such as confidentiality, access, or destruction of personal information. References:

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 8, Section 8.3.1, page 227

IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 153, page 13

The “Discover” phase of building an information management program is the first step in the process of creating a privacy framework. It involves identifying the types, sources, and flows of personal information within an organization, as well as the legal, regulatory, and contractual obligations that apply to it. The tasks in this phase include:

Conducting a data inventory and mapping exercise to document what personal information is collected, used, shared, and stored by the organization, and how it is protected.

Assessing the current state of privacy compliance and risk by reviewing existing policies, procedures, and practices, and identifying any gaps or weaknesses.

Understanding the laws that regulate a company’s collection of information, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA).

Facilitating participation across departments and levels to ensure that all stakeholders are involved and informed of the privacy goals and objectives, and to foster a culture of privacy awareness and accountability.

Developing a process for review and update of privacy policies is not a task in the “Discover” phase, but rather in the “Implement” phase, which is the third step in the process of creating a privacy framework. It involves putting the privacy policies and procedures into action, and ensuring that they are effective and compliant. The tasks in this phase include:

Developing a process for review and update of privacy policies to reflect changes in the business environment, legal requirements, and best practices, and to incorporate feedback from internal and external audits and assessments.

Implementing privacy training and awareness programs to educate employees and other relevant parties on their roles and responsibilities regarding privacy, and to promote a privacy-by-design approach.

Establishing privacy governance and oversight mechanisms to monitor and measure the performance and outcomes of the privacy program, and to ensure accountability and transparency.

Developing a process for responding to privacy incidents and requests from data subjects, regulators, and other parties, and to mitigate and remediate any privacy risks or harms.

References:

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain I: Information Management from a U.S. Perspective, Section A: Building a Privacy Program

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 1: Information Management from a U.S. Perspective, Section 1.1: Building a Privacy Program

Practice Exam - International Association of Privacy Professionals

The APEC Privacy Framework is a set of non-binding principles adopted by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) that aim to promote electronic commerce and protect information privacy in the region. The Framework is consistent with the core values of the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Trans-Border Flows of Personal Data, and reaffirms the value of privacy to individuals and to the information society. The Framework consists of nine principles: Preventing Harm, Notice, Collection Limitation, Use of Personal Information, Choice, Integrity of Personal Information, Security Safeguards, Access and Correction, and Accountability. Privacy by Design is not one of the principles in the APEC Privacy Framework, although it is a concept that is endorsed by the OECD Guidelines and other privacyframeworks. References: APEC Privacy Framework (2015), APEC Privacy Principles, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4.

 Federal preemption is a doctrine in law that allows a federal law to take precedence over or to displace a state law in certain matters of national importance (such as interstate commerce). The doctrine is based on the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which declares that federal law is the “supreme law of the land” and that state judges are bound by it. There are two types of federal preemption: express and implied. Express preemption occurs when Congress expressly states that a federal law is intended to preempt certain types of state legislation. Implied preemption occurs when a state law conflicts with federal law because it is impossible to comply with both at the same time, or because it interferes with the objectives of the federal law, or because the federal government has fully occupied the field of regulation.

The U.S. Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act is an example of express preemption. The Act regulates commercial email messages and establishes requirements for senders and penalties for violations. The Act also explicitly preempts any state law that “expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages”, except for state laws that prohibit falsity or deception. This means that states cannot pass laws that impose greater obligations on senders of email marketing than the federal law, such as requiring opt-in consent or providing additional opt-out mechanisms. Therefore, the CAN-SPAM Act is the correct answer to the question.

The other options are not examples of federal preemption. The Payment Card Industry’s (PCI) ability to self-regulate and enforce data security standards for payment card data is not a federal law, but a private sector initiative. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) ability to enforce against unfair and deceptive trade practices across sectors and industries is not a preemption of state law, but a concurrent power that can coexist with state consumer protection laws. The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) regulating businesses that have no physical brick-and-mortal presence in California, but which do business there, is not preempted by any federal law, but is a state law that applies to entities that meet certain criteria of collecting or selling personal information of California residents. References: Federal preemption, What is FederalPreemption?, Federal preemption Definition & Meaning, preemption, Preemption legal definition of Preemption, CAN-SPAM Act, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 2.

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.”1 This prohibition applies to all persons engaged in commerce, including banks, but also exempts some entities, such as nonprofit organizations and common carriers, from FTC jurisdiction.2 Therefore, among the four options, only an online merchant’s free shipping offer would be subject to the requirements of Section 5, as it involves a commercial activity thatcould potentially mislead or harm consumers. For example, if the online merchant fails to disclose the terms and conditions of the offer, or charges hidden fees, or delivers the products late or damaged, it could violate Section 5 by engaging in a deceptive practice.3 References: 1: Section 5 | Federal Trade Commission 2: Federal Trade Commission Act Section 5: Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices, page 13: IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, page 23.

The scenario suggests that the company lacked adequate rules about access to customer information, which increased the risk of unauthorized access and data breach. Implementing a comprehensive policy for accessing customer information would have helped the company to limit the access to only those who need it for legitimate purposes, and to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data. This is also one of the recommendations that Roberta made in her report. References:

CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 116, Answer A, Explanation A.

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 5, Section 5.2, p. 143.

 U.S. federal laws protect individuals from employment discrimination based on a number of protected characteristics, such as age, pregnancy, and genetic information. However, marital status is not one of them. There is no federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on marital status, although some states and localities have enacted such laws. The other statements are incorrect because:

A. Age is a protected characteristic under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects people who are 40 or older from discrimination because of age1.

B. Pregnancy is a protected characteristic under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make it illegal to discriminate against a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth2.

D. Genetic information is a protected characteristic under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information, such as family medical history, genetic tests, or participation in genetic research2. References: Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices, Employment discrimination law in the United States, Civil Rights Requirements- Federal Employment Discrimination Laws

 The HIPAA privacy rule establishes national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and other individually identifiable health information (collectively defined as “protected health information”) and applies to health plans, health care clearinghouses, and those health care providers that conduct certain health care transactions electronically (collectively defined as “covered entities”)1 The rule requires appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of protected health information and sets limits and conditions on the uses and disclosures that may be made of such information without an individual’s authorization1 The rule also gives individuals rights over their protected health information, including rights to examine and obtain a copy of their health records, to direct a covered entity to transmit to a third party an electronic copy of their protected health information in an electronic health record, and to request corrections1

The HIPAA privacy rule permits a covered entity to disclose protected health information for the litigation in response to a court order, subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process, provided the applicable requirements of 45 CFR 164.512 (e) for disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings are met2 These requirements include:

In response to a court order or administrative tribunal order, the covered entity may disclose only the protected health information expressly authorized by such order2

In response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process that is not accompanied by a court order or administrative tribunal order, the covered entity must receive satisfactory assurances that the party seeking the information has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the individual who is the subject of the information has been given notice of the request, or that the party seeking the information has made reasonable efforts to secure a qualified protective order2

A qualified protective order is an order of a court or administrative tribunal or a stipulation by the parties to the litigation or administrative proceeding that prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for which such information was requested andrequires the return to the covered entity or destruction of the protected health information (including all copies made) at the end of the litigation or proceeding2

Option A is incorrect because the HIPAA privacy rule does not only permit disclosure for payment, treatment or healthcare operations. The rule also allows disclosure for other purposes, such as public health, research, law enforcement, judicial and administrative proceedings, as long as the applicable conditions and limitations are met1

Option B is correct because it is consistent with the HIPAA privacy rule’s requirement for disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings. By responding with a request for satisfactory assurances such as a qualified protective order, HealthCo is ensuring that the protected health information will be used only for the litigation and will be returned or destroyed afterwards2

Option C is incorrect because it is not consistent with the HIPAA privacy rule’s requirement for disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings. By turning over all of the compromised patient records to the plaintiff’s attorney, HealthCo is disclosing more information than necessary and may violate the privacy rights of other individuals who are not parties to the lawsuit2

Option D is incorrect because it is not consistent with the HIPAA privacy rule’s requirement for disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings. By responding with a redacted document only relative to the plaintiff, HealthCo is not providing satisfactory assurances that the protected health information will be used only for the litigation and will be returned or destroyed afterwards2

References: 1: Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule | HHS.gov 2: May a covered entity use or disclose protected health information for litigation? | HHS.gov

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is a federal law that regulates the online collection and use of personal information from children under 13 years of age. COPPA requires operators of websites or online services that are directed to children, or that knowingly collect personal information from children, to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing such information. Verifiable parental consent means any reasonable effort (taking into consideration available technology) to ensure that before personal information is collected from a child, the child’s parent receives notice of the operator’s information practices and consents to those practices. COPPA also imposes other obligations on operators, such as providing parents with access to their children’s information, maintaining reasonable security measures, and limiting data retention. References: COPPA, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1

According to the HIPAA Security Rule, covered entities are responsible for ensuring that their business associates comply with the security standards and safeguards required by the rule. This includes conducting due diligence to assess the business associate’s security capabilities and practices, and monitoring their performance and compliance. Failure to do so may result in a violation of the rule and a penalty by the HHS. In this scenario, HealthCo did not perform due diligence on CloudHealth before entering the contract, and did not conduct audits of CloudHealth’s security measures. This is the most significant reason why HHS might impose a penalty on HealthCo, as it indicates a lack of oversight and accountability for the protection of ePHI. References:

HIPAA Security Rule

HIPAA Business Associate Contracts

HIPAA Enforcement and Penalties

The marketer could be prosecuted for violating the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices (UDAP) laws, which are enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general. UDAP laws prohibit businesses from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices that harm consumers, such as false advertising, misleading claims, or hidden fees. In this scenario, the marketer could be accused of deceiving children into providing personal information and preferences under the guise of a survey and a contest, without obtaining verifiable parental consent or disclosing how the information will be used or shared. This could also violate the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which is a federal law that regulates the online collection and use of personal information from children under 13 years of age. References:

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 5: Enforcement of Privacy and Security, pp. 177-178.

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Subsection A: Government and Court Access to Private-sector Information, Topic 2: Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices.

IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 27.

Data classification systematically categorizes information based on sensitivity and importance to determine its level of confidentiality. This process helps apply appropriate security and compliance measures to ensure each category receives proper protection1. This process also helps to identify which personal data is subject to specific GDPR requirements, such as obtaining explicit consent from data subjects, or notifying data subjects in the event of a data breach2. By classifying data, Cheryl can also make more informed decisions about where to store the information on her computer system and the nature of controls that are required based on classification3. This way, she can protect her customers’ privacy while maintaining the highest level of service. References:

Data Classification for GDPR Explained

A guide to data classification: confidential data vs. sensitive data vs. public information

Why Is Data Classification Important?

The Massachusetts Personal Information Security Regulation (201 CMR 17.00) requires that any person or entity that owns or licenses personal information of Massachusetts residents must implement and maintain a comprehensive written information security program that includes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to protect such information. One of the technical requirements of the regulation is to encrypt all personal information of Massachusetts residents that is stored on laptops or other portable devices, regardless of where the equipment is located12. The regulation defines personal information as a person’s first name and last name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements that relate to such person: (a) Social Security number; (b) driver’s license number or state-issued identification card number; or © financial account number, or credit or debit card number, with or without any required security code, access code, personal identification number or password, that would permit access to a resident’s financial account1. The regulation also requires encryption of all transmitted records and files containing personal information that will travel across public networks, and encryption of all data containing personal information to be transmitted wirelessly1. References:

Regulation 201 CMR 17.00: Standards for the Protection of Personal Information of MA Residents

Massachusetts Law Raises the Bar for Data Security

According to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a covered entity is a health plan, a health care clearinghouse, or a health care provider that transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by HIPAA. A covered entity must report a breach of unsecured protected health information (PHI) to the following parties:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which is the federal agency responsible for enforcing HIPAA and issuing regulations and guidance on privacy and security issues. A covered entity must notify HHS of a breach affecting 500 or more individuals without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 days after discovery of the breach. A covered entity must also notify HHS of breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals within 60 days of the end of the calendar year in which the breaches occurred.

The affected individuals, who are the individuals whose PHI has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed, acquired, used, or disclosed as a result of the breach. A covered entity must notify the affected individuals without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 days after discovery of the breach. The notification must be in writing by first-class mail or, if the individual agrees, by electronic mail. The notification must include a brief description of the breach, the types of information involved, the steps the individual should take to protect themselves, the steps the covered entity is taking to investigate and mitigate the breach, and the contact information of the covered entity.

The local media, if the breach affects more than 500 residents of a state or jurisdiction. A covered entity must notify prominent media outlets serving the state or jurisdiction without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 days after discovery of the breach. The notification must include the same information as the notification to the affected individuals.

A covered entity does not have to report the breach to medical providers, unless they are also affected individuals or business associates of the covered entity. A business associate is a person or entity that performs certain functions or activities on behalf of, or provides certain services to, a covered entity that involve the use or disclosure of PHI. A covered entity must have a writtencontract or agreement with its business associates that requires them to protect the privacy and security of PHI and report any breaches to the covered entity.

References:

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Section C: Sector-specific Requirements for Health Information

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 2: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Section 2.3: Sector-specific Requirements for Health Information

Practice Exam - International Association of Privacy Professionals

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 is a federal law that regulates the privacy and security of health information in the United States. HIPAA preempts state laws that are contrary to its provisions, unless the state laws provide more stringent protections for health information12 HIPAA establishes a floor of federal standards for health information privacy and security, but allows states to enact laws that are more protective of individuals’ rights34 For example, some states may require more specific consent from individuals before disclosing their health information, or impose stricter penalties for violations of health information privacy and security. HIPAA also provides exceptions for certain state laws that serve a compelling public interest, such as public health, safety, or welfare.References: https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/the-supremacy-clause-and-the-doctrine-of-preemption.html

https://www.bonalaw.com/insights/legal-resources/when-does-federal-law-preempt-state-law

 The law that ACME violated by designing the service to prevent access to the information by a law enforcement agency is the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA)1. CALEA is a federal law that requires telecommunications carriers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment to design their equipment, facilities, and services to ensure that they have the necessarysurveillance capabilities to comply with legal requests for interception of communications2. CALEA applies to all commercial messages, including text messages, and gives law enforcement agencies the authority to subpoena the records of such communications from the service providers3. By encrypting its text message records so that only the suspect could access this data, ACME violated CALEA’s duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes. References: 1: Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act - Wikipedia2: Home | CALEA® | The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.3: Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act : IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 6: Law Enforcement and National Security Access, p. 177

The USA FREEDOM Act is a law that was enacted in 2015 to reform the surveillance practices of the U.S. government. The law was a response to the revelations by Edward Snowden about the mass collection of phone records and internet data by the National Security Agency (NSA) under the authority of Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act. The USA FREEDOM Act ended the bulk collection of telephone data and internet metadata by the NSA, and instead required the government to obtain a specific order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to access such data from the telecommunication providers. The law also authorized the following practices:

Emergency exceptions that allow the government to target roamers: The law allows the government to temporarily target a non-U.S. person who is using a phone number or identifier of a U.S. person, without a court order, if there is an emergency situation that involves a threat of death or serious bodily harm. The government must obtain a court order within seven days to continue the surveillance.

An increase in the maximum penalty for material support to terrorism: The law increases the maximum prison term for providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization from 15 years to 20 years.

An extension of the expiration for roving wiretaps: The law extends the sunset date for the roving wiretap provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, which allows the government to obtain a single order from the FISC to conduct surveillance on a target who switches devices or locations, without specifying the device or location. The law extends the expiration date from June 1, 2015 to December 15, 2019. References:

USA FREEDOM Act

USA FREEDOM Act Summary

USA FREEDOM Act FAQs

Most state laws require that a person or business that conducts business in the state and owns or licenses personal information of residents of that state must notify those residents of any breach of the security of the system involving their personal information. This means that the entity does not have to be physically located in the state, have employees in the state, or be registered inthe state to be subject to the breach notification requirements, as long as it conducts business in the state and holds personal information of state residents. Conducting business in the state can be interpreted broadly to include any transaction or activity that involves the state or its residents, such as selling goods or services, collecting payments, or maintaining a website accessible by state residents. The other options (B, C, and D) are not commonly required by most state laws, although some states may have additional or specific requirements for certain types of entities, such as information brokers, health care providers, or financial institutions. References:

Security Breach Notification Chart | Perkins Coie

Security Breach Notification Laws - National Conference of State Legislatures

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4: State Privacy Laws and Regulations, Section 4.2: State Security Breach Notification Laws.

Data classification is the process of categorizing data based on its sensitivity and importance to determine its level of confidentiality and protection. Data classification helps organizations apply appropriate security and compliance measures to ensure each category receives proper protection1. Data classification also helps organizations identify which data is subject to specific privacylaws and regulations, such as the GDPR, HIPAA, or CCPA, and how to handle data subject requests, data breaches, or legal discovery2. If an organization maintains data classified as high sensitivity, such as personal information, financial information, or health information, in the same system as data classified as low sensitivity, such as public information or internal information, it increases the risk of exposing the high sensitivity data in the event of a data breach. A data breach can result in legal consequences, reputational damage, and loss of trust from customers and stakeholders. Therefore, it is advisable to segregate data based on its classification and apply different levels of encryption, access control, and monitoring to each category3. This way, the organization can minimize the impact of a data breach and protect the privacy and security of its data assets. References:

Why Is Data Classification Important?

Data Classification for GDPR Explained

Data classification and privacy considerations

In 2012, the White House released a report titled “Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy”, which proposed a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights based on the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs). The report called for a comprehensive privacy framework that would apply to all commercial sectors and all personal data, regardless of the technology or business model involved. The report also urged Congress to enact legislation to implement the framework and empower the FTC to enforce it. Similarly, the FTC released a report titled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers”, which outlined a set of best practices for businesses to protect consumer privacy and foster innovation. The report also advocated for a comprehensive privacy framework that would cover both online and offline data, and apply to all entities that collect or use consumer data that can be reasonably linked to a specific consumer, computer, or device. The report also recommended that Congress consider enacting baseline privacy legislation and giving the FTC rulemaking authority to implement it. Therefore, both reports can be described as advocating a comprehensive approach to privacy enforcement, rather than a harm-based, self-regulatory, or notice and choice approach. References: White House Report, FTC Report, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide (p. 31-32)

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of students’ educational records. FERPA generally requiresschools to obtain written consent from students before disclosing their records to third parties, such as parents. However, FERPA allows some exceptions to this rule, such as when the disclosure is for health or safety emergencies, or when the student is still a dependent for tax purposes. According to FERPA, a school may disclose educational records to the parents of a student who is claimed as a dependent on the parents’ most recent federal income tax return, without the student’s consent. This exception applies regardless of the student’s age or enrollment status at a postsecondary institution. References:

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section III, C, 2

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 3, Section 3.5]

[FERPA, 34 CFR § 99.31(a)(8)]

According to the Privacy Shield Principles, an organization that self-certifies under the Privacy Shield Framework must provide individuals with the choice to opt out of the disclosure of their personal information to a third party or the use of their personal information for a purpose that is materially different from the purpose for which it was originally collected or subsequently authorized by the individual. To facilitate this choice, the organization must inform the individual of the type or identity of the third parties to which it discloses personal information and the purposes for which it does so. The organization must also provide a readily available and affordable independent recourse mechanism to investigate and resolve complaints and disputes regarding its compliance with the Privacy Shield Principles. If the organization transfers personal information to a third party acting as an agent, it must ensure that the agent provides at least the same level of privacy protection as is required by the Privacy Shield Principles and that it takes reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that the agent effectively processes the personal information transferred in a manner consistent with the organization’s obligations under the Privacy Shield Principles. References:

Privacy Shield Principles, section II. Choice Principle and section III. Accountability for Onward Transfer Principle

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], p. 67-68, section 3.2.1 and p. 69-70, section 3.2.2

[IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge], p. 15-16, section C.1.b and p. 16-17, section C.1.c