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

The Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) is a federal regulation that applies to telemarketing calls, which are defined as "a plan, program, or campaign which is conducted to induce the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution, by use of one or more telephones and which involves more than one interstate telephone call."1 The TSR requires telemarketers to make specific disclosures, prohibit misrepresentations, limit the times and number of calls, and set payment restrictions for the sale of certain goods and services. TheTSR also gives consumers the right to opt out of receiving telemarketing calls by registering their phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.2

The TSR applies to both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, but there are some exemptions and partial exemptions for certain types of entities, calls, and transactions. For example, the TSR does not apply to nonprofit organizations calling on their own behalf, as they are not considered to be engaged in telemarketing. However, if a nonprofit organization hires a for-profit telemarketer or telefunder to solicit charitable contributions on its behalf, the for-profit entity must comply with the TSR, as it is engaged in telemarketing. Similarly, the TSR does not apply to for-profit organizations calling businesses when a binding contract exists between them, as they are not considered to be inducing the purchase of goods or services. However, if a for-profit organization calls businesses to sell additional services to established customers, the TSR applies, as it is considered to be inducing the purchase of goods or services.3

Therefore, among the four options, only for-profit organizations and for-profit telefunders regarding charitable solicitations must comply with the TSR, as they are engaged in telemarketing and do not fall under any of the exemptions or partial exemptions. References: 1: eCFR :: 16 CFR Part 310 – Telemarketing Sales Rule3, Section 310.22: Telemarketing Sales Rule | Federal Trade Commission1, Rule Summary3: Complying with the Telemarketing Sales Rule - Federal Trade Commission2, Exemptions to the TSR.

The GLBA prohibits financial institutions from disclosing a consumer’s account number or similar form of access number or access code to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer. This restriction is intended to prevent unauthorized access to a person’s bank account by third parties who may use the account number to initiate fraudulent transactions or identity theft. The GLBA also requires financial institutions to implement safeguards to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of customer information, and to notify customers and regulators in the event of a security breach involving such information. References:

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 2: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Section 2.3: Financial Privacy, p. 49-50

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Objective II.C: Identify the privacy requirements for financial institutions, Subobjective II.C.2: Identify the restrictions on disclosure of account numbers, p. 14

IAPP CIPP/US Exam Blueprint, Domain II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Objective II.C: Identify the privacy requirements for financialinstitutions, Subobjective II.C.2: Identify the restrictions on disclosure of account numbers, p. 5

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) is a federal law that regulates the privacy and security of consumer financial information collected, used, and disclosed by financial institutions, such as banks, credit unions, securities firms, insurance companies, and others12. Under the GLBA, financial institutions must comply with two main rules: the Privacy Rule and the Safeguards Rule12. The Privacy Rule requires financial institutions to provide notice to their customers about their information-sharing practices and to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children12. The Privacy Rule also gives customers the right to opt out of having their personal information shared with certain nonaffiliated third parties, unless an exception applies12. The Safeguards Rule requires financial institutions to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program that protects the confidentiality, security, and integrity of customer information12.

Therefore, banks and other financial institutions are required to offer an opt-out before transferring personal information (PI) to an unaffiliated third party for the latter’s own use, unless an exception applies, such as when the disclosure is necessary to complete a transaction requested or authorized by the customer, or when the disclosure is to a service provider or joint marketer that agrees to protect the information and use it only for the purposes for which it was disclosed12. This requirement is intended to give customers more controlover how their personal information is used and shared by financial institutions and to protect their privacy rights12.

References: 1: Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act | Federal Trade Commission, 1. 2: How To Comply with the Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act | Federal Trade Commission, 2.

 Data breach notification laws in the United States vary by state and territory, and there is no comprehensive federal law that applies to all types of personal information. Some federal laws, such as HIPAA, GLBA, and the FDIC rule, impose data breach notification requirements for specific industries or sectors, but they do not cover all types of personal information or all entities that collect, store, or process such information. Therefore, the only obligations to provide data breach notification for the breach of personal information are under state law, unless a specific federal law applies to the entity or the information involved. The other statements are incorrect because:

A. You do not have to notify the FTC in addition to affected individuals if over 500 individuals are receiving notice, unless you are a health care entity subject to HIPAA, in which case you have to notify the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) within 60 days of the breach.

B. When providing an individual with required notice of a data breach, you do not have to identify what personal information was actually or likely compromised, unless the state law requires you to do so. Some states, such as California, require the notice to include the types of personal information that were or are reasonably believed to have been the subject of the breach, while others, such as Alabama, do not specify the content of the notice.

C. When you are required to provide an individual with notice of a data breach under any state’s law, you do not have to provide the individual with an offer for free credit monitoring, unless the state law requires you to do so. Some states, such as Connecticut, require the offer of appropriate identity theft prevention and mitigation services for at least 12 months, while others, such as Arizona, do not impose such a requirement. References: Data Breach Notification in the United States and Territories, Data Breach Notification Laws in the United States: What is Required and How is that Determined?, US State Data Breach Notification Law Matrix, Breach Notification in United States, Data Breach Notification Laws: How to Manufacture a Confident Response

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 annual privacy notice requirement under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) applies to financial institutions that collect nonpublic personal information from customers and disclose it to nonaffiliated third parties, unless they qualify for an exception. A financial institution is any entity that engages in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to such activities, as defined by section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The King County Savings and Loan is a financial institution under this definition, as it engages in lending money and accepting deposits. Therefore, it is required to provide its customers with an annual privacy notice, unless it meets the conditions for an exception. The Four Winds Tribal College, the Golden Gavel Auction House, and the Breezy City Housing Commission are not financial institutions under the GLBA, as they do not engage in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to such activities. Therefore, they are not required to provide their customers with an annual privacy notice under the GLBA. References:

Amendment to the Annual Privacy Notice Requirement Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, section I. Background, paragraph 2.

17 CFR § 248.5 - Annual privacy notice to customers required., paragraph (a) (1).

IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, page 65.

The Disposal Rule is a provision of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) that requires businesses and individuals to take appropriate measures to dispose of sensitive information about consumers, such as credit reports, that are derived from consumer reports. The Disposal Rule is intended to reduce the risk of identity theft and fraud by preventing unauthorized access to or use of the information. According to the Disposal Rule, reasonable steps for disposal include burning, pulverizing, or shredding papers that contain consumer report information so that they cannot be read or reconstructed.

In this scenario, the most appropriate action for a car dealer holding a paper folder of customer credit reports is to follow the Disposal Rule by having the reports shredded. This would ensure that the car dealer complies with the FACTA and protects the privacy and security of the customers’ personal data. The other options are not correct, because:

The Red Flags Rule is another provision of the FACTA that requires financial institutions and creditors to implement a written identity theft prevention program that identifies and responds to the warning signs or red flags of identity theft in their operations. The Red Flags Rule does not apply to the disposal of consumer report information, nor does it require mailing the reports to customers, which could expose the information to interception or theft.

The Privacy Rule is a provision of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) that requires financial institutions to provide notice to customers about their privacy policies and practices, and to allow customers to opt out of sharing their personal information with certain third parties. The Privacy Rule does not apply to the disposal of consumer report information, nor does it require notifying customers that the reports are being stored, which could alert potential identity thieves to the existence of the information.

The Safeguards Rule is another provision of the GLBA that requires financial institutions to develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program that protects the security, confidentiality, and integrity of customer information. The Safeguards Rule does not apply to the disposal of consumer report information, nor does it require transferring the reports to a secure electronic file, which could still be vulnerable to hacking or unauthorized access.

References:

FTC website, FACTA Disposal Rule Goes into Effect June 1

Shred Nations website, What Is the FACTA Disposal Rule?

Seam Services website, The FACTA Disposal Rule: What Does It Mean for Your Business?

IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 2: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, pp. 49-50

IAPP website, Red Flags Rule

IAPP website, Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)

 According to FERPA, a school may disclose personally identifiable information (PII) from an eligible student’s education records without consent if the disclosure meets one of the exceptions in 34 CFR § 99.31. One of these exceptions is for disclosures to other schools to which a student seeks or intends to enroll, or is already enrolled if the disclosure is for purposes related to the student’s enrollment or transfer (34 CFR § 99.31(a)(2)). This exception allows schools to disclose transcripts, recommendations, or other information that may facilitate the student’s admission or enrollment at another school. However, the school must make a reasonable attempt to notify the student of the disclosure, unless the student initiated the disclosure, and must provide the student with a copy of the records that were disclosed upon request (34 CFR § 99.34(a)(1)). References: https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/ferpa

https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/ferpa

Phishing is a form of social engineering that involves sending fraudulent emails or other messages that appear to come from a legitimate source, but are designed to trick recipients into revealing sensitive information, such aspasswords, account numbers, or personal identifiers1. Phishing is one of the most common and effective methods of cyberattacks, and it can lead to data breaches, identity theft, ransomware infections, or other serious consequences2. Therefore, training on how to recognize and avoid phishing attempts is crucial for any organization that handles sensitive data, especially ePHI, which is subject to strict regulations under HIPAA3. Training on techniques for identifying phishing attempts can help employees to spot the signs of a phishing email, such as:

Sender’s address or domain name that does not match the expected source or contains spelling errors4

Generic salutations or impersonal tone that do not address the recipient by name or use proper grammar4

Urgent or threatening language that creates a sense of pressure or fear and asks the recipient to take immediate action, such as clicking on a link, opening an attachment, or providing information4

Suspicious links or attachments that may contain malware or lead to fake websites that mimic the appearance of a legitimate site, but have a different URL or request login credentials or other data4

Requests for sensitive information that are unusual or out of context, such as asking for passwords, account numbers, or personal identifiers that the sender should already have or should not need4

Training on techniques for identifying phishing attempts can also help employees to learn how to respond to a phishing email, such as:

Not clicking on any links or opening any attachments in the email4

Not replying to the email or providing any information to the sender4

Reporting the email to the IT department or security team and deleting it from the inbox4

Verifying the legitimacy of the email by contacting the sender directly using a different channel, such as phone or another email address4

Updating the antivirus software and scanning the device for any malware infection4

Training on techniques for identifying phishing attempts is the most effective kind of training that CloudHealth could have given its employees to help prevent this type of data breach, because it would have enabled them to recognize the phishing email that compromised the PHI of more than 10,000 HealthCo patients, and to avoid falling victim to it. Training on the terms of the contractual agreement with HealthCo, the difference between confidential and non-public information, or CloudHealth’s HR policy regarding the role of employees involved in data breaches, while important, would not have been as effective in preventing this specific type of data breach, because they would not have addressed the root cause of the breach, which was the phishing email.

References:

1: IAPP, Phishing, https://iapp.org/resources/glossary/phishing/

2: SpinOne, The Top 5 Phishing Awareness Training Providers 2023, https://spinbackup.com/blog/phishing-awareness-training-best-providers/

3: IAPP, HIPAA, https://iapp.org/resources/glossary/hipaa/

4: Expert Insights, The Top 11 Phishing Awareness Training and Simulation Solutions, https://expertinsights.com/insights/the-top-11-phishing-awareness-training-and-simulation-solutions/

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has rulemaking authority for the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA), as well as other consumer financial laws. The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in 2010, transferred most of the rulemaking responsibilities added to the FCRA by the FACTA and the Credit CARD Act from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the CFPB. However, the FTC retains its enforcement authority for the FCRA and the FACTA, along with other federal and state agencies1. The CFPB also shares rulemaking authority for some provisions of the FACTA with the FTC, such as the identity theft red flags and address discrepancy rules2. The Department of Commerce and the State Attorneys General do not have rulemaking authority for the FCRA or the FACTA. References: 1: FTC3, Fair Credit Reporting Act; 2: CFPB4, Fair Credit Reporting Act; 3: FTC; 4: CFPB.

The best way for Otto to minimize the privacy risks involved in using a cloud provider for the HR data is to ensure that the cloud provider abides by the contractual requirements by conducting an on-site audit. This would allow Otto to verify that the cloud provider has implemented adequate security measures, such as encryption, access controls, and backup systems, to protect the HR data from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. It would also allow Otto to check that the cloud provider is complying with the applicable privacy laws and regulations, such as the CCPA, the APEC Privacy Framework, and the breach notification requirements. By conducting an on-site audit, Otto can identify any gaps or weaknesses in the cloud provider’s privacy practices and address them promptly. This would also demonstrate due diligence and accountability on the part of Filtration Station, which could mitigate the legal and reputational consequences of a data breach. References:

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 3: Data Assessments, pp. 77-78.

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section III: Government and Court Access to Private-sector Information, Subsection B: Cross-Border Data Transfer, Topic 2: APEC Privacy Framework.

IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 125.

A company that develops a privacy policy with standards that are much higher than its competitors may face the risk of being more closely scrutinized for any breaches of policy by regulators, customers, media, or other stakeholders. This is because the company sets a higher expectation for its privacy practices and may be held to a higher standard of accountability and transparency. If the company fails to comply with its own policy or experiences a data breach, it may face more severe consequences, such as reputational damage, loss of trust, legal liability, or regulatory sanctions. References:

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section I, B, 2

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 1, Section 1.4]

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 Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (PPA) is a federal law that protects journalists and newsrooms from search and seizure by government officials in connection with criminal investigations or prosecutions. The PPA prohibits the government from searching for or seizing any work product materials or documentary materials possessed by a person who intends to disseminate them to the public through a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, unless certain exceptions apply. The PPA was drafted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, which upheld the constitutionality of a police search of a student newspaper’s office without a subpoena, based on probable cause that the newspaper had evidence of a crime. The PPA was intended to protect the First Amendment rights of the press and the privacy interests of journalists and their sources from unreasonable government intrusion123. References:

1: IAPP, Privacy Protection Act of 1980, https://epic.org/the-privacy-protection-act-of-1980/

2: DOJ, Privacy Protection Act of 1980, https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-661-privacy-protection-act-1980

3: Wikipedia, Privacy Protection Act of 1980, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_Protection_Act_of_1980

 The Privacy Act allows agencies to exempt certain records from some of its provisions, including the right to disclosure, if the records fall within one of the categories specified in subsections (j) or (k) of the Act. One of these categories is records maintained by an agency or component thereof which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, including police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals, and the activities of prosecutors, courts, correctional, probation, pardon, or parole authorities, and which consists of (A) informationcompiled for the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders and consisting only of identifying data and notations of arrests, the nature and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement, release, and parole and probation status; (B) information compiled for the purpose of a criminal investigation, including reports of informants and investigators, and associated with an identifiable individual; or © reports identifiable to an individual compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws from arrest or indictment through release from supervision. 5 U.S.C. § 552a (j) (2). Therefore, material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law falls within this category and can be exempted from the right to disclosure under the Privacy Act. References:

Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition, Ten Exemptions, subsection (j) (2).

Privacy Act Exemptions, subsection (j) (2).

IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, page 66.

When developing a company privacy program, a privacy professional needs to understand the business objectives, processes, and risks of the organization, as well as the legal and regulatory requirements and best practices for privacy. To achieve this, a privacy professional should establish and maintain relationships with individuals across company departments and at different levels in the organization’s hierarchy, such as IT, marketing, human resources, legal, compliance, security, and senior management. These relationships will help the privacy professional to gather relevant information, identify privacy issues and gaps, communicate privacy policies and procedures, provide training and awareness, monitor compliance, and resolve conflicts. The other relationshipslisted are also important, but not as essential as the internal relationships for developing a company privacy program. References:

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 5: Developing a Privacy Program, Section 5.1: Privacy Program Framework, p. 145-146

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain V: Developing a Privacy Program, Objective V.A: Identify the components of a privacy program framework, Subobjective V.A.1: Identify the roles and responsibilities of individuals within the organization, p. 23

IAPP CIPP/US Exam Blueprint, Domain V: Developing a Privacy Program, Objective V.A: Identify the components of a privacy program framework, Subobjective V.A.1: Identify the roles and responsibilities of individuals within the organization, p. 7

The U.S. Wiretap Act prohibits the interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. One of these exceptions is the ordinary course of business exception, which allows an employer or service provider to intercept communications that are made in the ordinary course of its business, such as for quality control, training, or security purposes. This exception does not apply to communications that are not related to the business, such as personal calls or emails, or to communications that are intercepted for other reasons, such as harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. The scope and applicability of this exception may vary depending on the context, the consent of the parties, and the state law. The other options are not valid exceptions under the Wiretap Act. References: 1, 2, 3, 4

The CCPA grants California residents the right to request that a business delete, disclose, or stop selling their personal information, but it does not grant them the right to request that a business correct their personal information. However, the CPRA, which will amend and expand the CCPA in 2023, will grant California residents the right to request that a business correct inaccurate personal information. References: CCPA, CPRA, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide (p. 62)

The correct answer is C because the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) is a state privacy law that grants California residents the right to request the deletion of their personal information that a business has collected from them. The CCPA applies to any business that collects personal information from California residents, regardless of where the business is located, as long as the business meets certain thresholds of revenue, data volume, or data sharing. Therefore, the social media platform that Sarah uses is subject to the CCPA and must honor Sarah’s deletion request, unless an exception applies. The CCPA also requires businesses to provide notice and choice to consumersabout their data collection and use practices, and to respond to consumer requests within 45 days.

The other answers are incorrect because:

A is incorrect because the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a European Union privacy law that applies to the processing of personal data of individuals who are in the EU, regardless of where the data controller or processor is located. However, the GDPR does not apply to the processing of personal data of individuals who are outside the EU, unless the processing relates to the offering of goods or services to such individuals or the monitoring of their behavior within the EU. Therefore, the GDPR does not apply to Sarah’s personal data, since she is not in the EU and the social media platform is not targeting or tracking her in the EU.

B is incorrect because Section 5 of the FTC Act is a federal law that prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTC has used its Section 5 authority to enforce privacy and data security standards against businesses that violate their own privacy policies, misrepresent their data practices, or fail to protect consumer data from unauthorized access or disclosure. However, the FTC has not held that refusing to delete an individual’s personal information upon request constitutes an unfair practice per se, unless the refusal is inconsistent with the business’s privacy policy or representations, or causes substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable or outweighed by countervailing benefits.

D is incorrect because the New York SHIELD Act is a state law that imposes data breach notification and data security requirements on any person or business that owns or licenses computerized data that includes the private information of a New York resident. The SHIELD Act does not grant New York residents the right to request the deletion of their personal information, nor does it apply to businesses that do not collect or hold the private information of New York residents. Therefore, the SHIELD Act does not apply to Sarah’s personal data, since she is not a New York resident and the social media platform may not have her private information as defined by the SHIELD Act. References:

U.S. Private-Sector Privacy, Third Edition by Peter P. Swire, DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo, Chapter 7, Section 7.2.1, pp. 183-186.

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide by Mike Chapple and Joe Shelley, Chapter 7, Section 7.2, pp. 217-219.

According to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, a federal law that regulates commercial email messages, a commercial message sender must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within 10 business days. The sender must provide a clear and conspicuous way for the recipient to opt out of receiving future emails, such as a link or an email address. The sender must not charge a fee, require the recipient to provide any personal information, or make the recipient take any steps other than sending a reply email or visiting a single web page to opt out. The sender must also not sell, exchange, or transfer the email address of the recipient who has opted out, unless it is necessary to comply with the law or prevent fraud.

References:

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Section B: Communications and Marketing

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 2: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Section 2.2: Communications and Marketing

Practice Exam - International Association of Privacy Professionals

 An intrusion upon seclusion tort occurs when someone intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person12. The intrusion does not need to involve a physical trespass, but can also be an electronic or optical intrusion, such as using a webcam to record a person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy2. The intrusion must also cause mental anguish or suffering to the plaintiff2.

In this case, option A would best support an employee claim for an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the webcam is enabled to record video any time the computer is turned on, regardless of whether the employee is working or not, or whether the employee is in a private or public place. This would be an intentional and highly offensive intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, and would likely cause the employee distress or anxiety.

Option B would not support an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the creation and saving of a biometric template based on keystroke dynamics is not an intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, but rather a data collection and processing activity that may implicate other privacy laws or principles, such as notice, consent, and security3.

Option C would not support an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the software sending a notification to a supervisor when the employee’s mouse is dormant for more than five minutes is not an intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, but rather a performance monitoring activity that may be justified by the employer’s legitimate business interests4.

Option D would not support an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the webcam recording video of an employee using a company laptop to perform personal business while at a coffee shop during work hours is not an intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, but rather a misuse of company property and time that may be subject to the employer’s policies and disciplinary actions5. Moreover, the employee may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place like a coffee shop. References: 1: Intrusion on seclusion - Wikipedia 2: Elements of an Intrusion Claim | Digital Media Law Project 3: Biometrics - IAPP 4: Employee Monitoring - IAPP 5: Employee Privacy - IAPP : Privacy in Public Places - IAPP

 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.

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, and training. The ADA also limits the types of medical inquiries and examinations that employers can make of applicants and employees. Under the ADA, a disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. The ADA covers current, past, and perceived drug addiction as a disability, unless the individual is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs. Therefore, Felicia’s plan to ask applicants about drug addiction may violate the ADA, unless she can show that the inquiry is job-related and consistent with business necessity. The other laws are not directly relevant to Felicia’s plan, although they may have other implications for her business. References: ADA, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide (p. 95-96)

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.

The VPPA was enacted to prevent the wrongful disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII) concerning any consumer of a video tape service provider. PII includes information that identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider. The VPPA prohibits such disclosure, except in certain limited circumstances, such as with the consumer’s informed, written consent, or pursuant to a law enforcement warrant, subpoena, or court order. The VPPA also allows the disclosure of the names and addresses of consumers, but not the title, description, or subject matter of any video tapes or other audio visual material, for the exclusive use of marketing goods and services directly to the consumer, unless the consumer has opted out of such disclosure. The other options (B, C, and D) are not restricted by the VPPA. References:

Video Privacy Protection Act - Wikipedia

18 U.S. Code § 2710 - Wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 3: Federal Privacy Laws and Regulations, Section 3.5: Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA)

When selecting a vendor to manage personal information, the company should consider various criteria, such as the vendor’s reputation, financial health, employee training program, privacy policies, security practices, compliance record, contractual terms, and service quality. However, the vendor’s employee retention rates may not be as important as the other factors, as they do not directly affect the vendor’s ability to protect and process the personal information entrusted to them. While high employee turnover may indicate some issues with the vendor’s management or culture, it may not necessarily impact the vendor’s performance or reliability, as long as the vendor has adequate measures to ensure continuity, accountability, and confidentiality of the personal information they handle. References:

Vendor Selection Process: a Step-by-Step Guide, section “Step 2: Define the vendor selection criteria”

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], p. 81-82, section 3.4.1

[IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge], p. 18-19, section C.2.a

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

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 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 U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) is a federal agency that promotes economic growth, trade, and innovation, but does not have regulatory authority related to privacy. The DOC administers several voluntary privacy frameworks, such as the Privacy Shield, the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules, and the NIST Privacy Framework, but these are not legally binding or enforceable by the DOC12. The DOC also participates in international privacy negotiations and dialogues, but does not have the power to issue rules or regulations on privacy matters3.

The other three options are examples of federal agencies that do have regulatory authority related to privacy. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an independent agency that enforces consumer protection laws, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and the Dodd-Frank Act, which contain privacy and data security provisions4. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) is a federal agency that regulates transportation safety, security, and infrastructure, and has issued privacy rules for airlines, motor carriers, and railroads. The FederalReserve (FRB) is an independent agency that oversees the nation’s monetary policy, banking system, and financial stability, and has issued privacy rules for financial institutions under its jurisdiction. References: 1: Privacy Shield Program Overview | International Trade Administration 2: NIST Privacy Framework | NIST 3: Privacy and Data Security | U.S. Department of Commerce 4: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - Wikipedia : [Privacy | US Department of Transportation] : [Privacy - Federal Reserve Board]

 In order for a court to hear a case, it must have both personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court over the parties to a case, while subject matter jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a particular type of case. For example, a federal court may have subject matter jurisdiction over a case involving a federal law, but it may not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant who has no contacts with the state where the court is located. Similarly, a state court may have personal jurisdiction over a resident of the state, but it may not have subject matter jurisdiction over a case involving a foreign treaty. References: [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 2: Introduction to U.S. Law, p. 25-26; Wex Legal Dictionary, Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Personal Jurisdiction.

Redaction is the permanent removal of sensitive data—the digital equivalent of “blacking out” text in printed material. Redaction can be accomplished by simply deleting characters from a file or database record, or by replacing characters with asterisks or other placeholders. Redaction is often used to protect personal information, such as names, addresses, social security numbers, or financial data, on documents that are disclosed in litigation, such as pleadings, exhibits, or discovery responses. Redaction is required by courts to comply with privacy laws and rules, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), which mandate that parties must redact certain types of personal information from documents filed with the court or produced to the other party. Redaction is also a best practice to minimize the risk of unauthorized access, identity theft, or reputational harm that may result from exposing personal information in litigation. References:

When to redact, or not, disclosable documents in litigation - Stewarts

The approach to redaction – High Court guidance - Lexology

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 3: Federal Privacy Laws and Regulations, Section 3.2: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).

The Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as an independent agency within the Federal Reserve System. The CFPB has the authority to regulate consumer financial products and services, such as mortgages, credit cards, student loans, and payday loans. One of the main objectives of the CFPB is to promote transparency, fairness, and consumer choice in the financial marketplace. The CFPB has issued rules and guidance to require financial institutions to provide clear and accurate information to consumers about the costs, risks, and benefits of their products and services. The CFPB also has the power to enforce consumer protection laws and prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices by financial institutions123 References: 1: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Title X, Subtitle A, Section 1011. 2: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Wikipedia. 3: Dodd-Frank Act: What It Does, Major Components, and Criticisms, Investopedia.

 The CCPA applies to any business that collects personal information of California residents, regardless of where the business is located1. The CCPA defines personal information broadly as any information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household2. This could include business contact information, such as name, email address, phone number, or job title, if it is linked to a specific individual3. Therefore, Otto should tell the Board that business contact information could be considered personal information governed by CCPA, and that the company may need to comply with the CCPA requirements, such as providing notice, honoring consumer rights requests, and implementing reasonable security measures4. References:

CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 124, Answer C, Explanation C.

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 6, Section 6.2, p. 181-182.

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Section 1798.140, Subsection (o).

CCPA Compliance Checklist for Businesses, Section 2, Subsection (a).

The Stored Communications Act (SCA) is a federal law that regulates the privacy of electronic communications that are stored by third-party service providers, such as email providers, cloud storage providers, or social media platforms. The SCA prohibits unauthorized access to or disclosure of such communications, unless authorized by law or by the consent of the user or the service provider . The SCA also provides exceptions for certain types of access or disclosure, such as those made for law enforcement purposes, for the protection of the service provider’s rights or property, or for the consent of the subscriber or customer .

One of the exceptions to the SCA is where the service provider gives consent to the access or disclosure of the stored communications. This means that if a third-party service provider agrees to cooperate with an investigation or a request for information, the access or disclosure is lawful under the SCA. Consent can be express or implied, depending on the circumstances and the terms of service of the provider. For example, if a service provider has a policy that allows it to disclose user information to third parties for legitimate purposes, the provider has impliedly consented to the access or disclosure of the stored communications. However, if a service provider has a policy that prohibits such disclosure, the provider has not consented to the access or disclosure of the stored communications.

In the scenario, Evan’s undercover investigation may have been authorized by the SCA if he obtained the consent of the third-party service provider that stored the electronic communications of the employee who was suspected of misconduct. For instance, if the employee used a company email account or a cloud storage service that had a policy that allowed the service provider to disclose user information to the employer or to law enforcement, Evan may have been able to access or disclose the stored communications with the consent of the service provider. However, if the employee used a personal email account or a cloud storage service that had a policy that protected user privacy and prohibited such disclosure, Evan may have violated the SCA by accessing or disclosing the stored communications without the consent of the service provider.

References: : [Stored Communications Act], 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712 : [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 8, Section 8.2.2. : [The Stored Communications Act: An Old Statute for Modern Problems], pp. 10-11.

The FTC’s privacy report, titled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change”, proposed a framework for companies that collect and use consumer data. The framework consisted of three core principles: privacy by design, simplified consumer choice, and greater transparency. Privacy by design means that companies should incorporate privacy protections into their everyday business practices, such as data security, reasonable collection limits, sound retention practices, and data accuracy. Simplified consumer choice means that companies should provide consumers with clear and easy-to-understand choices about the collection and use of their data, and respect their preferences. Greater transparency means that companies should increase the visibility and accessibility of their data practices, such as providing clear and concise privacy notices, educating consumers about the commercial datapractices, and providing consumers with access to their data. Enhancing security measures is not one of the core principles of the FTC’s privacy framework, although it is a component of the privacy by design principle. References:

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section I.A.1.a

IAPP CIPP/US Textbook, Chapter 1, pp. 13-15

FTC Privacy Report, Executive Summary, pp. i-vii

 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.

 A data ethics framework is a set of principles and guidelines that help organizations ensure that their data practices are ethical, responsible, and trustworthy. According to the IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, some of the key components of a data ethics framework are1:

Data governance: the policies, processes, and standards that govern how data is collected, used, stored, and shared within an organization.

Preferability testing: the process of assessing the potential impacts and risks of data-driven solutions on stakeholders, such as customers, employees, and society.

Auditing: the process of monitoring, reviewing, and verifying the compliance and performance of data practices against the established ethical standards and legal requirements. Automated decision-making, on the other hand, is not a key component of a data ethics framework, but rather a data practice that may raise ethical issues and challenges. Automated decision-making refers to the use of algorithms, artificial intelligence, or machine learning to make decisions or recommendations without human intervention2. While automated decision-making can offer benefits such as efficiency, accuracy, and consistency, it can also pose risks such as bias, discrimination, lack of transparency, and accountability3. Therefore, automated decision-making should be subject to ethical evaluation and oversight, but it is not itself a part of a data ethics framework. References:

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 10, Section 10.4, page 287

[IAPP Glossary], Automated Decision-Making

IAPP Resources, Ethical Data Use and Automated Decision-Making: A Practical Guide

The APEC principles are part of the APEC Privacy Framework, which is an inter-governmental agreement among the 21 member economies of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) to promote information privacy protection and the free flow of information in the region. The APEC Privacy Framework consists of four parts: a preamble, a scope, a set of nine information privacy principles, and an implementation section. The APEC information privacy principles are:

Preventing harm: Personal information controllers should take reasonable steps to protect personal information from loss, misuse, unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration, and destruction, and to address the risks and challenges posed by specific technologies and business practices.

Notice: Personal information controllers should provide clear and easily accessible statements about their personal information handling practices, including the types of personal information they collect, the purposes for which they collect it, the types of third parties to which they disclose it, the choices and means they offer individuals for limiting the use and disclosure of their personal information, and how they can contact the personal information controller with inquiries or complaints.

Collection limitation: Personal information controllers should limit the collection of personal information to what is relevant for the purposes of collection and should collect personal information by lawful and fair means and, where appropriate, with notice to, or consent of, the individual concerned.

Use limitation: Personal information controllers should use personal information only for the purposes for which it was collected or for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances, and should retain personal information only as long as necessary to fulfill the stated purposes or as required by law or regulation.

Choice: Personal information controllers should offer individuals choices and means to limit the use and disclosure of their personal information, where appropriate, and should respect the choices made by individuals.

Integrity of personal information: Personal information controllers should take reasonable steps to ensure that personal information is accurate, complete, and up-to-date for the purposes for which it is used.

Security safeguards: Personal information controllers should protect personal information with reasonable security safeguards against risks such as loss, unauthorized access, destruction, misuse, modification, and disclosure.

Access and correction: Personal information controllers should give individuals the ability to access and, where appropriate, correct their personal information that is under their control, subject to reasonable limitations, such as where the burden or expense of providing access would be disproportionate to the risks to the individual’s privacy, or where the legitimate rights of persons other than the individual would be violated.

Accountability: Personal information controllers should be accountable for complying with the privacy principles and should have in place mechanisms to ensure their implementation and compliance.

The APEC Privacy Framework is not a binding legal instrument, but rather a voluntary and flexible arrangement that allows each member economy to implement the principles according to its own domestic laws and regulations, applicable international frameworks, and cultural and social values. The APEC Privacy Framework also provides for cross-border cooperation and information sharing among member economies, as well as the development of mechanisms to facilitate the cross-border transfer of personal information,such as the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System and the APEC Privacy Recognition for Processors (PRP) System. These mechanisms are based on a common set of rules and standards derived from the APEC Privacy Framework, and are intended to enhance the protection of personal information that flows across borders and to increase the interoperability among different privacy regimes in the region and beyond. References:

APEC Privacy Framework (2015)

APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) System

APEC Privacy Recognition for Processors (PRP) System

APEC Privacy Framework: A New Model for Transborder Data Flows

The HIPAA Privacy Rule generally prohibits covered entities and business associates from disclosing protected health information (PHI) to law enforcement without the individual’s authorization, unless one of the exceptions in 45 CFR § 164.512 applies. These exceptions include disclosures required by law, disclosures for law enforcement purposes, disclosures about victims of abuse, neglect or domestic violence, disclosures for health oversight activities, disclosures for judicial and administrative proceedings, disclosures for research purposes, disclosures to avert a serious threat to health or safety, disclosures for specialized government functions, disclosures for workers’ compensation, and disclosures to coroners and medical examiners. None of these exceptions apply to the type of information in option D, which is personal health information that is not related to any of the above purposes. Therefore, an organization would generally not be required to disclose such information to law enforcement under the HIPAA Privacy Rule. References: https://www.justice.gov/opcl/overview-privacy-act-1974-2020-edition/disclosures-third-parties

https://bing.com/search?q=information+disclosure+to+law+enforcement

https://hipaatrek.com/law-enforcement-hipaa-disclosing-phi/

 FACTA added a new section to the FCRA that requires any person who maintains or otherwise possesses consumer information, or any compilation of consumer information, derived from consumer reports for a business purpose, to properly dispose of any such information or compilation. The purpose of this provision is to reduce the risk of identity theft and other consumer harm resulting from improper disposal of consumer information. The FTC and other federal agencies have issued rules implementing this provision, which specify the reasonable measures that covered entities must take to ensure secure disposal of consumer information, such as burning, pulverizing, shredding, erasing, or otherwise modifying the information to make it unreadable or indecipherable (16 CFR § 682.3). References: 1, 2, 3

 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

Cheryl’s suggested method of communicating the new privacy policy by creating documents listing applicable parts of the new policy for each department and implementing it gradually over several months may create confusion and inconsistency among employees and customers. Different departments may have different interpretations and expectations of the policy, and customers may not be aware of the changes or their rights under the policy. This may lead to errors, complaints, and violations of the policy and the applicable laws. A better approach would be to communicate the policy in full to all employees and customers at once, and provide training and guidance on how to comply with it. The policy should also be easily accessible and updated on the company’s website and other channels. References:

Privacy Policy for Health Coaches

Privacy Policies for Online Coaches

Privacy Policy - Coaching.com

 Under state breach notification laws, personal information is typically defined as an individual’s first name or first initial and last name plus one or more other data elements, such as Social Security number, state identification number, account number, medical information, etc. However, first and last name alone are not usually considered personal information, unless they are combined with other data elements that could identify the individual or compromise their security or privacy. Therefore, option B is the correct answer, as it is not typically included in the definition of personal information under state breach notification laws. References: https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/security-breach-notification-laws https://iapp.org/resources/article/state-data-breach-notification-chart/

 Employers have a duty to protect the personal information of their current and former employees, as well as applicants, from unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. This duty may arise from federal or state laws, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), or the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), or from contractual obligations, such as non-disclosure agreements or privacy policies. Employers may retain sensitive employment records, such as performance evaluations, disciplinary actions, medical records, or background checks, for a legitimate business purpose, such as complying with legal requirements, defending against lawsuits, or conducting audits. However, employers must ensure that these records are stored securely, accessed only by authorized personnel, and disposed of properly when no longer needed. References: IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1, IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain IV, Objective B

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.