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

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

Under the GDPR, the complainant’s request regarding her personal information is known as the right to be forgotten, also known as the right to erasure. This right allows individuals to ask organizations to delete their personal data in certain circumstances, such as when the data is no longer necessary, the consent is withdrawn, or the processing is unlawful. The right to be forgotten is not absolute and may not apply if the processing is necessary for legal, public interest, or legitimate purposes. The right to be forgotten also requires organizations to inform any recipients of the data about the erasure request, unless it is impossible or involves disproportionate effort. References:

• Everything you need to know about the “Right to be forgotten”
• Right to erasure | ICO
• Art. 17 GDPR – Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’) - General …
• [IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide], Chapter 6, page 213.

Celeste has a misconception regarding the consent requirements for conducting credit checks of potential employees in California. She thinks that verbal consent from the applicants is sufficient, and that they only need to be offeredaccess to the results. However, under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), employers who want to obtain a consumer credit report for employment purposes must comply with the following consent and disclosure requirements12:

• Before requesting a consumer credit report, the employer must provide the applicant with a clear and conspicuous written disclosure that informs them of the following:
• The employer must also obtain the applicant’s written authorization to obtain the report.
• If the employer intends to take an adverse action based on the report, such as denying employment, the employer must provide the applicant with a copy of the report and a summary of their rights under the CCRAA before taking the action.
• After taking the adverse action, the employer must provide the applicant with a notice that includes the following:

Therefore, Celeste is wrong to assume that verbal consent and optional access to the results are enough to comply with the CCRAA. She should follow the written consent and disclosure requirements to avoid violating the law and potentially facing civil penalties or lawsuits. References:

• California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act
• Employment Credit Checks: What You Need to Know | Nolo

The biggest potential privacy concern related to Chanel’s use of this new software is scanning a client’s social media accounts to use in a client profile without notice to the client. This could violate the client’s reasonable expectation of privacy and consent, as well as the privacy policies of the social media platforms. The client may not be aware that their social media posts are being used for this purpose, and may not have given their permission or opt-in consent for such data collection and processing. This could also expose the client to potential discrimination or harm based on their social media activity, such as losing their appointment or being charged a cancellation fee. Furthermore, this practice could conflict with the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs), such as transparency, purpose specification, and data minimization12. References:

• CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 149, Answer A, Explanation A.
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 1, Section 1.1, p. 9-10.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of wire, oral, and electronic communications while they are being made, in transit, or stored on computers1. The ECPA has three titles: Title I prohibits the intentional interception, use, or disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, except for certain exceptions, such as consent, provider protection, or law enforcement purposes2. Title II, also known as the Stored Communications Act (SCA), prohibits the unauthorized access to or disclosure of stored wire or electronic communications, such as email, voicemail, or online messages, except for certain exceptions, such as consent, provider protection, or law enforcement purposes3. Title III regulates the installation and use of pen register and trap and trace devices, which record thenumbers dialed to or from a telephone line, but not the content of the communications4.

Therefore, the action that is prohibited under the ECPA is intercepting electronic communications and unauthorized access to stored communications, which are covered by Title I and Title II of the Act, respectively. The other actions are not prohibited by the ECPA, as long as they comply with the exceptions and requirements of the Act. For example, monitoring all employee telephone calls or monitoring employee telephone calls of a personal nature may be allowed if the employer has a legitimate business purpose, has obtained the consent of the employees, or has a court order5. Accessing stored communications with the consent of the sender or recipient of the message is also allowed under the ECPA, as consent is one of the exceptions to the prohibition of unauthorized access3.

References: 1: Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), Bureau of Justice Assistance. 2: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 119 - WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERCEPTION AND INTERCEPTION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Legal Information Institute. 3: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 121 - STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS, Legal Information Institute. 4: 18 U.S. Code Chapter 206 - PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES, Legal Information Institute. 5: Monitoring Employees’ Phone Calls and E-Mail, FindLaw.

Financial institutions (FIs) collect and process a large amount of personal data from their customers, such as name, address, account number, transaction history, credit score, etc. Customers may have different preferences regarding how their data is used, shared, or protected by the FIs. For example, some customers may want to receive marketing offers from the FIs or their affiliates, while others may opt out of such communications. Some customers may prefer to access their accounts online, while others may use mobile apps, phone calls, or physical branches. Some customers may want to enable biometric authentication, while others may rely on passwords or PINs.

Managing these diverse and dynamic user preferences is a challenge for FIs, as they need to ensure that they respect and honor the choices of their customers across all the channels and platforms they use. This requires FIs to have arobust and integrated system that can capture, store, update, and apply user preferences consistently and accurately. Failing to do so may result in customer dissatisfaction, loss of trust, regulatory fines, or legal disputes.12

References: 1: The Top Three Digital Challenges Faced By Financial Institutions And How To Overcome Them3, paragraph 42: IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, page 127.

 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

HIPAA requires covered entities to provide a notice of privacy practices (NPP) to individuals who receive health care services from the covered entity. The NPP must describe how the covered entity may use and disclose protected health information (PHI), the individual’s rights with respect to their PHI, and the covered entity’s obligations to protect the privacy of PHI. The NPP must be provided to the individual no later than the date of the first service delivery, either in person or electronically. The covered entity must also make the NPP available on request and post it on its website if it has one. The covered entity must also make a good faith effort to obtain a written acknowledgment from the individual that they received the NPP. If the individual refuses to sign the acknowledgment, the covered entity must document the attempt and the reason for the refusal.

The other options are not sufficient to comply with HIPAA. Stating the privacy policy verbally (option A) does not provide the individual with a written or electronic copy of the NPP that they can keep for future reference. Posting the privacy notice in a prominent location (option B) does not ensure that the individual receives the NPP or has an opportunity to review it before receiving services. Directing patients to the correct area of the hospital website (option C) does not provide the individual with the NPP at the time of service delivery, unless the individual agrees to receive the NPP electronically and has access to the website at that time. References:

• Notice of Privacy Practices for Protected Health Information
• Model Notices of Privacy Practices
• Sample Notice: Availability of Notice of Privacy Practices
• Notice of Privacy Practices
• Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) Distribution and Acknowledgement

According to HIPAA, a business associate is a person or entity that performs certain functions or activities that involve the use or disclosure of protected health information (PHI) on behalf of, or provides services to, a covered entity. A business associate agreement (BAA) is a written contract between a covered entity and a business associate that establishes the permitted and required uses and disclosures of PHI by the business associate, as well as the safeguards that the business associate must implement to protect the PHI. In this scenario, MedApps is a business associate of Miraculous, since it provides a telehealth app that involves the use or disclosure of PHI on behalf of Miraculous. Therefore, HIPAA would require Miraculous and MedApps to enter into a BAA before using the telehealth app. The other options are incorrect because HIPAA does not prohibit the use of cloud hosting services or the hosting of in-person appointment data in the cloud, as long as the appropriate safeguards and agreements are in place. HIPAA also does not require patient consent for the sharing of PHI with third parties for treatment, payment, or health care operations purposes, which would include the use of the telehealth app. References:

• HIPAA and Telehealth - Office for Civil Rights
• HIPAA Rules for telehealth technology - Telehealth.HHS.gov
• Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth - Office for Civil Rights
• Guidance: How the HIPAA Rules Permit Covered Health Care Providers and Health Plans to Provide Audio-Only Telehealth - Office for Civil Rights
• HIPAA Compliant App - Telehealth.org
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide - Chapter 3: HIPAA and HITECH, pages 75-76, 81-82, 86-87.

According to the web search results from my predefined tool, Florida is the only state among the four options that currently imposes a definite limit for notification to affected individuals in case of a data breach. Florida’s law requires that notice be provided within 30 days after determination of the breach or reason to believe a breach occurred, unless delayed by law enforcement or measures to determine the scope of the breach and restore the integrity of the system1. The other states have more flexible or vague terms for the notification timeframe, such as “as soon as practicable” (Maine), “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay” (New York), or “in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement” (California)2. References:

• Security Breach Notification Chart | Perkins Coie
• State Data Breach Notification Chart - International Association of …

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.

A consent decree is a legal document that resolves a dispute between a governmental agency and an adverse party without admission of guilt or liability by either side. It is approved by a judge and has the force of a court order. A consent decree may include terms such as compliance, monitoring, reporting, or remediation. A consent decree is often used to settle civil enforcement actions brought by federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the Department of Justice (DOJ). References:

• IAPP Glossary, entry for “consent decree”
• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], p. 39, section 2.1.3
• [IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge], p. 9, section B.1.a

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 in response to revelations of widespread privacy violations by the federal government under President Nixon. It established procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power1 The original purpose of FISA was to further define a framework for authorizing wiretaps by the executive branch for national security purposes under Article II of the Constitution, which grants the president the power to conduct foreign affairs and defend the nation23 FISA was intended to balance the need for collecting foreign intelligence information with the protection of privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons4 References: https://www.intelligence.gov/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act

https://www.intelligence.gov/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act/1234-categories-of-fisa

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

California’s SB 1386, also known as the California Security Breach Information Act, was enacted in 2002 and became effective in 2003. It was the first law of its kind in the United States to require commercial entities that own or license personal information of California residents to notify them in the event of a security breach that compromises their unencrypted data. The law aims to protect the privacy and security of personal information and to enable individuals to take preventive measures against identity theft and fraud. The law applies to any business or person that conducts business in California and that owns or licenses computerized data that includes personal information, as defined by the law. Personal information includes an individual’s first name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements: Social Security number, driver’s license number or California identification card number, account number, credit or debit card number, in combination with any required security code, access code, or password that would permit access to an individual’s financial account, or medical information or health insurance information. The law does not apply to encrypted information, publicly available information, or information that is lawfully obtained from federal, state, or local government records. The law requires the disclosure of a breach of the security of the system to any resident of California whose unencrypted personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. The disclosure must be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement or any measures necessary to determine the scope of the breach and restore the reasonable integrity of the data system. The disclosure may be made by written notice, electronic notice, or substitute notice, as specified by the law. The law also requires any person or business that maintains computerized data that includes personal information that the person or business does not own to notify the owner or licensee of the information of any breach of the security of the data immediately following discovery, if the personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person. The law also authorizes a civil action for damages by a customer injured by a violation of the law and provides that the rights and remedies available under the law are cumulative to each other and to any other rights and remedies available under law. References:

• California Senate Bill 1386 (2002)
• California SB 1386: For the Love of Privacy
• What Is the California Security Breach Information Act?
• California Raises the Bar on Data Security and Privacy

According to the FTC report, the most important directive for businesses is to adopt a “privacy by design” approach, which means integrating privacy protections throughout the entire product lifecycle, from initial design to disposal. This includes implementing reasonable security measures, collecting only the data needed for a specific purpose, retaining data only as long as necessary, and safely disposing of data that is no longer needed. The FTC report also recommends that businesses provide clear and transparent privacy notices, offer consumers meaningful choices about how their data is used, and increase their accountability for data practices. References: FTC Report, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide (p. 32-33)

The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (CCPA) is a federal law that regulates the cable television industry and protects the privacy of cable subscribers. One of the provisions of the CCPA is that cable operators must providetheir subscribers with an annual notice that clearly and conspicuously informs them of the following information12:

• The nature of personally identifiable information collected or to be collected with respect to the subscriber and the nature of the use of such information
• The nature, frequency, and purpose of any disclosure of such information, including an identification of the types of persons to whom the disclosure may be made
• The period during which such information will be maintained by the cable operator
• The times and place at which the subscriber may have access to such information
• The limitations provided by the CCPA with respect to the collection and disclosure of information by a cable operator and the right of the subscriber under the CCPA to enforce such limitations

The annual notice must also state that the subscriber has the right to prevent disclosure of personally identifiable information to third parties, except as required by law or court order, and that the subscriber may sue for damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief for violations of the CCPA12.

References: 1: Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Section 631 2: [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 8, Section 8.3.2

 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.

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 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).

 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 Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a federal law that provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for certain family and medical reasons, such as the birth or adoption of a child,the serious health condition of the employee or a family member, or a qualifying exigency arising from the employee’s spouse, child, or parent being on covered active duty or call to covered active duty status in the Armed Forces. The FMLA also provides eligible employees with up to 26 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year to care for a covered service member with a serious injury or illness if the employee is the spouse, child, parent, or next of kin of the service member. The FMLA applies to all public agencies, including state, local, and federal employers, and local education agencies (schools), and to private sector employers who employ 50 or more employees for at least 20 workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year.

The FMLA often requires employers to collect medical information from employees who request FMLA leave or from their health care providers to certify the need for leave, the duration of leave, and the employee’s ability to return to work. The FMLA regulations specify the type and amount of information that employers may request and require for different types of FMLA leave, such as:

• Basic medical facts, such as the diagnosis, symptoms, hospitalization, doctor visits, whether medication has been prescribed, and any referrals for evaluation or treatment, for the employee’s own serious health condition or that of a family member.
• Information on the medical necessity of intermittent leave or reduced schedule leave and the expected frequency and duration of such leave, for the employee’s own serious health condition or that of a family member, or for planned medical treatment.
• A statement of the facts regarding the qualifying exigency, such as the type of military duty, the dates of the covered active duty, and the contact information of the military member, for leave due to a qualifying exigency arising from the employee’s spouse, child, or parent being on covered active duty or call to covered active duty status in the Armed Forces.
• Information on the medical condition, treatment, and recovery of the covered service member, such as the date of injury or onset of illness, the current medical status, the prognosis, and the estimated time of treatment, for leave to care for a covered service member with a serious injury or illness.

The FMLA also imposes certain obligations on employers to protect the privacy and security of the medical information they collect from employees or their health care providers. For example, employers must:

• Maintain records and documents relating to medical certifications, recertifications, or medical histories of employees or employees’ family members as confidential medical records in separate files/records from the usual personnel files, and if the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies, such records must be maintained in conformance with ADA confidentiality requirements.
• Ensure that any electronic systems used to maintain such records meet the confidentiality requirements of the FMLA and the ADA, and that only authorized persons have access to such records.
• Limit the disclosure of such records to supervisors and managers who need to know about an employee’s FMLA leave, first aid and safety personnel when an employee’s medical condition might require emergency treatment, and government officials investigating compliance with the FMLA.
• Comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule when requesting medical information from an employee’s health care provider, such as obtaining a valid authorization from the employee or using a HIPAA-compliant certification form.
• Refrain from requesting more information than allowed by the FMLA regulations, such as asking for an employee’s complete medical records or information unrelated to the FMLA leave request.
• Respect the employee’s right to revoke a medical authorization or challenge a medical certification, and follow the procedures for resolving disputes over the validity or sufficiency of such documents.

References:

• The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
• FMLA Employee Guide
• FMLA Employer Guide
• FMLA Regulations
• FMLA Forms

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

Unlike many other countries, the United States does not have a comprehensive federal law that regulates the privacy of private-sector employees. Instead, the privacy protection of employees depends largely on state law, contract law, and tort law. State law may provide specific rights and remedies for employees regarding issues such as drug testing, background checks, electronic monitoring, social media access, and genetic information. Contract law may create obligations and expectations for employers and employees based on written or implied agreements, such as employment contracts, employee handbooks, or collective bargaining agreements. Tort law may allow employees to sue their employers for invasion of privacy, such as intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, or appropriation of name or likeness. The other options are less likely to provide privacy protection to private-sector employees in the United States. The FTC Act primarily regulates the privacy practices of businesses that collect and use consumer data, not employee data. The U.S. Constitution only protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, not by private employers. The HHS only enforces the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which applies to covered entities and business associates that handle protected health information, not to all private-sector employers. References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 6: Workplace Privacy
• Privacy Rights of Employees Using Workplace Computers in the United States
• Employee Privacy Laws

 The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of student education records. FERPA grants parents or eligible students the right to access, amend, and control the disclosure of their education records, with some exceptions. Schools must obtain written consent from the parent or eligible student before disclosing any personally identifiable information from the education records, unless an exception applies123

Option A violates FERPA because it involves the disclosure of a student’s personally identifiable information (PII) from the education records without consent. A student’s signed essay about her hometown is considered an education record under FERPA, as it is directly related to the student and maintained by the school12 A K-12 assessment vendor is not a school official with a legitimate educational interest, nor does it fall under any of the exceptions that allow disclosure without consent12 Therefore, the school must obtain the student’s (or the parent’s, if the student is a minor) written consent before providing the essay to the vendor for public release.

Option B does not violate FERPA because it involves the disclosure of directory information, which is not considered PII under FERPA. Directory information is information that would not generally be considered harmful or an invasion of privacy if disclosed, such as name, address, phone number, e-mail address, major, etc12 Schools may disclose directory information without consent, unless the parent or eligible student has opted out of such disclosure12 However, schools must notify parents and eligible students of the types of directory information they designate and their right to opt out annually12

Option C does not violate FERPA because it involves the disclosure of information that is not part of the education records. FERPA only applies to education records that are directly related to a student and maintained by theschool or a party acting for the school12 A newspaper’s publication of the names, grade levels, and hometowns of students who made the quarterly honor roll is not based on the education records, but on the newspaper’s own sources and reporting. Therefore, FERPA does not prohibit such disclosure.

Option D does not violate FERPA because it involves the disclosure of information under an exception that allows disclosure without consent. FERPA permits schools to disclose education records, or PII from education records, without consent to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena, or to appropriate officials in connection with a health or safety emergency123 If the university police provide an arrest report to the student’s hometown police in response to a subpoena or to prevent a serious threat to the student or others, they are not violating FERPA.

References: 1: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act - Wikipedia 2: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) | CDC 3: What is FERPA? | Protecting Student Privacy - ed

Access is the privacy concept that grants a consumer the right to view and correct errors on his or her credit report. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) gives consumers the right to access their credit reports from the three nationwide credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) once every 12 months for free. Consumers also have the right to dispute any inaccurate or incomplete information in their credit reports and request that the credit reporting agencies investigate and correct the errors. The FCRA also requires the credit reporting agencies to provide consumers with a notice of their rights and a summary of the dispute process. References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 2: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Section 2.2: Consumer Privacy, p. 38-39
• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Objective II.B: Identify the privacy requirements for consumer data, Subobjective II.B.1: Identify the consumer rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, p. 13
• IAPP CIPP/US Exam Blueprint, Domain II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Objective II.B: Identify the privacy requirements for consumer data, Subobjective II.B.1: Identify the consumer rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, p. 4

The CCPA provides consumers with a private right of action to pursue statutory damages following data security breaches that impact certain sensitive categories of personal information and are caused by a business’s failure to institute reasonable and appropriate security. The CCPA defines personal information for this purpose as an individual’s name in combination with any of the following: social security number, driver’s license number, account number, credit or debit card number, medical information, or health insurance information. The CCPA allows consumers to seek damages between $100 and $750 per consumer per incident, or actual damages, whichever is greater. The CCPA also requires consumers to provide the business with 30 days’ written notice and an opportunity to cure the violation before initiating an action. Additionally, the CCPA requires consumers to notify the Attorney General within 30 days of filing the action and obtain the Attorney General’s approval or nonobjection before proceeding with the action. Therefore, John can sue the corporation for the data breach to recover monetary damages suffered as a result of the data breach, and in some circumstances seek statutory damages irrespective of whether he suffered any financial harm, as long as he meets the requirements of the CCPA. References:

• CCPA Provides Private Right of Action for Data Security Breaches
• CCPA Private Right of Action – Data Breach Security Requirement
• CCPA Fines & Penalties for Data Protection Violations | MatrixPoint

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.

• The Privacy Act of 1974 is a federal law that regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by federal agencies.
• The Privacy Act of 1974 applies to records that are maintained in a system of records, which is defined as a group of records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifier assigned to the individual.
• The Privacy Act of 1974 grants individuals the right to access and amend their records, and requires agencies to provide notice of their systems of records, establish safeguards for the protection of the records, and limit the disclosure of the records to certain authorized purposes.
• The Privacy Act of 1974 also establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations of the law, such as unauthorized disclosure, failure to publish a notice, or refusal to grant access or amendment.
• The Privacy Act of 1974 does NOT require agencies to obtain the consent of the individual before collecting their personal information. However, the Privacy Act of 1974 does require agencies to inform the individual of the authority for the collection, the purpose and use of the collection, and the effects of not providing the information.

References: : [Overview of the Privacy Act of 1974]

Patrick should first ensure that inspecting GPS geolocation data from Jane’s corporate mobile phone is permitted under Jane’s employment contract or the company’s employee privacy policy. This is because Jane has a reasonable expectation of privacy in her location information, even if she uses a corporate-owned device for business purposes. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) prohibits unauthorized interception or access to electronic communications by private parties. Therefore, Patrick cannot inspect Jane’s GPS data without a valid legal basis, such as consent, contract, or court order. Obtaining prior consent from Jane pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (A) is not relevant, as this law regulates unsolicited calls and text messages, not location tracking. Revising emerging workplace privacy best practices with a reputable advocacy organization (B) is not sufficient, as Patrick still needs to comply with the existing legal obligations and contractual terms. Obtaining a subpoena from law enforcement, or a court order, directing Jones Labs to collect the GPS geolocation data © is not necessary, as Patrick is not acting on behalf of the government or in response to a legal request. However, if Patrick does obtain such a legal order, he should also comply with it and notify Jane of the disclosure, unless prohibited by law. References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.1.2, p. 115-116
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.1, p. 118-119
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.2, p. 120-121
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.2.3, p. 122-123
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1, p. 124-125
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2, p. 126-127
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3, p. 128-129
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.4, p. 130-131
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.5, p. 132-133
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.6, p. 134-135
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.7, p. 136-137
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.8, p. 138-139
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.9, p. 140-141
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.10, p. 142-143
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.11, p. 144-145
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.12, p. 146-147
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.13, p. 148-149
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.14, p. 150-151
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.15, p. 152-153
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.16, p. 154-155
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3.17, p. 156-157

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 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 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is a federal law that protects the privacy of children under 13 who use online sites and services. COPPA requires operators of such sites and services to obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from children, and to provide notice of their information practices to parents and the public. COPPA also gives parents the right to access, review, and delete their children’s personal information, and to limit further collection or use of such information.1

One way for operators to comply with COPPA is to participate in an approved self-regulatory program, also known as a “safe harbor” program. These are programs that are run by industry groups or other organizations that set and enforce standards for privacy protection that meet or exceed the requirements of COPPA. Operators that join a safe harbor program and follow its guidelines are deemed to be in compliance with COPPA and are subject to the review and disciplinary procedures of the program instead of FTC enforcement actions. The FTC has approved several safe harbor programs, such as CARU, ESRB, iKeepSafe, kidSAFE, PRIVO, and TRUSTe.2

By participating in an approved self-regulatory program, the marketer in the scenario could have best changed its privacy management program to meet COPPA “Safe Harbor” requirements. This would mean that the marketer would have to adhere to the guidelines of the program, which would likely include obtaining verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from children, providing clear and prominent privacy notices on its website and emails, honoring parents’ choices and requests regarding their children’s data, and ensuring the security and confidentiality of the data collected. The marketer would also benefit from the oversight and assistance of the program in ensuring compliance and resolving any complaints or disputes.3 References: 1: Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions4, Section A2: COPPA Safe Harbor Program3: IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, page 143.

BYOD is a practice that allows employees to use their own personal devices, such as smartphones, tablets, or laptops, for work-related purposes. BYOD can offer some benefits for both employers and employees, such as increased flexibility, convenience, and productivity. However, BYOD also poses significant privacy and security risks, such as data breaches, unauthorized access, loss or theft of devices, malware infections, and compliance challenges. Therefore, the business consultant will most likely advise Felicia and Celeste to weigh any productivity benefits of the plan against the risk of privacy issues, and to implement a comprehensive BYOD policy that addresses the following aspects:

• The scope and purpose of the BYOD program, including the types of devices, data, and applications that are allowed or prohibited.
• The roles and responsibilities of the employer and the employees, including the ownership, control, and access rights of the devices and the data.
• The security measures and controls that are required to protect the devices and the data, such as encryption, passwords, remote wipe, antivirus software, firewalls, and VPNs.
• The privacy expectations and obligations of the employer and the employees, such as the notice, consent, and disclosure requirements, the limits on data collection and monitoring, the retention and deletion policies, and the rights of access and correction.
• The legal and regulatory compliance requirements that apply to the BYOD program, such as the FTC Act, the GLBA, the HIPAA, the COPPA, the CCPA, and the GDPR.
• The incident response and reporting procedures that are followed in the event of a data breach, loss, or theft of a device, or any other privacy or security issue.
• The training and education programs that are provided to the employees to raise awareness and understanding of the BYOD policy and the best practices.
• The enforcement and audit mechanisms that are used to ensure compliance and accountability of the BYOD policy, such as sanctions, penalties, reviews, and audits. References:
• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section III.C.2
• IAPP CIPP/US Textbook, Chapter 3, pp. 113-115
• FTC Mobile Device Security

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 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 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]

 According to the IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, more than half of U.S. states require telemarketers to register with the state before conducting business within the state. This registration requirement may involve paying a fee, posting a bond, or providing information about the telemarketer’s identity, location, and business practices. The purpose of this requirement is to protect consumers from fraudulent or deceptive telemarketing calls and to facilitate the enforcement of state laws and regulations. The other options are not required by most states, although some states may have additional rules or guidelines for telemarketers regarding identification, consent, or contracts. References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 7: Marketing and Advertising
• State Telemarketing Registration Requirements

According to the Wiley study guide, one of the steps in developing a privacy policy is to conduct a privacy assessment, which involves identifying the organization’s information goals and needs, as well as the legal and regulatory requirements that apply to its data collection and use practices3. By spending more time understanding the company’s information goals, Janice would have been able to tailor the privacy policy to fit the company’s business model and customer expectations, while still complying with the relevant privacy laws and standards. This would have also helped Janice to address Cheryl’s concerns about the impact of the policy on the company’s operations and customer relationships, and to propose solutions that balance privacy protection and service delivery.

References:

1: https://iapp.org/certify/cippus/

2: https://iapp.org/certify/get-certified/cippus/

3: https://www.wiley.com/en-be/IAPP+CIPP+US+Certified+Information+Privacy+Professional+Study+Guide-p-9781119755517

4: https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/quiz/10-CIPP-US-practice-questions-to-test-your-privacy-knowledge

5: https://www.study4exam.com/iapp/free-cipp-us-questions

https://www.passitcertify.com/iapp/cipp-us-questions.html

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.

• Implied consent is a form of consent that is inferred from the actions or inactions of the data subject, rather than explicitly expressed by the data subject1.
• Implied consent is generally considered a valid basis for processing personal data under certain circumstances, such as when the processing is necessary for the performance of a contract, the legitimate interests of the data controller, or the reasonable expectations of the data subject2.
• However, implied consent may not be sufficient for processing sensitive personal data, such as health, biometric, or genetic data, or for sending marketing communications, depending on the applicable laws and regulations2.
• In the U.S., there is no comprehensive federal privacy law that regulates the use of implied consent for data processing, but there are sector-specific laws and state laws that may impose different requirements and limitations3.
• Based on the scenarios given in the question, the situation that is most likely to involve a company operating under the assumption of implied consent is A. An employer contacts the professional references provided on an applicant’s resume.
• This is because the employer may reasonably infer that the applicant has consented to the contact of the references by voluntarily providing their information on the resume, and that the contact is necessary for the legitimate interest of the employer to verify the applicant’s qualifications and suitability for the job4.
• The other situations may not involve implied consent, but rather require explicit consent or provide opt-out options for the data subjects, depending on the type and purpose of the data processing and the relevant laws and regulations5 . For example:

References: 1: Implied Consent 2: Consent 3: U.S. Private-Sector Privacy (CIPP/US) 4: [Reference Checks: Tips for Job Applicants and Employers] 5: [CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business] : [Using Consumer Reports: What Landlords Need to Know] : [California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act] : [Reference Checks: Tips for Job Applicants and Employers] : [CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business] : [Using Consumer Reports: What Landlords Need to Know] : [California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act]

 Declan might directly violate the HIPAA Privacy Rule by using John’s name and personal health information (PHI) in his paper without his written authorization. The Privacy Rule protects the confidentiality of PHI that is created, received, maintained, or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate. PHI includes any information that relates to the past, present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual, the provision of health care to an individual, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an individual, and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe can be used to identify the individual1. Declan, as a nursing assistant, is part of the covered entity’s workforce and must comply with the Privacy Rule. He cannot disclose John’s PHI to anyone, including his classmates or instructors, without John’s authorization or a valid exception under the Privacy Rule. Even if he does not use John’s full name, hemay still reveal enough information to make John identifiable, such as his diagnosis, his father’s condition, or his location. This would be an impermissible use and disclosure of PHI, and a potential HIPAA violation. Declan should either obtain John’s written authorization to use his PHI in his paper, or de-identify the information according to the Privacy Rule’s standards2. References:

• Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule
• Guidance Regarding Methods for De-identification of Protected Health Information in Accordance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule

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