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

Janice’s first draft of the privacy policy may be too restrictive and impractical for Fitness Coach, Inc. to follow, given the nature of its business and the expectations of its customers. By limiting the retention of personal information to one year and requiring written consent for any third-party sharing, the policy may create operational challenges and customer dissatisfaction. For example, customers may want to resume their fitness programs after a long hiatus and expect the company to have their previous records and preferences. Similarly, third-party contractors may need access to customer information to provide better services and tailor their classes. If the company fails to adhere to its own privacy policy, it may face legal consequences, reputational damage, and loss of trust from its customers. Therefore, the company should adopt a more realistic and flexible privacy policy that balances its business needs and its customers’ privacy rights. References:

Privacy Policy for Health Coaches

Privacy Policies for Online Coaches

Privacy Policy - Coaching.com

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin1 It also prohibits retaliation against individuals who assert their rights under the law or participate in an EEOC investigation1 Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, as well as to employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management committees1

Title VII prohibits employers from making pre-employment inquiries that express a preference, limitation, or specification based on any of the protected characteristics, unless they are bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQs)2 BFOQs are rare and narrowly construed exceptions that allow employers to consider a protected characteristic when it is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business2 For example, a religious organization may require its employees to share its faith, or a women’s shelter may hire only female counselors2

Option A is incorrect because questions about age are not prohibited by Title VII, but by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age3 The ADEA generally prohibits employers from asking applicants about their age or date of birth, unless age is a BFOQ or the inquiry is part of a lawful affirmative action plan3

Option B is incorrect because questions about a disability are not prohibited by Title VII, but by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which protects qualified individuals with disabilities from employment discrimination based on disability4 The ADA generally prohibits employers from asking applicants about whether they have a disability or the nature or severity of a disability, unless the inquiry is related to the ability to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation4

Option C is incorrect because questions about a national origin are prohibited by Title VII, but not in all circumstances. Title VII prohibits employers from asking applicants about their national origin, ancestry, birthplace, native language, or accent, unless they are BFOQs or the inquiry is related to a legitimate business purpose, such as verifying eligibility to work in the United States or assessing language proficiency for a job that requires communication skills25

Option D is correct because questions about intended pregnancy are prohibited by Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), which protects women from employment discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The PDA prohibits employers from asking applicants about whether they are pregnant or intend to become pregnant, unless they are related to the ability to perform the job. Such questions may indicate an intent to discriminate based on sex or pregnancy, or may deter women from applying for certain jobs.

References: 1: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 2: Questions and Answers about Race and Color Discrimination in Employment | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 3: Age Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 4: Disability Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 5: National Origin Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission : Pregnancy Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

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

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

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

[FERPA, 34 CFR § 99.31(a)(8)]

 The U.S. Constitution plays a limited role in the area of workplace privacy, because it mainly applies to the actions of the government, not private employers. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures1. The Supreme Court has interpreted this right to include a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain situations, such as in one’s home, car, or personal belongings2. However, this right does not extend to private-sector employees, who are not protected by the Constitution from the actions of their employers, unless the employer is acting as an agent of the government3. Private-sector employees may have some privacy rights under state laws, common law, or contractual agreements, but these vary depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances4.

Public-sector employees, on the other hand, are protected by the Constitution from unreasonable searches and seizures by their employers, who are considered part of the government. Public-sector employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their workplace, unless there is a legitimate work-related reason for the search or seizure, such as to ensure safety, security, or efficiency. Public-sector employers must also comply with the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying any person the equal protection of the laws. These clauses protect public-sector employees from arbitrary or discriminatory actions by their employers that affect their employment status or benefits.

Therefore, the U.S. Constitution plays a significant role in the area of workplace privacy for federal and state governments, but not for private-sector employment, because it only regulates the actions of the government, not private actors. References:

1: Cornell Law School, Fourth Amendment, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment

2: FindLaw, What Is a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy?, https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-a-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy.html

3: FindLaw, Workplace Privacy, https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/employment-law-and-human-resources/workplace-privacy.html

4: Nolo, Privacy Rights of Employees, https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privacy-rights-employees-29849.html

: OPM, Employee Relations, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/employee-relations/reference-materials/employee-privacy/

: Cornell Law School, Fifth Amendment, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment

: FindLaw, Public Employees and the Constitution, https://www.findlaw.com/employment/employment-rights/public-employees-and-the-constitution.html

The HIPAA Privacy Rule requires covered entities to obtain an individual’s written authorization for any use or disclosure of protected health information (PHI) that is not for treatment, payment, or health care operations or otherwise permitted or required by the Privacy Rule. However, there are some exceptions to the authorization requirement for certain public interest-related activities, such as disclosing health information for public health activities, reporting child abuse, or treating a medical emergency. These exceptions are intended to balance the privacy interests of individuals with the public interest in protecting health and safety, promoting quality health care, and ensuring compliance with the law. Disclosing health information needed to pay a third party billing administrator is not one of the exceptions to the authorization requirement, as it is considered a payment activity that falls under the general rule of requiring authorization. Therefore, it is the correct answer to the question. References: Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule, HIPAA Exceptions, Exceptions to HIPAA Privacy Rule, Waiver of Authorization, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 5.

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Data flow diagrams are graphical representations of how data moves within an organization or between different entities. They can help identify the sources, destinations, and processing of personal data, as well as the legal basis, retention periods, and security measures for each data flow. Reviewing the available data flow diagrams can help the data privacy leader to quickly and accurately respond to the urgent request from the EU-based retail partner, as well as to assess the potential risks and compliance gaps in the data transfer process. Data flow diagrams are also a key component of data protection impact assessments (DPIAs), which are required by the GDPR for high-risk processing activities. References:

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section II, A, 2

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 2, Section 2.3]

[GDPR, Article 35]

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

Why Is Data Classification Important?

Data Classification for GDPR Explained

Data classification and privacy considerations

 In 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.

 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/

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).

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) was originally intended to provide consumers with the ability to correct inaccurate credit information that could affect their access to credit, employment, insurance, and other benefits. The FCRA gives consumers the right to access their credit reports from the three major credit reporting agencies (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) for free once every 12 months, and to dispute any errors or inaccuracies with the credit reporting agencies or the information furnishers (such as lenders, creditors, or debt collectors). The FCRA also requires the credit reporting agencies and the information furnishers to investigate and resolve the disputes within 30 days, and to delete or correct any information that is found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or outdated. The FCRA also provides consumers with the right to place fraud alerts or security freezes on their credit reports if they are victims or potential victims of identity theft, and to receive notifications from users of their credit reports (such as employers or insurers) if any adverse action is taken based on their credit information. References:

Fair Credit Reporting Act - Wikipedia

What is the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)? | Money

The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 - The Balance

How the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) Protects Consumer Rights

An injunction is a court order that requires a party to stop or refrain from doing something. In a case of civil litigation, a defendant who is being sued for distributing an employee’s private information might face an injunction that prohibits them from further disclosing or using the employee’s private information. An injunction is a form of equitable relief that aims to prevent or remedy harm that cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages. Probation, criminal fines, and jail sentences are forms of criminal sanctions that are not applicable in civil litigation, unless the defendant is also charged with a criminal offense related to the distribution of the employee’s private information. References: Standing issues in U.S. privacy class actions, US Private-Sector Privacy (CIPP/US Exam Prep), IAPP CIPP/US

The strongest example of excessive monitoring by the employer is C. An employer who installs video monitors in physical locations, such as a changing room, to reduce the risk of sexual harassment. This would be considered an unreasonable invasion of employees’ privacy, as it would violate their legitimate expectation of privacy in a place where they change their clothes. Such monitoring would also likely violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), which prohibits the interception of oral communications without consent or authorization. Moreover, such monitoring would not be justified by a legitimate business interest, as there are less intrusive ways to prevent or address sexual harassment, such as policies, training, and reporting mechanisms. References:

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 4: Workplace Privacy, pp. 109-110.

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section IV: Workplace Privacy, Subsection A: Employee Privacy Expectations, Topic 1: Employee Monitoring.

IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 134.

The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) is an amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that was enacted in 2003. FACTA aims to enhance consumer protection against identity theft and fraud by requiring various measures, such as free annual credit reports, fraud alerts, and identity theft prevention programs. One of the consumer protections that FACTA requires is the truncation of account numbers on credit card receipts. This means that only the last four or five digits of the account number can be printed on the receipt, while the rest must be masked or deleted. This reduces the risk of unauthorized access or use of the account number by third parties who may obtain the receipt. References:

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section III, B, 1

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 3, Section 3.2]

[FACTA, Section 113]

 The most likely reason that states have adopted their own data breach notification laws is that many types of organizations are not currently subject to federal laws regarding breaches. As explained in the Data Breach Response: A Guide for Business from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), certain federal laws govern obligations to report data breaches in particular industries, such as health care, financial services, or telecommunications. However, these laws do not cover all types of businesses or all types of personal information that may be compromised in a data breach. Therefore, states have enacted their own data breach notification laws to fill the gaps and protect the privacy andsecurity of their residents. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of January 2022, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have enacted legislation requiring notification of security breaches involving personal information. These state laws vary in terms of the definitions of personal information, the triggers for notification, the methods and timing of notification, the exemptions and exceptions, and the penalties and enforcement mechanisms.

References: 1: Data Breach Response: A Guide for Business, Section 2 2: 2022 Security Breach Legislation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

Contact tracing apps are designed to help public health authorities track and contain the spread of COVID-19 or any other diagnosed virus by notifying users who have been in close contact with an infected person. However, these apps also raise privacy concerns, as they collect and process sensitive personal data, such as health status and location information. Therefore, contact tracing apps should follow the principles of privacy by design and default, which means that they should incorporate privacy measures into their development and operation, and offer the highest level of privacy protection to users.

Some of the privacy measures that should be considered when designing contact tracing apps are:

Data retention: Contact tracing apps should only retain the personal data they collect for as long as necessary to achieve their public health purpose, and delete or anonymize the data afterwards. Data retention periods should be clearly communicated to users and based on scientific evidence and legal requirements.

Use limitations: Contact tracing apps should only use the personal data they collect for the specific and legitimate purpose of contact tracing, and not for any other purposes, such as commercial, law enforcement, or surveillance. Use limitations should be enforced by technical and organizational measures, such as encryption, access controls, and audits.

User confidentiality: Contact tracing apps should protect the confidentiality of users’ personal data and identity, and not disclose them to third parties without their consent or legal authorization. User confidentiality should be ensured by technical and organizational measures, such as pseudonymization, aggregation, and data minimization.

Opt-out choice, on the other hand, is not a privacy measure that should be considered when designing contact tracing apps, as it would undermine their effectiveness and public health objective. Contact tracing apps rely on voluntary participation and widespread adoption by users to function properly and achieve their purpose. Therefore, offering users the option to opt out of the app or certain features, such as data sharing or notifications, would reduce the app’s coverage and accuracy, and potentially expose users and others to greater health risks. Instead of opt-out choice, contact tracing apps should provide users with clear and transparent information about how the app works, what data it collects and how it uses it, what benefits and risks it entails, and what rights and controls users have over their data. This way, users can make an informed and voluntary decision to use the app or not, based on their own preferences and values.

References:

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 2: Privacy by Design and Default, pp. 35-36.

[IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge], Section II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Subsection B: Privacy by Design, pp. 9-10.

[IAPP Glossary], Terms: Contact Tracing, Privacy by Design, Privacy by Default.

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

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.

 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

According to Section 5 of the FTC Act, self-regulation primarily involves a company’s right to adhere to its industry’s code of conduct. Self-regulation is a process by which an industry or a group of companies voluntarily adopts and enforces standards or guidelines to protect consumers and promote fair competition. The FTC encourages self-regulation as a way to complement its enforcement efforts and address emerging issues in the marketplace. The FTC also monitors self-regulatory programs and may take action against companies that fail to comply with their own codes of conduct or misrepresent their participation in such programs. References:

Federal Trade Commission Act, Section 5 of

Self-Regulation | Federal Trade Commission

[IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide], Chapter 3, page 79

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 Wireless Domain Registry is a list of domain names that are used to transmit electronic messages to wireless devices, such as cell phones and pagers. The purpose of the registry is to protect wireless consumers from unwanted commercial electronic mail messages, by identifying the domain names for those who send such messages. Marketers are required to use the registry to avoid sending unsolicited emails to wireless devices, which may incur costs or inconvenience for the recipients. Sending such emails without the express prior authorization of the recipient is a violation of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. References: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy/domain-name-input

https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/the-wireless-registry-launches-worlds-first-global-registry-for-wireless-names-240222521.html

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.

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 specific purpose for obtaining the report.

The source of the report.

The applicant’s right to obtain a free copy of the report from the source within 60 days.

The applicant’s right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information in the report.

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:

The name, address, and telephone number of the source of the report.

A statement that the source of the report did not make the decision and cannot explain why the decision was made.

A statement that the applicant has the right to obtain another free copy of the report from the source within 60 days.

A statement that the applicant has the right to dispute the accuracy or completeness of any information in the report.

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

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

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

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

The 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 CAN-SPAM Act is a federal law that sets the rules for commercial email, establishes requirements for commercial messages, gives recipients the right to have you stop emailing them, and spells out tough penalties for violations1. The main purpose of the act is to protect consumers from unwanted and deceptive email messages and to give them more control over their online privacy2. The act applies to all commercial messages, which are defined as "any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service"1. The act does not apply to transactional or relationship messages, which are messages that facilitate an agreed-upon transaction or update a customer about an existing business relationship1. The act also does not apply to non-commercial messages, such as political or charitable solicitations3. References: 1: CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business2: What is the CAN-SPAM Act? | Proton3: What is the CAN-SPAM Act? | Cloudflare

 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is the primary federal agency that enforces consumer privacy and data security laws in the United States. The FTC has the authority to bring enforcement actions against businesses that engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices that affect commerce, under Section 5 of the FTC Act. Unfair acts or practices are those that cause or are likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that is not reasonably avoidable by consumers and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. Deceptive acts or practices are those that involve a material representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances.

The FTC’s action against B.J.'s Wholesale Club in 2005 was unique because it was based on matters of fairness rather than deception. The FTC alleged that B.J.'s Wholesale Club, a retailer that operates warehouse stores and gas stations, failed to provide reasonable security for the sensitive information of its customers, such as name, card number, and expiration date, that it collected from the magnetic stripes of credit and debit cards. The FTC claimed that this information was used by unauthorized persons to make millions of dollars of fraudulent purchases. The FTC did not allege that B.J.'s Wholesale Club made any false or misleading statements or omissions about its data security practices, but rather that its failure to take appropriate security measures was an unfair practice that violated Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC argued that B.J.'s Wholesale Club’s lax security caused or was likely to cause substantial injury to consumers that was not reasonably avoidable by consumers and was not outweighed by any benefits to consumers or competition.

The FTC’s action against B.J.'s Wholesale Club was one of the first cases in which the FTC used its unfairness authority to address data security issues,and it set a precedent for future enforcement actions against businesses that fail to protect consumer data. The settlement required B.J.'s Wholesale Club to implement a comprehensive information security program and obtain audits by an independent third-party security professional every other year for 20 years. References:

FTC Complaint, Paragraphs 1-23

FTC Agreement Containing Consent Order, Paragraphs 1-9

FTC Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment, Pages 1-3

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Pages 69-70

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 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/

 E-discovery is the process by which parties share, review, and collect electronically stored information (ESI) to use as evidence in a legal matter1. The rules for e-discovery mainly prevent a conflict between business practice and technological safeguards, because they establish the standards and procedures for preserving, collecting, reviewing, and producing ESI in a way that balances the needs of litigation with the realities of technology2. For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) provide guidance on the scope, timing, format, and methods of e-discovery, as well as the sanctions for failing to comply withe-discovery obligations3. The rules also encourage cooperation and communication among parties and courts to resolve e-discovery issues efficiently and effectively4. By following the rules for e-discovery, parties can avoid disputes, delays, and costs that may arise from incompatible or inconsistent business and technological practices.

The other options are not the main purpose of the rules for e-discovery, although they may be related or affected by them. The rules for e-discovery do not directly prevent the loss of information due to poor data retention practices, although they do impose a duty to preserve relevant ESI when litigation is reasonably anticipated5. The rules for e-discovery do not directly prevent the practice of employees using personal devices for work, although they do require parties to identify and disclose the sources of ESI that may be subject to discovery, including personal devices6. The rules for e-discovery do not directly prevent a breach of an organization’s data retention program, although they do require parties to produce ESI in a reasonably usable form and to protect privileged or confidential information7.

References: 1: Everything You Need to Know About E-Discovery, The National Law Review. 2: E-Discovery: The Basics of E-Discovery Guide - Exterro, Exterro.com. 3: Federal Court and Government Agency E-Discovery Rules and Guidelines, Crowell & Moring LLP. 4: FRCP Rule 1, Cornell Law School. 5: FRCP Rule 37, Cornell Law School. 6: FRCP Rule 26, Cornell Law School. 7: FRCP Rule 34, Cornell Law School.

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)

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

The FTC has stated that it is a deceptive practice to make retroactive changes to a privacy policy that affect how a company uses or shares previously collected personal information, unless the company obtains affirmative consent from the affected consumers. This means that the company must clearly and conspicuously disclose the changes and obtain the consumers’ express agreement to them. Simply describing the policy changes on the website, publicizing them through social media, or reassuring customers of the security of their information are not sufficient to comply with the FTC’s position. References:

FTC Staff Revises Online Behavioral Advertising Principles, paragraph 3.

Do I really have to obtain consent from all my customers to make a change to my privacy policy?, paragraph 2.

IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, page 64.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010 amended the original Red Flags rule, which required certain financial institutions and creditors to develop and implement a written identity theft prevention program. The Clarification Act narrowed the definition of creditor to include only those who regularly and in the ordinary course of business advance funds to or on behalf of aperson, based on an obligation of the person to repay the funds or repayable from specific property pledged by or on behalf of the person12. This excludes creditors who advance funds for expenses incidental to a service provided by the creditor to that person3. References:

CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 133, Answer B, Explanation B.

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4, Section 4.3, p. 108-109.

Red Flag Program Clarification Act of 2010, Section 2, Subsection (b).

 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 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