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

The 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/

 According to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and its implementing Regulation P, a financial institution may share consumer information with non-affiliated third parties for marketing purposes only after disclosing its information-sharing practices to customers and after giving them an opportunity to opt out of such sharing. The GLBA defines a customer as a consumer who has a continuing relationship with a financial institution that provides one or more financial products or services to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. A consumer is an individual who obtains or has obtained a financial product or service from a financial institution that is to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, or that individual’s legal representative. A non-affiliated third party is any person except a financial institution’s affiliate or a person employed jointly by a financial institution and a company that is not the financial institution’s affiliate. An affiliate is any company that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another company.

The GLBA requires that a financial institution provide a privacy notice to customers: (i) at the time of establishing the customer relationship; (ii) annually during the continuation of the customer relationship; and (iii) before disclosing any nonpublic personal information (NPI) about the customer to any non-affiliated third party, unless an exception applies. The privacy notice must describe the categories of NPI that the financial institution collects and discloses; the categories of affiliates and non-affiliated third parties to whom the financial institution discloses NPI; the categories of NPI disclosed to service providers and joint marketers; the policies and practices with respect to protecting the confidentiality and security of NPI; and the disclosures of NPI to which the customer has a right to opt out. The financial institution must also provide a reasonable means for the customer to opt out of the disclosure of NPI to non-affiliated third parties, such as a check-off box, a reply form, or a toll-free telephone number. The opt-out notice must be clear and conspicuous, and must state that the customer can opt out at any time. The opt-out notice must also explain how the customer can opt out, and the effect of opting out. The financial institution must honor the customer’s opt-out direction as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving it, and must not disclose any NPI to which the opt-out applies, unless an exception applies.

The GLBA provides several exceptions to the opt-out requirement, such as when the disclosure of NPI is necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the customer; when the disclosure of NPI is required or permitted by law; when the disclosure of NPI is to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act; or when the disclosure of NPI is to a person that performs marketing services on behalf of the financial institution or on behalf of the financial institution and another financial institution under a joint marketing agreement. A joint marketing agreement is a formal written contract between a financial institution and any other person under which the parties agree to offer, endorse, or sponsor a financial product or service. The joint marketing agreement must prohibit the other person from using or disclosing the NPI for any purpose other than offering, endorsing, or sponsoring the financial product or service covered by the agreement.

The GLBA also requires that a financial institution provide a privacy notice to consumers who are not customers before disclosing any NPI about the consumer to any non-affiliated third party, unless an exception applies. The financial institution does not need to provide an opt-out notice to consumers who are not customers, unless it has a customer relationship with them. However, if the financial institution establishes a customer relationship with a consumer who was previously not a customer, it must provide a privacy notice and an opt-out notice to the customer as described above.

References:

• Guide to the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
• GLBA or FCRA? Data Sharing Between Affiliates and Non-Affiliates
• Existing Privacy Laws Already Regulate Information Sharing
• Why Do Banks Share Your Financial Information and Are They Allowed To?
• [IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide], Chapter 5, pages 161-165.

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 U.S. Supreme Court has recognized an individual’s right to privacy over personal issues, such as contraception, by acknowledging a “penumbra” of unenumerated constitutional rights as well as more general protections of due process of law. This means that the right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but it is implied from other rights that are explicitly stated, such as the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly, the Third Amendment right to be free from quartering of soldiers, the Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, the Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination, and the Ninth Amendment right to retain other rights not enumerated in the Constitution. These rights create a “zone of privacy” that protects individuals from undue government interference in their personal affairs. The Supreme Court first articulated this concept of privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), where it struck down a state law that prohibited the use of contraceptives by married couples. The Court also relied on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Court interpreted this clause to include a substantive component that protects certain fundamental rights from state regulation, unless there is a compelling state interest and the regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The Court has applied this due process analysis to other privacy issues, such as abortion, marriage, and sexual orientation. References:

• Privacy | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
• Privacy isn’t in the Constitution – but it’s everywhere in constitutional law
• Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy Legally Protected by the … - Justia
• Right to privacy | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

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

• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 4: Workplace Privacy, pp. 115-116.
• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section IV: Workplace Privacy, Subsection A: Employee Privacy Expectations, Topic 2: Employee Polygraph Protection Act.
• IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 142.

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]

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

• Children’s Privacy | Federal Trade Commission
• Kids’ Privacy (COPPA) | Federal Trade Commission
• FTC Is Escalating Scrutiny of Dark Patterns, Children’s Privacy
• FTC to Crack Down on Companies that Illegally Surveil Children Learning Online
• FTC Takes Action Against Company for Collecting Children’s Personal Information Without Parental Permission
• [IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide], Chapter 5, pages 165-168.

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

• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 8, Section 8.3.1, page 227
• IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 153, page 13

The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act is a law passed in 2003 that establishes the first national standards for the sending of commercial e-mail in the United States. The law requires the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enforce its provisions. The law applies to any commercial e-mail message, which is defined as any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service. The law 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 relationship. The law also does not apply to non-commercial messages, such as political or charitable solicitations12

The CAN-SPAM Act is intended to help consumers by giving them more control over the commercial e-mails they receive. The law does not require companies to obtain prior consent (opt-in) from consumers before sending them commercial e-mails, but it does require companies to honor consumers’ requests to stop receiving such e-mails (opt-out). The law specifies that each commercial e-mail message must include a clear and conspicuous notice of the opportunity to decline to receive further messages from the sender, and a valid physical postal address of the sender. The sender must provide a functioning return e-mail address or other Internet-based mechanism that allows the recipient to submit an opt-out request. The sender must honor the opt-out request within 10 business days and must not sell, exchange, or transferthe e-mail address of the opt-out requester to another entity, unless the other entity is acting as an agent of the sender12

By requiring companies to allow consumers to opt-out of future e-mails, the CAN-SPAM Act aims to reduce the amount of unwanted and unsolicited commercial e-mail that consumers receive, and to protect their privacy and preferences. The law also imposes other requirements on companies that send commercial e-mails, such as banning false or misleading header information and deceptive subject lines, requiring the identification of the message as an advertisement, and requiring the labeling of sexually explicit content. The law also authorizes the FTC and other federal agencies to enforce the law and impose civil penalties for violations12

References:

• Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act)
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4: Federal Privacy Laws, Section 4.4: The CAN-SPAM Act

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

• Video Privacy Protection Act - Wikipedia
• 18 U.S. Code § 2710 - Wrongful disclosure of video tape rental or sale records | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 3: Federal Privacy Laws and Regulations, Section 3.5: Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA)

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.

Larry has a misconception about the applicability of federal law to private-sector employee rights. He believes that the U.S. Constitution protects American workers from various forms of discrimination, harassment, and invasion of privacy by their employers. However, the U.S. Constitution only applies to government actions, not private actions, unless there is a specific federal statute that extends constitutional protections to the private sector1. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by private employers2. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 regulates the interception and disclosure of electronic communications by private parties3. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 sets the rules for commercial email and gives recipients the right to opt out of receiving unwanted messages4. These are examples of federal laws that apply to private-sector employees, but they do not cover all the situations that Larry faces at SunriseLynx. For instance, there is no federal law that protects private-sector employees from political discrimination or from having their personal mail opened by their employers. Larry may have to rely on state laws or common law torts to seek redress for these violations of his rights. References: 1: Private Sector vs. Public Sector Employee Rights2: [Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia] 3: [Electronic Communications Privacy Act - Wikipedia] 4: CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business : IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 5: Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Privacy, p. 141-142

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

 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 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

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

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

• Vendor Selection Process: a Step-by-Step Guide, section “Step 2: Define the vendor selection criteria”
• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], p. 81-82, section 3.4.1
• [IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge], p. 18-19, section C.2.a

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

• Overview of the Privacy Act: 2020 Edition, Ten Exemptions, subsection (j) (2).
• Privacy Act Exemptions, subsection (j) (2).
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, page 66.

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 Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) is a federal regulation that implements the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994. The TSR aims to protect consumers from deceptive or abusive telemarketing practices, such as unwanted calls, false or misleading claims, unauthorized billing, and privacy violations1.
• The TSR requires telemarketers and sellers to comply with the National Do Not Call Registry, which is a list of phone numbers of consumers who have indicated that they do not want to receive telemarketing calls2.
• The TSR also requires telemarketers and sellers to honor the do-not-call requests of individual consumers, regardless of whether their numbers are on the National Do Not Call Registry or not2.
• A do-not-call request is a statement made by a consumer, either orally or in writing, that they do not wish to receive any more calls from a specific telemarketer or seller2.
• The TSR requires an entity to share a do-not-call request across its organization when the operational structures of its divisions are not transparent to consumers3. This means that the entity must treat the do-not-call request as if it applies to all of its affiliates and subsidiaries that engage in telemarketing, unless the consumer would reasonably expect them to be separate and distinct entities based on their names, products, or services3.
• The TSR does not require an entity to share a do-not-call request across its organization in the following situations:

References: 1: Telemarketing Sales Rule 2: Q&A for Telemarketers & Sellers About DNC Provisions in TSR 3: Federal Register :: Telemarketing Sales Rule

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

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

• In response to a court order or administrative tribunal order, the covered entity may disclose only the protected health information expressly authorized by such order2
• In response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process that is not accompanied by a court order or administrative tribunal order, the covered entity must receive satisfactory assurances that the party seeking the information has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the individual who is the subject of the information has been given notice of the request, or that the party seeking the information has made reasonable efforts to secure a qualified protective order2
• A qualified protective order is an order of a court or administrative tribunal or a stipulation by the parties to the litigation or administrative proceeding that prohibits the parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for which such information was requested andrequires the return to the covered entity or destruction of the protected health information (including all copies made) at the end of the litigation or proceeding2

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

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

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

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

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

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) defines a ‘sale’ of personal information as any transfer or disclosure of personal information to another business or third party for monetary or other valuable consideration. However, the CCPA also provides some exceptions to this definition, such as:

• If the consumer has directed the business to intentionally disclose the personal information or use the personal information to interact with a third party, provided the third party does not also sell the personal information.
• If the business transfers the personal information to a service provider that is contractually prohibited from retaining, using, or disclosing the personal information for any purpose other than performing the services specified in the contract with the business.
• If the business transfers the personal information to a third party as part of a merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, or other transaction in which the third party assumes control of all or part of the business, provided the information is used or shared consistently with the CCPA.

The use of cookies on a website by a service provider is generally not deemed a sale of personal information by the CCPA, as long as the information collected by the service provider is necessary to perform the services specified in the contract with the business,and the service provider does not further collect, sell, or use the personal information of the consumer except as necessary to perform the business purpose. One of the examples of a valid business purpose is to perform debugging to identify and repair errors that impair existing intended functionality.

Therefore, option D is the correct answer, as it describes a scenario where the use of cookies by a service provider is not a sale of personal information under the CCPA, assuming the service provider complies with the contractual obligations and does not further use or disclose the information.

Option A is incorrect, as it does not describe a valid exception to the definition of a sale. The third party that stores personal information to trigger a response to a consumer’s request to opt in is not acting as a service provider, but as a separate entity that may have its own interest in the personal information. The consumer’s request to opt in does not necessarily imply that the consumer has directed the business to disclose the personal information to the third party.

Option B is incorrect, as it does not describe a valid exception to the definition of a sale. The analytics cookies placed by the service provider may still constitute a sale of personal information, even if they cannot be linked to a particular consumer of that business. The CCPA defines personal information broadly to include any information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. Therefore, the analytics cookies may still fall within the scope of personal information, and their use by the service provider may still be a sale, unless one of the exceptions applies.

Option C is incorrect, as it does not describe a valid exception to the definition of a sale. The service provider that retains personal information obtained in the course of providing the services specified in the agreement with the subcontractors is not acting as a service provider to the business, but as a separate entity that may have its own interest in the personal information. The agreement with the subcontractors does not necessarily imply that the business has authorized the service provider to retain, use, or disclose the personal information for any purpose other than performing the services specified in the contract with the business.

References:

• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 10: California Consumer Privacy Act, pp. 223-226.
• CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 30.

The FTC alleged that Google violated its own privacy policies, engaged in deceptive trade practices, and failed to comply with Safe Harbor principles when it launched Google Buzz, a social networking service that automatically enrolled Gmail users and exposed their email contacts and other personal information without their consent or control. The FTC did not allege that Google failed to employ sufficient security safeguards, although it did require Google to implement a comprehensive privacy program and submit to regular privacy audits as part of the settlement. The other statements are incorrect because:

• A. Violated its own privacy policies: The FTC alleged that Google violated its own privacy policies by using information collected from Gmail users for a purpose that wasincompatible with the purpose for which the information was collected, without obtaining their affirmative consent. Google’s privacy policy stated that "When you sign up for a particular service that requires registration, we ask you to provide personal information. If we use this information in a manner different than the purpose for which it was collected, then we will ask for your consent prior to such use."1
• B. Engaged in deceptive trade practices: The FTC alleged that Google engaged in deceptive trade practices by misrepresenting the extent to which consumers could exercise control over the collection, use, and sharing of their personal information through Google Buzz. For example, Google offered consumers the option to decline or turn off Google Buzz, but the option was ineffective and did not fully remove the consumer from the social network. Google also misled consumers about how their email contacts would be treated on Google Buzz, and failed to disclose that certain information, such as the user’s frequent email contacts, would be made public by default.1
• C. Failed to comply with Safe Harbor principles: The FTC alleged that Google failed to comply with the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework, which provides a method for U.S. companies to transfer personal data from the European Union to the United States in a way that meets EU data protection requirements. Google had self-certified to the Department of Commerce that it adhered to the Safe Harbor Privacy Principles, which include notice, choice, access, and enforcement. The FTC alleged that Google’s conduct violated the notice and choice principles, as well as the requirement to adhere to the Safe Harbor FAQs.1 References: FTC Charges Deceptive Privacy Practices in Google’s Rollout of Its Buzz Social Network, Google, Inc., In the Matter of, Google settles with FTC over Buzz; Privacy policies to be audited for two decades, Google Settles FTC Complaint over Google Buzz Privacy

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

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

• Privacy Shield Principles, section II. Choice Principle and section III. Accountability for Onward Transfer Principle
• [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], p. 67-68, section 3.2.1 and p. 69-70, section 3.2.2
• [IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge], p. 15-16, section C.1.b and p. 16-17, section C.1.c

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

The Department of Commerce (DOC) plays a role in privacy policy by promoting the development and adoption of voluntary codes of conduct, standards, and best practices for the private sector, as well as facilitating cross-border data transfers through mechanisms such as the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield and the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules. However, the DOC does not have regulatory authority to enforce privacy laws or impose sanctions for privacy violations. The other agencies listed have some degree of regulatory authority over privacy issues within their respective domains. For example, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) supervises national banks and federal savings associations and enforces the GLBA privacy and security rules for these institutions. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and international communications and enforces the privacy and security rules for telecommunications carriers, broadband providers, and voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services. The Department of Transportation (DOT) oversees the transportation sector and enforces the privacy and security rules for airlines, travel agents, and other covered entities under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). References:

• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 1: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, Section 1.3: Federal Agencies with a Role in Privacy, p. 18-19
• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain I: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, Objective I.B: Identify the major federal agencies with a role inprivacy, Subobjective I.B.4: Identify the role of the Department of Commerce, p. 7
• IAPP CIPP/US Exam Blueprint, Domain I: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, Objective I.B: Identify the major federal agencies with a role in privacy, Subobjective I.B.4: Identify the role of the Department of Commerce, p. 3

 According to the Privacy Shield Framework, an organization that transfers personal data to a third party acting as an agent must ensure that the agent does all of the following1:

• Uses the transferred data only for limited and specified purposes;
• Provides the same level of privacy protection as is required by the Privacy Shield Principles;
• Takes reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that the agent effectively processes the personal information transferred in a manner consistent with the organization’s obligations under the Principles;
• Requires the agent to notify the organization if it makes a determination that it can no longer meet its obligation to provide the same level of protection as is required by the Principles;
• Upon notice, takes reasonable and appropriate steps to stop and remediate unauthorized processing; and
• Provides a summary or a representative copy of the relevant privacy provisions of its contract with that agent to the Department of Commerce upon request.

Therefore, the only option that is not required by the Privacy Shield Framework is D. Enters a contract with the organization that states the third party will process data according to the consent agreement. While the organization must obtain the individual’s consent for certain types of data transfers, such as those involving sensitive data or onward transfers to controllers, the organization does not have to include the consent agreement in the contract with the agent. The contract must, however, ensure that the agent will process the data in accordance with the individual’s choices and expectations, as well as the Privacy Shield Principles2.

References: 1: Privacy Shield Framework3, Section 3 (b); 2: Privacy Shield Framework3, Section 2 (b) and ©; 3: Privacy Shield Framework.

Federal anti-discrimination laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, prohibit employers from discriminating against employees or applicants based on certain protected characteristics, such as race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information. These laws also limit the types of information that employers can collect, use, disclose, or retain about employees or applicants,in order to prevent discrimination or invasion of privacy. For example, employers cannot ask about an applicant’s medical history, disability status, genetic information, or religious beliefs, unless they are relevant to the job or a bona fide occupational qualification. Employers also cannot use such information to make adverse employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation, unless they are justified by a legitimate business necessity or a reasonable accommodation. Employers must also safeguard the confidentiality of such information and dispose of it properly when it is no longer needed. References:

• Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers
• Laws Enforced by EEOC
• Employment and Anti-Discrimination Laws in the Workplace
• Protections Against Discrimination and Other Prohibited Practices
• 3. Who is protected from employment discrimination?

 The Virginia Consumer Data Protection Act (VCDPA) is a state law that provides comprehensive privacy rights and obligations for consumers and businesses in Virginia. The VCDPA applies to any entity that conducts business in Virginia or produces products or services that are targeted to residents of Virginia and that either: (a) controls or processes personal data of at least 100,000 consumers; or (b) controls or processes personal data of at least 25,000 consumers and derives over 50% of gross revenue from the sale of personal data. However, the VCDPA also provides several exemptions for certain types of entities and data, including an entity exemption for financial institutions or data subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). This means that organizations that are regulated by the GLBA are not subject to the VCDPA, regardless of the type or source of data they collect or process. The GLBA is a federal law that regulates the collection, use, and disclosure of personal financial information by financial institutions and their affiliates. The GLBA applies to any business that is significantly engaged in financial activities, such as banks, credit unions, securities firms, insurance companies, and certain fintech companies. The GLBA requires financial institutions to provide notice and choice to consumers about their privacy practices, to safeguard the security and confidentiality of consumer information, and to limit the sharing of consumer information with third parties. The GLBA also preempts state laws only to the extent that they are inconsistent with the GLBA, unless the state law provides greater protection to consumers.

The other state laws listed in the question do not have an entity exemption for organizations subject to the GLBA, but they may have partial or data exemptions for certain types of information that are regulated by the GLBA. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA) are state laws that provide comprehensive privacy rights and obligations for consumers and businesses in California. The CCPA and the CPRA apply to any business that collects or sells the personal information of California residents and that meets one or more of the following thresholds: (a) has annual gross revenues in excess of $25 million; (b) alone or in combination, annually buys, receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes, the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices; or © derives 50% or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information. However, the CCPA and the CPRA also provide several exemptions for certain types of entities and data, including a data exemption for personal information collected, processed, sold, or disclosed pursuant to the GLBA, if it is in conflict with the GLBA. This means that information that is subject to the GLBA is exempt from the privacy requirements of the CCPA and the CPRA, but not from the data breach liability provisions. The CCPA and the CPRA do not exempt financial institutions or other entities that are regulated by the GLBA from their scope, unless they only collect or process information that is subject to the GLBA.

The Nevada Privacy Law is a state law that provides privacy rights and obligations for consumers and operators of websites or online services in Nevada. The Nevada Privacy Law applies to any person who owns or operates an Internet website or online service for commercial purposes that collects and maintains covered information from consumers who reside in Nevada and use or visit the Internet website or online service. Covered information includes any one or more of the following items of personally identifiable information about a consumer collected by an operator through an Internet website or online service and maintained by the operator in an accessible form: (a) a first and last name; (b) a home or other physical address which includes the name of a street and the name of a city or town; © an electronic mail address; (d) a telephone number; (e) a social security number; (f) an identifier that allows a specific person to be contacted either physically or online; or (g) any other information concerning a person collected from the person through the Internet website or online service of the operator and maintained by the operator in combination with an identifier in a form that makes the information personally identifiable. However, the Nevada Privacy Law also provides several exemptions for certain types of entities and data, including a data exemption for any data that is subject to the GLBA. This means that information that is regulated by the GLBA is exempt from the Nevada Privacy Law, regardless of the type or source of data. The Nevada Privacy Law does not exempt financial institutions or other entities that are subject to the GLBA from its scope, unless they only collect or process information that is subject to the GLBA. References:

• VCDPA, Section 59.1-572 (A) (1)
• GLBA, 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq.
• CCPA, Section 1798.145 (e)
• CPRA, Section 1798.121 ©
• Nevada Privacy Law, Section 603A.340 (1) (a)

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

• Data Classification for GDPR Explained
• A guide to data classification: confidential data vs. sensitive data vs. public information
• Why Is Data Classification Important?

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

• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 2: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Section 2.3: Financial Privacy, p. 49-50
• IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Objective II.C: Identify the privacy requirements for financial institutions, Subobjective II.C.2: Identify the restrictions on disclosure of account numbers, p. 14
• IAPP CIPP/US Exam Blueprint, Domain II: Limits on Private-sector Collection and Use of Data, Objective II.C: Identify the privacy requirements for financialinstitutions, Subobjective II.C.2: Identify the restrictions on disclosure of account numbers, p. 5

The 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.

 According to the IAPP CIPP/US study guide, the first priority after a breach has been confirmed is to notify the affected individuals, regulators, and other stakeholders as required by law or contract. This is to allow them to take steps to protect themselves from potential harm, such as identity theft, fraud, or reputational damage. Providing timely and accurate notice also helps to mitigate legal liability, preserve customer trust, and comply with applicable laws and regulations. The other tasks are also important, but they are not the immediate priority after a breach has been established. References: IAPP CIPP/US study guide, Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2, page 211.

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

 The Red Flags Rule is a regulation that requires financial institutions and creditors to implement a written identity theft prevention program that is designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft in connection with the opening of a covered account or any existing covered account1. A creditor is any person who regularly extends, renews, or continues credit; any person who regularly arranges for the extension, renewal, or continuation of credit; or any assignee of an original creditor who participates in the decision to extend, renew, or continue credit2. A covered account is an account that a financial institution or creditor offers or maintains, primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, that involves or is designed to permit multiple payments or transactions, such as a credit card account, mortgage loan, automobile loan, margin account, cell phone account, utility account, checking account, or savings account2. A money wire service is a service that allows customers to send or receive money electronically3. The owner of a grocery store who uses a money wire service is not a creditor because he or she does not regularly extend, renew, or continue credit to customers. Therefore, the Red Flags Rule does not apply to the owner of a grocery store who uses a money wire service. References:

• 1: FTC, Red Flags Rule, https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/privacy-security/red-flags-rule
• 2: FTC, Fighting Identity Theft with the Red Flags Rule: A How-To Guide for Business, https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/fighting-identity-theft-red-flags-rule-how-guide-business
• 3: Alessa, Wire Transfer Red Flags: Understanding Money Laundering and Fraud Risks, https://alessa.com/webinars/wire-transfer-red-flags-and-fraud-risks/

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.

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]

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

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

• Privacy Policy for Health Coaches
• Privacy Policies for Online Coaches
• Privacy Policy - Coaching.com

The UK company can ensure an adequate level of data protection for the restricted data transfer to the US parent company by using the EU Standard Contractual Clauses (SCCs), which are contractual terms that provide safeguards for personal data transferred from the UK to third countries. The UK GDPR recognizes the validity of the EU SCCs adopted before the end of the Brexit transition period, and allows the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to issue new SCCs in the future. The other options are not correct because:

• A. Signing up to an approved code of conduct under the UK GDPR is not sufficient to ensure an adequate level of data protection for restricted transfers, as it is not a transfer mechanism on its own. The UK company would still need to use another appropriate safeguard, such as SCCs or Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs), to transfer personal data to the US parent company.
• C. Submitting a new application for the UK BCRs is not necessary, as the UK GDPR recognizes the existing authorized EU BCRs as valid for restricted transfers from the UK. The UK company can continue to rely on its EU BCRs, as long as they are updated to reflect the UK GDPR requirements and the role of the ICO as the competent supervisory authority.
• D. Allowing each employee the option to opt-out to the restricted transfer is not a valid transfer mechanism under the UK GDPR, as it does not provide adequate safeguards for the personal data of the employees. The UK company would need to obtain the explicit consent of each employee for the restricted transfer, which must be freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous. References:
• UK GDPR, Chapter V, Article 46
• UK GDPR, Chapter V, Article 47
• UK GDPR, Chapter V, Article 49
• ICO guidance on international transfers
• IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 10, Section 10.3.2

HIPAA requires covered entities, such as hospitals, to enter into contracts with their business associates, such as billing companies, that access, use, or disclose protected health information (PHI). These contracts, known as business associate agreements (BAAs), must specify the permitted and required uses and disclosures of PHI by the business associate, as well as the safeguards, reporting, and termination procedures that the business associate must follow to protect the privacy and security of PHI. By having these contracts in place, the hospital can ensure that the billing company is complying with HIPAA and observing the minimum security standards required by law. References:

• HIPAA Rules for Medical Billing - Compliancy Group
• HIPAA Compliance for Billing Companies: Easy Guide - iFax

• The Disposal Rule under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) is a federal regulation that requires any person or entity that maintains or possesses consumer information derived from consumer reports to dispose of such information in a secure and proper manner1.
• The Disposal Rule aims to protect consumers from identity theft and fraud by preventing unauthorized access to or use of their personal information1.
• The Disposal Rule is enforced by several federal agencies, depending on the type and sector of the entity that is subject to the rule1. These agencies include:
• The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is NOT one of the federal agencies that enforces the Disposal Rule under FACTA. HHS has authority over health information privacy and security under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), but not under FACTA.

References: 1: Disposing of Consumer Report Information? Rule Tells How 2: FTC Enforcement 3: CFPB Enforcement 4: OCC Enforcement 5: FDIC Enforcement : [FRB Enforcement] : [NCUA Enforcement] : [SEC Enforcement] : [CFTC Enforcement] : [HHS Enforcement]

 The design technique that would most effectively inform users of their data privacy rights and privileges when using the app is to offer information about data collection and uses at key data entry points. This technique is also known as “just-in-time” or “layered” notice, and it is recommended by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as a best practice for mobile app developers12

The idea behind this technique is to provide users with relevant and timely information about how their data is collected and used by the app, and what choices they have to control their data, at the moment when they are asked to provide or access their data. For example, if the app collects location data from the user’s device, it should display a pop-up notice explaining why it needs the location data, how it will use it, and how the user can opt-out or change the settings. This way, the user can make an informed decision about whether to allow or deny the app’s access to their data, and understand the consequences of their choice12

The advantage of this technique is that it avoids overwhelming the user with too much information at once, and instead provides concise and contextual information that is easy to understand and act upon. It also increases the user’s trust and confidence in the app, as they feel more in control of their data and privacy12

The other design techniques are less effective because they do not provide the user with sufficient or timely information about their data privacy rights and privileges when using the app. Publishing a privacy policy written in clear, concise, and understandable language is a good practice, but it is not enough to inform the user of their data privacy rights and privileges, as many users may not read or understand the policy, or may not be aware of where to find it. Presenting a privacy policy to users during the wellness program registration process is also a good practice, but it may not capture all the data collection and uses that the app may perform, and it may not give the user enough opportunity to review and consent to the policy. Providing a link to the wellness program privacy policy at the bottom of each screen is also a good practice, but it may not be noticeable or accessible to the user, and it may not provide the user with the specific information they need at the point of data entry or access12

References:

• Mobile Privacy Disclosures: Building Trust Through Transparency: A Federal Trade Commission Staff Report (February 2013)
• IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 6: Privacy Program Management, Section 6.4: Privacy by Design