CIPP-US Exam Dumps - Certified Information Privacy Professional/United States (CIPP/US)

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

The other answers are incorrect because:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The European approach to privacy is based on the recognition of privacy as a fundamental human right that requires strong legal protection and oversight. The EU has adopted comprehensive and binding privacy laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the ePrivacy Directive, that apply to all sectors and activities involving personal data. The EU also has independent data protection authorities (DPAs) that monitor and enforce compliance with the privacy laws, and a European Data Protection Board (EDPB)that issues guidance and opinions on privacy matters. The EU also requires adequate levels of privacy protection for personal data transferred to third countries or international organizations.

In contrast, the U.S. approach to privacy is based on a sectoral and self-regulatory model that relies on a combination of federal and state laws, industry codes of conduct, consumer education, and market forces. The U.S. does not have a single, comprehensive, and enforceable federal privacy law that covers all sectors and activities involving personal data. Instead, the U.S. has a patchwork of federal and state laws that address specific issues or sectors, such as health, financial, children’s, and electronic communications privacy. The U.S. also has various federal and state agencies that share jurisdiction over privacy matters, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The U.S. also relies on self-regulation by industries that develop and adhere to voluntary codes of conduct, standards, and best practices for privacy. The U.S. also allows personal data to be transferred to third countries or international organizations without requiring adequate levels of privacy protection, as long as the data subjects have given their consent or the transfer is covered by a mechanism such as the Privacy Shield or the Standard Contractual Clauses.

Some supporters of the European approach to privacy are skeptical about self-regulation of privacy practices because they believe that self-regulation is not effective, consistent, or accountable enough to protect the rights and interests of data subjects. They argue that self-regulation may not provide sufficient incentives or sanctions for industries to comply with privacy rules, or to adopt privacy-enhancing technologies and practices. They also contend that self-regulation may not reflect the views and expectations of data subjects, or address the emerging and complex privacy challenges posed by new technologies and business models. They also question the transparency and legitimacy of self-regulation, and the ability of data subjects to exercise their rights and seek redress for privacy violations. References:

IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 1: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, pp. 9-10, 16-17

IAPP website, CIPP/US Certification

NICCS website, Certified Information Privacy Professional/United States (CIPP/US) Training

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[IAPP Glossary], Automated Decision-Making

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