CIPT Exam Dumps - Certified Information Privacy Technologist

A valid argument against data minimization is that it Can limit business opportunities. Data minimization is the principle that data collected should be limited to what is necessary for the purposes for which it is processed. While this principle supports privacy and data protection, it can also restrict the amount of data available to businesses for analysis and innovation, potentially limiting their ability to develop new products, improve services, or identify new market opportunities.

Step by Step Comprehensive Detailed Explanation with References:

Option A: Risk transfer involves shifting the risk to another party, such as through insurance. Simply informing customers does not transfer the risk.

Option B: Risk mitigation involves taking steps to reduce the severity or likelihood of the risk. Informing and obtaining consent does not mitigate the risk but acknowledges it.

Option C: Risk avoidance involves changing plans to entirely avoid the risk. Informing customers of the risk is not avoiding it but rather acknowledging it.

Option D: Risk acceptance involves recognizing the risk and deciding to proceed with it. By informing customers and obtaining their consent, the organization acknowledges the risk and accepts it as part of their operations.

References:

IAPP CIPT Study Guide

Risk management frameworks and practices in privacy

The Internet of Things (IoT) introduces various privacy risks due to the interconnected nature of devices and the large amount of personal data they collect and transmit. Here's a detailed explanation:

Data Collection and Usage: IoT devices collect extensive data about individuals' behaviors and habits. For instance, connected cars can gather data on driving patterns, locations, speeds, and other personal details.

Privacy Implications: When this data is accessed or shared without proper consent or transparency, it can lead to privacy violations. An insurance company using driving data from a connected car to adjust a person’s rates exemplifies this risk, as it directly impacts the individual based on potentially sensitive data.

Surveillance and Profiling: IoT devices can enable continuous surveillance and detailed profiling of individuals, leading to concerns about autonomy and control over personal information.

Regulatory Considerations: Regulatory frameworks like GDPR emphasize the need for data minimization, purpose limitation, and informed consent, which can be challenging to implement effectively in IoT ecosystems.

Perturbation is the preferred technique for protecting medical data while still allowing for analysis. Perturbation involves adding noise to the data to prevent the identification of individuals while preserving the overall patterns and trends in the dataset. This method is particularly useful in data mining for research purposes where privacy concerns must be addressed. The IAPP’s CIPT materials cover this technique under data anonymization and de-identification strategies, emphasizing its importance in research and analytics.

Discretionary access control (DAC) allows resource owners to determine who can access their resources and what permissions they have. This model provides flexibility for users to share resources at their discretion. In the DAC model, users can grant access rights to other individuals based on their preferences or needs. The IAPP materials highlight that DAC is commonly used in systems where resource owners need the ability to manage access rights directly (IAPP, "Access Control Models").

Calo’s Harm Dimensions categorize privacy harms into two main types: objective and subjective harms.

Identity Theft (Objective Harm): This is a measurable harm that occurs when an individual's personal information is stolen and used fraudulently, leading to financial loss, legal consequences, or other tangible damages.

Embarrassment (Subjective Harm): This is a harm that affects an individual's feelings, emotions, or social standing. It occurs when personal information is exposed in a way that causes humiliation or distress.

These two examples illustrate the categories effectively:

Identity theft represents the objective harm.

Embarrassment represents the subjective harm.

References: IAPP Certification Textbooks, Section on Privacy Harms and Risk Assessment, Calo’s Harm Dimensions.

Routing meeting video traffic through a company’s application servers rather than sending it directly from one user to another mitigates the risk of exposing the user's IP address to the other user. By routing traffic through a centralized server, the direct exchange of IP addresses between users is avoided, thereby enhancing privacy and security. The IAPP’s CIPT resources discuss network security measures and their importance in protecting user identities and preventing cyber threats like IP tracking and exposure.

The context of authority is a privacy concern when launching a smart device like a smart speaker. This concept involves ensuring that the device only collects, processes, and stores data within the scope of user consent and legal regulations. Without clear boundaries, there is a risk of unauthorized data collection and potential privacy violations.