CIPP-US Dumps with Practice Exam Questions Answers

The annual privacy notice requirement under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) applies to financial institutions that collect nonpublic personal information from customers and disclose it to nonaffiliated third parties, unless they qualify for an exception. A financial institution is any entity that engages in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to such activities, as defined by section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. The King County Savings and Loan is a financial institution under this definition, as it engages in lending money and accepting deposits. Therefore, it is required to provide its customers with an annual privacy notice, unless it meets the conditions for an exception. The Four Winds Tribal College, the Golden Gavel Auction House, and the Breezy City Housing Commission are not financial institutions under the GLBA, as they do not engage in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to such activities. Therefore, they are not required to provide their customers with an annual privacy notice under the GLBA. References:

Amendment to the Annual Privacy Notice Requirement Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, section I. Background, paragraph 2.

17 CFR § 248.5 - Annual privacy notice to customers required., paragraph (a) (1).

IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, page 65.

Most state breach notification laws require entities to notify affected individuals and/or regulators when there is unauthorized access to or acquisition of personal information that compromises its security, confidentiality, or integrity. However, some states provide exceptions to this requirement under certain conditions, such as:

If the data involved was encrypted or otherwise rendered unreadable or unusable, and the encryption key or other means of access was not compromised. This is based on the assumption that encrypted data is not accessible to unauthorized parties, even if they obtain the data.

If the entity was subject to and complied with another federal or state law that provides similar or greater protection and notification requirements, such as the GLBA Safeguards Rule or the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule. This is to avoid duplication or inconsistency of obligations for entities that are already regulated by other laws.

If the entity conducted a risk assessment and determined that there is no reasonable likelihood of harm to the affected individuals, based on factors such as the nature and extent of the data, the circumstances of the breach, the evidence of misuse, and the ability to mitigate the risk. This is to allow entities to exercise some discretion and judgment in evaluating the potential impact of the breach.

However, none of the state laws provide an exception for the mere access of data without exportation. Access alone is considered a breach that triggers the notification requirement, unless one of the other conditions applies. Therefore, option B is not a sufficient excuse for not providing breach notification under state law.

References:

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 9: State Data Security Laws, pp. 209-211.

CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 29.

 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.

 Data breach notification laws in the United States vary by state and territory, and there is no comprehensive federal law that applies to all types of personal information. Some federal laws, such as HIPAA, GLBA, and the FDIC rule, impose data breach notification requirements for specific industries or sectors, but they do not cover all types of personal information or all entities that collect, store, or process such information. Therefore, the only obligations to provide data breach notification for the breach of personal information are under state law, unless a specific federal law applies to the entity or the information involved. The other statements are incorrect because:

A. You do not have to notify the FTC in addition to affected individuals if over 500 individuals are receiving notice, unless you are a health care entity subject to HIPAA, in which case you have to notify the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) within 60 days of the breach.

B. When providing an individual with required notice of a data breach, you do not have to identify what personal information was actually or likely compromised, unless the state law requires you to do so. Some states, such as California, require the notice to include the types of personal information that were or are reasonably believed to have been the subject of the breach, while others, such as Alabama, do not specify the content of the notice.

C. When you are required to provide an individual with notice of a data breach under any state’s law, you do not have to provide the individual with an offer for free credit monitoring, unless the state law requires you to do so. Some states, such as Connecticut, require the offer of appropriate identity theft prevention and mitigation services for at least 12 months, while others, such as Arizona, do not impose such a requirement. References: Data Breach Notification in the United States and Territories, Data Breach Notification Laws in the United States: What is Required and How is that Determined?, US State Data Breach Notification Law Matrix, Breach Notification in United States, Data Breach Notification Laws: How to Manufacture a Confident Response

The 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.