Free and Premium IAPP CIPP-US Dumps Questions Answers

 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 Stored Communications Act (SCA) is a federal law that regulates the privacy of electronic communications that are stored by third-party service providers, such as email providers, cloud storage providers, or social media platforms. The SCA prohibits unauthorized access to or disclosure of such communications, unless authorized by law or by the consent of the user or the service provider . The SCA also provides exceptions for certain types of access or disclosure, such as those made for law enforcement purposes, for the protection of the service provider’s rights or property, or for the consent of the subscriber or customer .

One of the exceptions to the SCA is where the service provider gives consent to the access or disclosure of the stored communications. This means that if a third-party service provider agrees to cooperate with an investigation or a request for information, the access or disclosure is lawful under the SCA. Consent can be express or implied, depending on the circumstances and the terms of service of the provider. For example, if a service provider has a policy that allows it to disclose user information to third parties for legitimate purposes, the provider has impliedly consented to the access or disclosure of the stored communications. However, if a service provider has a policy that prohibits such disclosure, the provider has not consented to the access or disclosure of the stored communications.

In the scenario, Evan’s undercover investigation may have been authorized by the SCA if he obtained the consent of the third-party service provider that stored the electronic communications of the employee who was suspected of misconduct. For instance, if the employee used a company email account or a cloud storage service that had a policy that allowed the service provider to disclose user information to the employer or to law enforcement, Evan may have been able to access or disclose the stored communications with the consent of the service provider. However, if the employee used a personal email account or a cloud storage service that had a policy that protected user privacy and prohibited such disclosure, Evan may have violated the SCA by accessing or disclosing the stored communications without the consent of the service provider.

References: : [Stored Communications Act], 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2712 : [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 8, Section 8.2.2. : [The Stored Communications Act: An Old Statute for Modern Problems], pp. 10-11.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 is a federal law that regulates the privacy and security of health information in the United States. HIPAA preempts state laws that are contrary to its provisions, unless the state laws provide more stringent protections for health information12 HIPAA establishes a floor of federal standards for health information privacy and security, but allows states to enact laws that are more protective of individuals’ rights34 For example, some states may require more specific consent from individuals before disclosing their health information, or impose stricter penalties for violations of health information privacy and security. HIPAA also provides exceptions for certain state laws that serve a compelling public interest, such as public health, safety, or welfare.References: 

 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

The Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (PPA) is a federal law that protects journalists and newsrooms from search and seizure by government officials in connection with criminal investigations or prosecutions. The PPA prohibits the government from searching for or seizing any work product materials or documentary materials possessed by a person who intends to disseminate them to the public through a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication, unless certain exceptions apply. The PPA was drafted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, which upheld the constitutionality of a police search of a student newspaper’s office without a subpoena, based on probable cause that the newspaper had evidence of a crime. The PPA was intended to protect the First Amendment rights of the press and the privacy interests of journalists and their sources from unreasonable government intrusion123. References:

1: IAPP, Privacy Protection Act of 1980,

2: DOJ, Privacy Protection Act of 1980,

3: Wikipedia, Privacy Protection Act of 1980,

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]

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.

Illinois became the first state to pass a law specifically regulating the collection of biometric data in 2008, when it enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). BIPA defines biometric identifiers as retina or iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, or scans of hand or face geometry, and biometric information as any information based on biometric identifiers used to identify an individual. BIPA requires entities that collect, store, or use biometric identifiers or information to obtain informed consent from individuals, provide written policies on data retention and destruction, limit disclosure and sale of biometric data, and protect biometric data using reasonable security measures. BIPA also provides a private right of action for individuals whose biometric data is collected, stored, or used in violation of the law, and allows them to recover statutory damages of $1,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for each negligent violation, and $5,000 or actual damages, whichever is greater, for each intentional or reckless violation, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief. References: U.S. Biometrics Laws Part I: An Overview of 2020, Is Biometric Information Protected by Privacy Laws?, Biometric Data Privacy Laws

The law that is not involved in the regulation of employee background checks is B. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). The GLBA is a federal law that regulates the privacy and security of financial information collected, used, or shared by financial institutions, such as banks, insurance companies, or securities firms. The GLBA does not apply to employee background checks, unless the employer is a financial institution that obtains financial information from a consumer reporting agency for employment purposes. In that case, the employer must comply with the GLBA’s notice and opt-out requirements, as well as the FCRA’s requirements for using consumer reports. References:

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 4: Workplace Privacy, pp. 113-114.

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section IV: Workplace Privacy, Subsection A: Employee Privacy Expectations, Topic 3: Background Checks.

IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 150.

 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.

The FTC is the primary federal agency responsible for enforcing privacy and data security laws in the United States. The FTC has broad jurisdiction over most commercial entities that collect, use, or share personal information from consumers. The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, which includes unfair or deceptive privacy practices. The FTC can bring enforcement actions against companies that violate their own privacy policies, fail to provide adequate notice or choice to consumers, engage in unfair or harmful data practices, or breach consumers’ reasonable expectations of privacy. The FTC can also issue rules, guidelines, and reports on privacy and data security issues, as well as conduct investigations, workshops, and educational campaigns. References:

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Section I.A.1.a

IAPP CIPP/US Textbook, Chapter 1, pp. 9-12

FTC Privacy and Security Enforcement

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

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

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) is a federal law that regulates the privacy of wire, oral, and electronic communications. The ECPA prohibits the intentional interception, use, or disclosure of such communications, unless authorized by law or by the consent of one of the parties to the communication12. The ECPA also provides exceptions for certain types of communications, such as those made in the normal course of business, those made for law enforcement purposes, or those made for foreign intelligence purposes12.

One of the exceptions to the ECPA ban on interception is where one of the parties has given consent. This means that if a person who is a party to a communication agrees to have it intercepted, the interception is lawful under the ECPA. Consent can be express or implied, depending on the circumstances and the expectations of the parties3. For example, if a person calls a customer service line and hears a recorded message that the call may be monitored or recorded, the person has impliedly consented to the interception of the call. However, if a person calls a friend and does not know that the friend has a third party listening in on the call, the person has not consented to the interception of the call.

References: 1: Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2523 2: [IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], Chapter 8, Section 8.2.1. 3: [Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations], pp. 77-78.

In 2012, the White House released a report titled “Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy”, which proposed a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights based on the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs). The report called for a comprehensive privacy framework that would apply to all commercial sectors and all personal data, regardless of the technology or business model involved. The report also urged Congress to enact legislation to implement the framework and empower the FTC to enforce it. Similarly, the FTC released a report titled “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers”, which outlined a set of best practices for businesses to protect consumer privacy and foster innovation. The report also advocated for a comprehensive privacy framework that would cover both online and offline data, and apply to all entities that collect or use consumer data that can be reasonably linked to a specific consumer, computer, or device. The report also recommended that Congress consider enacting baseline privacy legislation and giving the FTC rulemaking authority to implement it. Therefore, both reports can be described as advocating a comprehensive approach to privacy enforcement, rather than a harm-based, self-regulatory, or notice and choice approach. References: White House Report, FTC Report, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide (p. 31-32)

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

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

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

 Discrimination is the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people based on certain characteristics, such as race, gender, age, religion, or political affiliation. Discrimination can occur in various contexts, such as employment, education, housing, or public accommodations. Discrimination can violate federal, state, or local laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of protected categories. In the scenario, Evan is susceptible to a lawsuit based on discrimination because he uses social media to favor employees who share his political views and deny promotions to those who do not. This could constitute political discrimination, which is prohibited by some state and local laws, such as the District of Columbia Human Rights Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Additionally, Evan’s use of social media could reveal other protected characteristics of his employees, such as their race, gender, age, religion, or sexual orientation, and expose him to claims of discrimination based on those grounds as well. For example, if Evan posts derogatory comments about a certain race or religion, and then denies a promotion to an employee of that race or religion, that employee could sue Evan for discrimination under federal laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Civil Rights Act of 1991. References:

Political Discrimination in the Workplace | Nolo

Social Media and Employment Law Summary of Key Cases and Legal Issues

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4: State Privacy Laws and Regulations, Section 4.1: State Anti-Discrimination Laws.

Unlike many other countries, the United States does not have a comprehensive federal law that regulates the privacy of private-sector employees. Instead, the privacy protection of employees depends largely on state law, contract law, and tort law. State law may provide specific rights and remedies for employees regarding issues such as drug testing, background checks, electronic monitoring, social media access, and genetic information. Contract law may create obligations and expectations for employers and employees based on written or implied agreements, such as employment contracts, employee handbooks, or collective bargaining agreements. Tort law may allow employees to sue their employers for invasion of privacy, such as intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, or appropriation of name or likeness. The other options are less likely to provide privacy protection to private-sector employees in the United States. The FTC Act primarily regulates the privacy practices of businesses that collect and use consumer data, not employee data. The U.S. Constitution only protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, not by private employers. The HHS only enforces the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which applies to covered entities and business associates that handle protected health information, not to all private-sector employers. References:

IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 6: Workplace Privacy

Privacy Rights of Employees Using Workplace Computers in the United States

Employee Privacy Laws

 Under state breach notification laws, personal information is typically defined as an individual’s first name or first initial and last name plus one or more other data elements, such as Social Security number, state identification number, account number, medical information, etc. However, first and last name alone are not usually considered personal information, unless they are combined with other data elements that could identify the individual or compromise their security or privacy. Therefore, option B is the correct answer, as it is not typically included in the definition of personal information under state breach notification laws. References: 

 According to FERPA, a school may disclose personally identifiable information (PII) from an eligible student’s education records without consent if the disclosure meets one of the exceptions in 34 CFR § 99.31. One of these exceptions is for disclosures to other schools to which a student seeks or intends to enroll, or is already enrolled if the disclosure is for purposes related to the student’s enrollment or transfer (34 CFR § 99.31(a)(2)). This exception allows schools to disclose transcripts, recommendations, or other information that may facilitate the student’s admission or enrollment at another school. However, the school must make a reasonable attempt to notify the student of the disclosure, unless the student initiated the disclosure, and must provide the student with a copy of the records that were disclosed upon request (34 CFR § 99.34(a)(1)). References: 

The Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as an independent agency within the Federal Reserve System. The CFPB has the authority to regulate consumer financial products and services, such as mortgages, credit cards, student loans, and payday loans. One of the main objectives of the CFPB is to promote transparency, fairness, and consumer choice in the financial marketplace. The CFPB has issued rules and guidance to require financial institutions to provide clear and accurate information to consumers about the costs, risks, and benefits of their products and services. The CFPB also has the power to enforce consumer protection laws and prohibit unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices by financial institutions123 References: 1: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Title X, Subtitle A, Section 1011. 2: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Wikipedia. 3: Dodd-Frank Act: What It Does, Major Components, and Criticisms, Investopedia.

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

A private right of action is a legal provision that grants individuals the ability to bring a lawsuit against a party that has wronged them and to seek redress for the harm that they have suffered. A private right of action is a fundamental component of the U.S. judicial system and an essential element of enforcingprivacy rights. Privacy advocates argue that a private right of action is necessary to hold perpetrators of privacy violations accountable and to address the limitations of the FTC’s enforcement authority. However, businesses are concerned that a private right of action would lead to a proliferation of frivolous lawsuits that would burden responsible data processors and impede innovation. References:

U.S. Private-Sector Privacy, Third Edition by Peter P. Swire, DeBrae Kennedy-Mayo, Chapter 2, Section 2.3.3, pp. 35-36.

How to end the deadlock on the private right of action by Paula Bruening, IAPP Privacy Perspectives, Jan 20, 2022.

Private Right of Action (Legal Definition & Examples) by Lawrina, accessed on Jan 25, 2022.

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

According to HIPAA, a business associate is a person or entity that performs certain functions or activities that involve the use or disclosure of protected health information (PHI) on behalf of, or provides services to, a covered entity. A business associate agreement (BAA) is a written contract between a covered entity and a business associate that establishes the permitted and required uses and disclosures of PHI by the business associate, as well as the safeguards that the business associate must implement to protect the PHI. In this scenario, MedApps is a business associate of Miraculous, since it provides a telehealth app that involves the use or disclosure of PHI on behalf of Miraculous. Therefore, HIPAA would require Miraculous and MedApps to enter into a BAA before using the telehealth app. The other options are incorrect because HIPAA does not prohibit the use of cloud hosting services or the hosting of in-person appointment data in the cloud, as long as the appropriate safeguards and agreements are in place. HIPAA also does not require patient consent for the sharing of PHI with third parties for treatment, payment, or health care operations purposes, which would include the use of the telehealth app. References:

HIPAA and Telehealth - Office for Civil Rights

HIPAA Rules for telehealth technology - Telehealth.HHS.gov

Notification of Enforcement Discretion for Telehealth - Office for Civil Rights

Guidance: How the HIPAA Rules Permit Covered Health Care Providers and Health Plans to Provide Audio-Only Telehealth - Office for Civil Rights

HIPAA Compliant App - Telehealth.org

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide - Chapter 3: HIPAA and HITECH, pages 75-76, 81-82, 86-87.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was enacted in 1978 in response to revelations of widespread privacy violations by the federal government under President Nixon. It established procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power1 The original purpose of FISA was to further define a framework for authorizing wiretaps by the executive branch for national security purposes under Article II of the Constitution, which grants the president the power to conduct foreign affairs and defend the nation23 FISA was intended to balance the need for collecting foreign intelligence information with the protection of privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons4 References: 

The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) was adopted in 1914 as part of the Progressive Era reforms that aimed to curb the power and influence of monopolies and trusts in the U.S. economy. The FTCA created the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as an independent agency to investigate and prevent unfairmethods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. The FTCA also gave the FTC the authority to issue cease and desist orders, seek injunctions, and impose civil penalties for violations of the law. The FTCA was intended to complement and supplement the existing antitrust laws, such as the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, that prohibited restraints of trade, price-fixing, mergers, and other anticompetitive conduct.

The other options are not correct, because:

The FTCA did not explicitly address privacy rights of U.S. citizens, although the FTC later used its authority under the FTCA to enforce against unfair or deceptive privacy practices, such as making false or misleading claims, failing to disclose material information, or violating consumers’ choices or expectations regarding their personal data.

The FTCA did not specifically focus on consumer protection, although the FTC later expanded its scope to include consumer protection issues, such as advertising and marketing, credit and finance, privacy and security, and consumer education. The FTC also enforced other consumer protection laws, such as the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, and the CAN-SPAM Act.

The FTCA did not authorize the FTC to negotiate consent decrees with companies violating personal privacy, although the FTC later used consent decrees as a common tool to settle privacy cases and impose remedial measures, such as audits, reports, and compliance programs. Consent decrees are agreements between the FTC and the parties involved in a case that resolve the FTC’s charges without admitting liability or wrongdoing.

References:

FTC website, Federal Trade Commission Act

Britannica website, Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA)

IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 1: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, pp. 11-12

IAPP website, Federal Trade Commission Act, Section 5 of

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)

Under the GDPR, the complainant’s request regarding her personal information is known as the right to be forgotten, also known as the right to erasure. This right allows individuals to ask organizations to delete their personal data in certain circumstances, such as when the data is no longer necessary, the consent is withdrawn, or the processing is unlawful. The right to be forgotten is not absolute and may not apply if the processing is necessary for legal, public interest, or legitimate purposes. The right to be forgotten also requires organizations to inform any recipients of the data about the erasure request, unless it is impossible or involves disproportionate effort. References:

Everything you need to know about the “Right to be forgotten”

Right to erasure | ICO

Art. 17 GDPR – Right to erasure (‘right to be forgotten’) - General …

[IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide], Chapter 6, page 213.

HIPAA requires covered entities to provide a notice of privacy practices (NPP) to individuals who receive health care services from the covered entity. The NPP must describe how the covered entity may use and disclose protected health information (PHI), the individual’s rights with respect to their PHI, and the covered entity’s obligations to protect the privacy of PHI. The NPP must be provided to the individual no later than the date of the first service delivery, either in person or electronically. The covered entity must also make the NPP available on request and post it on its website if it has one. The covered entity must also make a good faith effort to obtain a written acknowledgment from the individual that they received the NPP. If the individual refuses to sign the acknowledgment, the covered entity must document the attempt and the reason for the refusal.

The other options are not sufficient to comply with HIPAA. Stating the privacy policy verbally (option A) does not provide the individual with a written or electronic copy of the NPP that they can keep for future reference. Posting the privacy notice in a prominent location (option B) does not ensure that the individual receives the NPP or has an opportunity to review it before receiving services. Directing patients to the correct area of the hospital website (option C) does not provide the individual with the NPP at the time of service delivery, unless the individual agrees to receive the NPP electronically and has access to the website at that time. References:

Notice of Privacy Practices for Protected Health Information

Model Notices of Privacy Practices

Sample Notice: Availability of Notice of Privacy Practices

Notice of Privacy Practices

Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP) Distribution and Acknowledgement

 The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the HHS is the primary enforcer of the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which establishes national standards for the protection of individually identifiable health information by covered entities and business associates. The OCR investigates complaints, conducts compliance reviews, and provides technical assistance and guidance to ensure compliance with the Privacy Rule. The OCR can also impose civil monetary penalties for violations of the Privacy Rule, ranging from $100 to $50,000 per violation, up to a maximum of $1.5 million per year for the same violation. References: HIPAA Enforcement, IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide, Chapter 3, Section 3.1.1

Data brokers are companies that collect, analyze, and share personal information about consumers for various purposes, such as marketing, risk mitigation, and research. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) conducted a study of nine data brokers in 2012 and published a report in 2014, titled “Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability”. In the report, the FTC identified three broad categories of products offered by data brokers, based on the primary purposes for which the products are used by their customers. The three categories are: 12

Marketing products: These products help customers target potential customers, tailor marketing offers, measure the effectiveness of marketing campaigns, and improve customer relationships. Marketing products include data elements, segments, scores, lists, and analytics that are derived from consumer data. Data brokers may provide marketing products through direct marketing (such as postal mail, e-mail, or phone), online marketing (such as online display ads, social media, or mobile apps), or marketing analytics (such as measuring consumer behavior, preferences, and trends)12

Risk mitigation products: These products help customers verify and authenticate consumers’ identities, prevent fraud, and comply with legal obligations. Risk mitigation products include identity verification, identity authentication, fraud prevention, and compliance products that are based on consumer data. Data brokers may provide risk mitigation products through various methods, such as matching consumer-providedinformation with data broker records, generating questions or challenges based on consumer data, or providing scores or indicators of fraud risk or compliance status12

Research products: These products help customers understand consumer behavior, preferences, and trends, as well as market conditions, industry developments, and economic factors. Research products include reports, studies, statistics, and insights that are derived from consumer data. Data brokers may provide research products through various formats, such as online portals, dashboards, newsletters, or custom reports12

The FTC report did not include location of individuals as one of the three broad categories of products offered by data brokers. Location of individuals may be a specific type of product or service that some data brokers provide, but it is not a primary purpose for which data brokers use consumer data. Therefore, the correct answer is C. Location of individuals (such as identifying an individual from partial information).

References:

Data Brokers: A Call For Transparency and Accountability: A Report of the Federal Trade Commission (May 2014)

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 5: State Privacy Laws, Section 5.3: Data Broker Laws

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 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), a policy of “no consumer choice” or “no option” means that an educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information (PII) from education records without the prior written consent of the parent or eligible student, subject to certain conditions and exceptions1. One of the exceptions is when the disclosure is to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena, or to respond to an ex parte order from the Attorney General of the United States or his designee in connection with the investigation or prosecution of terrorism crimes12. In such cases, the educational agency or institution must make a reasonable effort to notify the parent or eligible student of the order or subpoena in advance of compliance, unless the order or subpoena specifies not to do so12. Therefore, when a customer’s financial information, which may be part of the education records, is requested by the government under a valid legal authority, the customer does not have the option to prevent the disclosure and the educational agency or institution does not need to obtain the customer’s consent. References: 1: FERPA, 34 CFR Part 99, Subpart D, 2. 2: The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act Guidance for Parents, Student Privacy Policy Office, U.S. Department of Education, 1.

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

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

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

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

IAPP CIPP/US Practice Questions, Question 134.

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

Redaction is the permanent removal of sensitive data—the digital equivalent of “blacking out” text in printed material. Redaction can be accomplished by simply deleting characters from a file or database record, or by replacing characters with asterisks or other placeholders. Redaction is often used to protect personal information, such as names, addresses, social security numbers, or financial data, on documents that are disclosed in litigation, such as pleadings, exhibits, or discovery responses. Redaction is required by courts to comply with privacy laws and rules, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), which mandate that parties must redact certain types of personal information from documents filed with the court or produced to the other party. Redaction is also a best practice to minimize the risk of unauthorized access, identity theft, or reputational harm that may result from exposing personal information in litigation. References:

When to redact, or not, disclosable documents in litigation - Stewarts

The approach to redaction – High Court guidance - Lexology

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 3: Federal Privacy Laws and Regulations, Section 3.2: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP).

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.

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 in privacy, 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

The scenario describes how the company had no adequate rules about access to customer information and how low-level employees had access to all of the company’s customer data, including financial records. This indicates that the company did not implement proper access controls to limit who can access, use, or disclose customer information based on their roles and responsibilities. Access controls are one of the key elements of information security and privacy, as they help prevent unauthorized or inappropriate access to sensitive data. Without access controls, the company’s customer information was vulnerable to mishandling by employees or outsiders who could exploit the weaksecurity measures. Therefore, the most likely cause of the breach was mishandling of information caused by lack of access controls. References:

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 4: Information Management from a U.S. Perspective, Section 4.2: Information Security, p. 113-114

IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge, Domain I: Introduction to the U.S. Privacy Environment, Objective I.C: Describe the role of information security in privacy, Subobjective I.C.1: Identify the key elements of information security, p. 8

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

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]

A consent decree is a legal document that resolves a dispute between a governmental agency and an adverse party without admission of guilt or liability by either side. It is approved by a judge and has the force of a court order. A consent decree may include terms such as compliance, monitoring, reporting, or remediation. A consent decree is often used to settle civil enforcement actions brought by federal agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the Department of Justice (DOJ). References:

IAPP Glossary, entry for “consent decree”

[IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide], p. 39, section 2.1.3

[IAPP CIPP/US Body of Knowledge], p. 9, section B.1.a

Under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), a business that collects personal information of California residents must notify them of a data breach if their personal information is subject to unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure as a result of the business’s violation of the duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices. However, the CCPA excludes encrypted or redacted personal information from the definition of personal information, unless the encryption key or security credential is also compromised. Therefore, Privacy Is Hiring Inc. would need to notify the affected individuals only if the encryption keys were also taken along with the credit card information, as this would render the encryption ineffective and expose the personal information to unauthorized access. The other options are not relevant to the CCPA notification requirement, although they may be relevant to other laws or best practices. References: CCPA (Section 1798.150), IAPP CIPP/US Study Guide (p. 63-64)

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

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

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

[FACTA, Section 113]

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 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.

Phishing is a form of social engineering that involves sending fraudulent emails or other messages that appear to come from a legitimate source, but are designed to trick recipients into revealing sensitive information, such aspasswords, account numbers, or personal identifiers1. Phishing is one of the most common and effective methods of cyberattacks, and it can lead to data breaches, identity theft, ransomware infections, or other serious consequences2. Therefore, training on how to recognize and avoid phishing attempts is crucial for any organization that handles sensitive data, especially ePHI, which is subject to strict regulations under HIPAA3. Training on techniques for identifying phishing attempts can help employees to spot the signs of a phishing email, such as:

Sender’s address or domain name that does not match the expected source or contains spelling errors4

Generic salutations or impersonal tone that do not address the recipient by name or use proper grammar4

Urgent or threatening language that creates a sense of pressure or fear and asks the recipient to take immediate action, such as clicking on a link, opening an attachment, or providing information4

Suspicious links or attachments that may contain malware or lead to fake websites that mimic the appearance of a legitimate site, but have a different URL or request login credentials or other data4

Requests for sensitive information that are unusual or out of context, such as asking for passwords, account numbers, or personal identifiers that the sender should already have or should not need4

Training on techniques for identifying phishing attempts can also help employees to learn how to respond to a phishing email, such as:

Not clicking on any links or opening any attachments in the email4

Not replying to the email or providing any information to the sender4

Reporting the email to the IT department or security team and deleting it from the inbox4

Verifying the legitimacy of the email by contacting the sender directly using a different channel, such as phone or another email address4

Updating the antivirus software and scanning the device for any malware infection4

Training on techniques for identifying phishing attempts is the most effective kind of training that CloudHealth could have given its employees to help prevent this type of data breach, because it would have enabled them to recognize the phishing email that compromised the PHI of more than 10,000 HealthCo patients, and to avoid falling victim to it. Training on the terms of the contractual agreement with HealthCo, the difference between confidential and non-public information, or CloudHealth’s HR policy regarding the role of employees involved in data breaches, while important, would not have been as effective in preventing this specific type of data breach, because they would not have addressed the root cause of the breach, which was the phishing email.

References:

1: IAPP, Phishing,

2: SpinOne, The Top 5 Phishing Awareness Training Providers 2023,

3: IAPP, HIPAA,

4: Expert Insights, The Top 11 Phishing Awareness Training and Simulation Solutions,