CIPP-US Questions Bank

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.