Free IAPP CIPP-US Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

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: https://www.intelligence.gov/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act

https://www.intelligence.gov/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act/1234-categories-of-fisa

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 lawsuit, filed in 2014, claimed that Google violated the federal and state wiretap and privacy laws by scanning and indexing the emails of millions of students who used its Apps for Education suite, which included Gmail as a key feature12. The plaintiffs alleged that Google used the information from the scans to build profiles of students that could be used for targeted advertising or other commercial purposes, without their consent or knowledge12. The lawsuit also challenged Google’s argument that the students consented to the scans when they first logged in to their accounts, saying that such consent was not valid under FERPA, which requires written consent for any disclosure of education records12. Google denied the allegations and argued that the scans were necessary for providing security, spam protection, and other functionality to the users12. The case was settled in 2016, with Google agreeing to change some of its practices and policies regarding the scanning of student emails3. References: 1: Lawsuit Alleges That Google Has Crossed A ‘Creepy Line’ With Student Data, Huffington Post, 1. 2: Google faces lawsuit over email scanning and student data, The Guardian, 2. 3: Google data case to be heard in Supreme Court, BBC, 3.

 An intrusion upon seclusion tort occurs when someone intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person12. The intrusion does not need to involve a physical trespass, but can also be an electronic or optical intrusion, such as using a webcam to record a person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy2. The intrusion must also cause mental anguish or suffering to the plaintiff2.

In this case, option A would best support an employee claim for an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the webcam is enabled to record video any time the computer is turned on, regardless of whether the employee is working or not, or whether the employee is in a private or public place. This would be an intentional and highly offensive intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, and would likely cause the employee distress or anxiety.

Option B would not support an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the creation and saving of a biometric template based on keystroke dynamics is not an intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, but rather a data collection and processing activity that may implicate other privacy laws or principles, such as notice, consent, and security3.

Option C would not support an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the software sending a notification to a supervisor when the employee’s mouse is dormant for more than five minutes is not an intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, but rather a performance monitoring activity that may be justified by the employer’s legitimate business interests4.

Option D would not support an intrusion upon seclusion tort, because the webcam recording video of an employee using a company laptop to perform personal business while at a coffee shop during work hours is not an intrusion into the employee’s seclusion or private affairs, but rather a misuse of company property and time that may be subject to the employer’s policies and disciplinary actions5. Moreover, the employee may not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place like a coffee shop. References: 1: Intrusion on seclusion - Wikipedia 2: Elements of an Intrusion Claim | Digital Media Law Project 3: Biometrics - IAPP 4: Employee Monitoring - IAPP 5: Employee Privacy - IAPP : Privacy in Public Places - IAPP

A consent decree is a settlement agreement between the FTC and a company that has engaged in unfair or deceptive privacy practices. A consent decreetypically requires the company to stop the unlawful conduct, implement remedial measures, pay a civil penalty, and submit to ongoing monitoring and reporting. A consent decree benefits both parties involved because it spares the expense of going to trial, which can be costly, time-consuming, and uncertain. A consent decree also allows the parties to negotiate the terms of the settlement, rather than having a court impose a judgment. A consent decree does not admit liability or wrongdoing by the company, but it has the force of law and can be enforced by the FTC or the courts if the company violates its terms. References:

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

IAPP CIPP/US Textbook, Chapter 1, pp. 10-11

FTC Consent Decrees

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]

 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

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 scenario suggests that the company lacked adequate rules about access to customer information, which increased the risk of unauthorized access and data breach. Implementing a comprehensive policy for accessing customer information would have helped the company to limit the access to only those who need it for legitimate purposes, and to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the data. This is also one of the recommendations that Roberta made in her report. References:

CIPP/US Practice Questions (Sample Questions), Question 116, Answer A, Explanation A.

IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 5, Section 5.2, p. 143.

Larry has a misconception about the applicability of federal law to private-sector employee rights. He believes that the U.S. Constitution protects American workers from various forms of discrimination, harassment, and invasion of privacy by their employers. However, the U.S. Constitution only applies to government actions, not private actions, unless there is a specific federal statute that extends constitutional protections to the private sector1. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by private employers2. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 regulates the interception and disclosure of electronic communications by private parties3. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 sets the rules for commercial email and gives recipients the right to opt out of receiving unwanted messages4. These are examples of federal laws that apply to private-sector employees, but they do not cover all the situations that Larry faces at SunriseLynx. For instance, there is no federal law that protects private-sector employees from political discrimination or from having their personal mail opened by their employers. Larry may have to rely on state laws or common law torts to seek redress for these violations of his rights. References: 1: Private Sector vs. Public Sector Employee Rights2: [Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia] 3: [Electronic Communications Privacy Act - Wikipedia] 4: CAN-SPAM Act: A Compliance Guide for Business : IAPP CIPP/US Certified Information Privacy Professional Study Guide, Chapter 5: Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Privacy, p. 141-142