CIPP-C Exam Dumps - IAPP Certified Information Privacy Professional Questions and Answers

Biometric information is considered sensitive personal information primarily because it possesses characteristics that are uniquely and intrinsically linked to the individual. Biometric data such as fingerprints, facial recognition patterns, and DNA are distinctive, largely unique to the individual, unlikely to change over time, and difficult to alter. This inherent nature of biometric data makes it extremely sensitive, as its misuse or unauthorized access can lead to significant privacy invasions and potentially irreversible harm. Therefore, the correct answer is C.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), express consent is not required when the personal information is publicly available as defined by the regulation. According to the regulations specifying publicly available information under PIPEDA, certain types of information, like that published in directories or records where the individual has provided the information for public dissemination, are excluded from the consent requirement. This provision is aimed at balancing the need for privacy protection with the practicalities of information that has been intentionally made public by the individual or by legal requirement. The other options listed (A, C, D) generally require express consent as they involve uses of personal information that either extend beyond what the individual would reasonably expect, or change the context in which the information was originally collected.

Individuals can determine whether their personal information was used by the federal government for data matching by referring to descriptions of the Personal Information Banks (PIBs) available through Info Source. Info Source is a series of publications and an online resource designed to assist individuals in understanding how the government manages personal information. It is managed by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and provides information about the existence, purpose, and use of personal information banks within government institutions. This resource is the most direct and reliable way for individuals to identify how their personal data is handled and if it has been used for data matching purposes.

The principle of "Openness" in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) has particularly contributed to the increase in privacy policies in recent years. This principle requires organizations to be open about their policies and practices regarding the management of personal information. They must make this information readily available in a form that is generally understandable. The emphasis on openness has compelled organizations to develop, maintain, and publish detailed privacy policies that outline how personal information is collected, used, disclosed, and protected. This requirement helps to ensure that individuals are informed about the privacy practices of organizations and can make informed decisions regarding their personal information.

The Privacy Act governs how federal government institutions handle personal information. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has highlighted limitations within the Act regarding outsourcing, specifically:

• Lack of Explicit Accountability: While the Privacy Act implies the government institution remains responsible for the personal information, the Commissioner argues that the law needs a clearer, more explicit statement to ensure full accountability when it's outsourced.
• Outsourcing & Privacy Risks: Outsourcing government functions to third parties can add complexity and risk to the protection of personal information.
• References:

Why Other Options Are Less Relevant

• A. Preventing subcontracting: While controlling further subcontracting might be important, it's not the primary concern identified by the Commissioner.
• B. Commissioner's order power: While the Commissioner advocates for greater powers, this is not the specific gap in the Privacy Act related to outsourcing.
• C. Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs): PIAs are crucial, but the Commissioner's argument highlights that even with PIAs, the Act lacks clear accountability language when the information leaves the government institution.

Key Points

• The Privacy Commissioner plays an advocacy role, identifying areas where privacy legislation could be strengthened.
• Accountability is crucial in all privacy contexts, especially when third parties handle sensitive data.

When an organization responsible for a large number of records considers outsourcing the storage of those records, it is critical to ensure that there is a robust contractual agreement in place between the organization and the records storage company. This agreement should outline the responsibilities of the storage company, the security measures they must adhere to, and the conditions under which they handle the personal information stored on the records1.

A contractual agreement serves several important purposes:

• It defines the scope of services provided by the storage company.
• It sets forth the security standards and privacy protections that must be maintained.
• It establishes the legal obligations of the storage company, including compliance with relevant privacy laws and regulations.
• It provides a mechanism for accountability and recourse in the event of a breach or non-compliance.

While determining if the personal information will be used for data matching (option A) and ensuring that consent was informed and meaningful (option D) are important considerations, they do not directly address the relationship between the organization and the storage company. Conducting a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) (option C) is also a valuable step, but it is a preparatory measure that should inform the development of the contractual agreement rather than being the critical factor in the outsourcing decision.

Therefore, the verified answer is B, as establishing a contractual agreement is the most critical consideration to ensure that the outsourced storage of records is managed in a way that protects the personal information and complies with privacy laws and regulations

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), personal information is defined as information about an identifiable individual. However, information that is publicly available, such as a public official's salary listed on a government website, is excluded from protection under PIPEDA's regulations specifying what constitutes publicly available information. The salaries of public officials, as government transparency measures, are specifically designated as public information. In contrast, the other options listed—telephone numbers in a public directory, photographs taken in public, and court records—although they might seem public, are not explicitly designated as exempt from PIPEDA in the same way, and could still be considered personal information depending on the context.

The main reason a country might adopt an "ombudsman" model of privacy oversight is to reduce the perception that compliance is a confrontational process. The ombudsman model focuses on mediation and resolution rather than enforcement, aiming to resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation rather than punitive measures. This approach helps to foster a cooperative relationship between the regulator and the entities they oversee, which can lead to more effective compliance and less adversarial interactions. This model contrasts with more regulatory or enforcement-driven models, which might focus on sanctions and formal adjudications.

When conducting surveys that collect personal information, it is crucial to protect the privacy of the respondents. The best practice, according to CIPP/C guidelines, is to collect results anonymously whenever possible1. This can be achieved by using pseudonyms to identify employees, which aligns with the option A. This method allows the company to analyze the data without exposing the personal identities of the employees.

Using a survey tool located in Canada (option B) may not necessarily protect the personal information unless the tool itself has robust privacy features that comply with Canadian privacy laws. Encryption (option C) is a strong method to secure data but does not address the issue of anonymity in the data collection process. Adjusting the survey questions to not collect identifying information (option D) could potentially undermine the purpose of the DEI initiatives, as some demographic information may be necessary for analysis.

The International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) provides a global standard for privacy laws, regulations, and frameworks, which includes the protection of personal information in surveys. The CIPP/C certification ensures that professionals understand these principles and practices within the Canadian context2. The guidelines suggest that when personal information is collected, it should be done in a way that respects the privacy of individuals, which includes minimizing the risk of identification3.

In conclusion, using pseudonyms is the best solution among the given options to protect personal information while still allowing the company to invest in DEI initiatives and gather the necessary data for analysis. This approach is in line with the principles-based framework and knowledge base in information privacy as outlined by the CIPP/C certification program2.

The case of Abika.com was significant in establishing the jurisdiction of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) over foreign entities processing personal data of Canadians. In this case, the Federal Court ruled that the OPC had the authority to investigate complaints about a US-based company, Abika.com, which was collecting, using, and disclosing the personal information of individuals in Canada for background checks. This case helped to affirm the OPC's role in overseeing how Canadian citizens' personal information is handled by companies, regardless of their geographic location, ensuring that the privacy rights of Canadians are respected by foreign operators engaging with Canadian data subjects.