Discuss IAPP CIPP/US Exam Topic 3 Question 61

Which of the following conditions would NOT be sufficient to excuse an entity from providing breach notification under state law?

AIf the data involved was encrypted.

BIf the data involved was accessed but not exported.

CIf the entity was subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.

DIf the entity followed internal notification procedures compatible with state law.

Suggested Answer: C

While compliance with the Safeguards Rule helps in preventing breaches and ensuring data security, it does not necessarily exempt an entity from having to provide breach notifications as required by state laws. State breach notification laws typically have their own criteria for when notification is required, which may include factors like the type of data compromised, the potential risk of harm to individuals, and other circumstances surrounding the breach. While following the GLBA Safeguards Rule may demonstrate a commitment to data security, it doesn't automatically override the notification obligations imposed by state laws when a data breach occurs.

Get Premium CIPP/US Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF Real Exam Format Detailed Explanations Instant Access Get Your Practice Test

33 comments · newest first

Yvonne 11 months ago

Just because data is accessed doesn't mean it’s safe, so B is tricky.

Sharee 11 months ago

D seems like a gray area, not sure if that’s enough.

Alline 12 months ago

Wait, C? I thought GLBA compliance meant you were off the hook.

Buck 12 months ago

Totally agree, B is definitely not a valid excuse!

Roslyn 1 year ago

A is a common misconception, encryption doesn't always excuse breach notifications.

Beata 1 year ago

I’m pretty confident that option D wouldn’t excuse an entity from notification, as just following internal procedures doesn’t seem enough under state law.

Erick 1 year ago

I feel like option C could be tricky because the GLBA Safeguards Rule has specific requirements, but I can't recall if it directly relates to breach notifications.

Bok 1 year ago

I remember a practice question where accessing data without exporting it was a key factor. So, I’m leaning towards option B as the answer.

Mozell 1 year ago

I think option A might be the right answer since encryption usually protects data, but I'm not entirely sure if it completely excuses breach notification.

Latrice 1 year ago

I've got a good handle on breach notification laws, so I think I can tackle this one. I'll methodically evaluate each answer choice.

Antonio 1 year ago

Okay, let me think this through. The question is asking which condition would NOT be sufficient to excuse an entity from providing breach notification. I'll need to carefully consider each option.

Vashti 1 year ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I'll need to review the details of state breach notification laws and the exceptions that may apply.

Willard 1 year ago

This question seems straightforward, but I want to make sure I understand the key concepts around breach notification requirements under state law.

Cherri 1 year ago

This is a tricky question, but I remember discussing these types of scenarios in class. I'll apply what I've learned to determine the correct answer.

Allene 1 year ago

Okay, I've got it! The correct answer is "systemctl start jetty service". The Jetty service is the one that runs the UI Web Server in NetWitness 11. I'm confident in this answer.

Lorean 2 years ago

I think the answer is B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported. That seems like a valid reason not to provide breach notification.

Adelle 2 years ago

My money's on option A. Encryption is the golden ticket when it comes to avoiding breach notifications. Gotta love that tech!

Micaela 2 years ago

↳ replying to Adelle

D) If the entity followed internal notification procedures compatible with state law.

Bev 2 years ago

↳ replying to Adelle

C) If the entity was subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.

Lisha 2 years ago

↳ replying to Adelle

B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported.

Rory 2 years ago

↳ replying to Adelle

A) If the data involved was encrypted.

Weldon 2 years ago

But wouldn't following internal notification procedures be a sufficient condition to excuse breach notification?

Johna 2 years ago

I disagree, I believe the answer is D) If the entity followed internal notification procedures compatible with state law.

Galen 2 years ago

Hah, option B is a classic trap! Just because the data was accessed doesn't mean it was actually stolen. That's not a valid excuse.

Blossom 2 years ago

Option D sounds like the way to go. As long as the entity followed their internal procedures, that should be enough.

Shayne 2 years ago

Hmm, I'm not sure. I'd say option C might be the answer since the GLBA Safeguards Rule could override state law.

Becky 2 years ago

↳ replying to Shayne

C) If the entity was subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.

Carmen 2 years ago

↳ replying to Shayne

B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported.

Georgene 2 years ago

↳ replying to Shayne

A) If the data involved was encrypted.

Gerald 2 years ago

I think option A is correct. If the data was encrypted, it wouldn't be a breach, right?

Lakeesha 2 years ago

↳ replying to Gerald

B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported.

Kandis 2 years ago

↳ replying to Gerald

A) If the data involved was encrypted.

Weldon 2 years ago

I think the answer is C) If the entity was subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.

IAPP CIPP/US Exam - Topic 3 Question 61 Discussion