Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

IAPP CIPP/US Exam - Topic 3 Question 61 Discussion

Actual exam question for IAPP's CIPP/US exam
Question #: 61
Topic #: 3
[All CIPP/US Questions]

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

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
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.


by Michel at Jul 17, 2024, 11:58 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CIPP/US Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Yvonne
4 months ago
Just because data is accessed doesn't mean it’s safe, so B is tricky.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sharee
4 months ago
D seems like a gray area, not sure if that’s enough.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alline
4 months ago
Wait, C? I thought GLBA compliance meant you were off the hook.
upvoted 0 times
...
Buck
4 months ago
Totally agree, B is definitely not a valid excuse!
upvoted 0 times
...
Roslyn
4 months ago
A is a common misconception, encryption doesn't always excuse breach notifications.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beata
5 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Erick
5 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bok
5 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mozell
5 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Latrice
5 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Antonio
5 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vashti
5 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Willard
5 months ago
This question seems straightforward, but I want to make sure I understand the key concepts around breach notification requirements under state law.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cherri
5 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
Allene
6 months 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.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
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!
upvoted 0 times
Micaela
2 years ago
D) If the entity followed internal notification procedures compatible with state law.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bev
2 years ago
C) If the entity was subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lisha
2 years ago
B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rory
2 years ago
A) If the data involved was encrypted.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Weldon
2 years ago
But wouldn't following internal notification procedures be a sufficient condition to excuse breach notification?
upvoted 0 times
...
Johna
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe the answer is D) If the entity followed internal notification procedures compatible with state law.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
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.
upvoted 0 times
Becky
2 years ago
C) If the entity was subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carmen
2 years ago
B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported.
upvoted 0 times
...
Georgene
2 years ago
A) If the data involved was encrypted.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Gerald
2 years ago
I think option A is correct. If the data was encrypted, it wouldn't be a breach, right?
upvoted 0 times
Lakeesha
2 years ago
B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kandis
2 years ago
A) If the data involved was encrypted.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Weldon
2 years ago
I think the answer is C) If the entity was subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel