Independence Day Deal! Unlock 25% OFF Today – Limited-Time Offer - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

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

IAPP Exam CIPP-US 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:

Submit Cancel
Lorean
11 months 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
11 months 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
10 months ago
D) If the entity followed internal notification procedures compatible with state law.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bev
10 months ago
C) If the entity was subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lisha
10 months ago
B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rory
10 months ago
A) If the data involved was encrypted.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Weldon
11 months ago
But wouldn't following internal notification procedures be a sufficient condition to excuse breach notification?
upvoted 0 times
...
Johna
11 months ago
I disagree, I believe the answer is D) If the entity followed internal notification procedures compatible with state law.
upvoted 0 times
...
Galen
11 months 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
11 months 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
11 months 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
11 months ago
C) If the entity was subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carmen
11 months ago
B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported.
upvoted 0 times
...
Georgene
11 months ago
A) If the data involved was encrypted.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Gerald
11 months ago
I think option A is correct. If the data was encrypted, it wouldn't be a breach, right?
upvoted 0 times
Lakeesha
11 months ago
B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kandis
11 months ago
A) If the data involved was encrypted.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Weldon
12 months ago
I think the answer is C) If the entity was subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77