Pass the IAPP Certified Information Privacy Professional CIPP-C Questions and answers with CertsForce

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.

Under the Privacy Act, a request for access to one’s personal information can be denied in specific circumstances, such as when the information was collected by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) while performing policing services for a province or municipality. This scenario typically involves information collected for law enforcement, investigation, or security purposes, where releasing it might compromise ongoing operations or the methods used in such operations. The Privacy Act includes provisions to deny access when disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the enforcement of laws, the conduct of investigations, or similar matters related to law enforcement and security.

A significant difference between the federal Privacy Commissioner and provincial privacy commissioners in Canada is in their enforcement powers. Provincial privacy commissioners, such as those in Alberta and British Columbia, have the authority to order organizations to take specific actions to comply with provincial privacy laws. This can include orders to stop certain practices or to take corrective measures. In contrast, the federal Privacy Commissioner, overseeing federal statutes like the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), primarily makes recommendations following investigations and must seek court orders to enforce compliance. Thus, the correct answer is A, "Provincial commissioners can order an organization to act."

The Generally Accepted Privacy Principles (GAPP) framework is a principles-based privacy approach advocated by Canada's leading accounting industry group, Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada (CPA Canada), and its U.S.-based counterpart, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The GAPP framework provides a structured guide to managing privacy, aligning privacy policies with standards that ensure compliance and proper handling of personal information. This framework is applicable broadly across various sectors and guides organizations in implementing effective privacy practices that protect consumer data and ensure ethical handling and compliance with applicable privacy laws.

British Columbia's health information privacy laws are encapsulated in the Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) and the E-Health (Personal Health Information Access and Protection of Privacy) Act for electronic health records. Unlike health information privacy acts in some other provinces which cover a wide range of health sector participants, BC’s laws are distinct in not directly including certain types of health facilities like independent laboratories and nursing homes under the same stringent requirements as other health care providers. These facilities may be covered under different aspects of legislation or have specific regulations but are not grouped under the typical health information custodian category in the same way as they are in provinces that use terms like "custodian" extensively. This specificity aligns with the statement in option C.

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.

Pseudonymization is the process where identifiable data is replaced with artificial identifiers or pseudonyms. Unlike anonymization, which irreversibly removes any way of identifying the data subject, pseudonymization allows the possibility of re-identifying the data subject if additional information that is held separately is used. This process is typically used to enhance privacy while still allowing for certain types of data analysis where the exact identity of the individuals is not necessary. Pseudonymization is particularly useful in research and data analysis contexts where data needs to be de-identified to protect subjects' privacy but still linked to other relevant data. Therefore, the correct answer is D.

"Hashing" is preferable to storing a personal identifier, such as a driver’s license number, because it still provides a method for customer identification but in a form that would not reveal the real number. Hashing is a security technique that converts data into a fixed-size string of characters, which is typically a hash code. The hash code represents the original data but does not allow it to be reconstructed or decrypted. In the context of data security, hashing is valuable because it protects sensitive personal identifiers from exposure while still enabling the organization to verify or match the hashed data with incoming hashed inputs for identification purposes.

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:

You can find discussions of the Privacy Commissioner's position on outsourcing in reports and resources on the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) website: https://priv.gc.ca/en/

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.

According to the typical frameworks of voluntary codes of conduct concerning the responsible development and management of advanced generative AI systems, signatories commit to several actions to ensure ethical practices. These usually include contributing to the development and application of AI standards, sharing information and best practices of AI governance, and supporting public awareness and education on AI. However, adopting low-risk uses of AI as a specific commitment is not typically included in these codes. Such codes generally emphasize responsible development and management practices rather than limiting the adoption to low-risk uses, aiming to address broader ethical and governance issues across various applications of AI.