Cyber Monday 2024! 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 PL
Mob_nav_barsMENU

IAPP Exam CIPP-US Topic 7 Question 69 Discussion

Actual exam question for IAPP's CIPP-US exam
Question #: 69
Topic #: 7
[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 Gladys at Sep 16, 2024, 07:48 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Angella
2 months ago
Wait, is this a cybersecurity exam or a comedy show? I'm getting mixed signals here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashaun
2 months ago
Haha, I bet the exam writers tried to trick us with that one. Encryption is the way to go, folks!
upvoted 0 times
...
Jacklyn
2 months ago
A has to be the answer. Encryption should be a valid exemption from breach notification.
upvoted 0 times
...
Royal
2 months ago
I'm going with D. If the entity followed their own notification procedures, that should be good enough to avoid state law requirements.
upvoted 0 times
Daren
19 days ago
C) If the entity was subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deonna
23 days ago
B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported.
upvoted 0 times
...
Arleen
1 months ago
A) If the data involved was encrypted.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Frederica
2 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure. C seems like a reasonable exemption if the entity is already subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.
upvoted 0 times
Charisse
1 months ago
D) If the entity followed internal notification procedures compatible with state law.
upvoted 0 times
...
Noah
1 months ago
C) If the entity was subject to the GLBA Safeguards Rule.
upvoted 0 times
...
Arleen
1 months ago
B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nickole
2 months ago
A) If the data involved was encrypted.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Wynell
3 months ago
But wouldn't following internal notification procedures be a sufficient excuse from providing breach notification under state law?
upvoted 0 times
...
Bette
3 months ago
I think the answer is B. If the data was accessed but not exported, that should still require breach notification, right?
upvoted 0 times
Lauran
2 months ago
B) If the data involved was accessed but not exported.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jettie
3 months ago
A) If the data involved was encrypted.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Felicia
3 months ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is D) If the entity followed internal notification procedures compatible with state law.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wynell
3 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