Trusted Worldwide Questions & Answers
IAPP CIPP-E Exam Actual Questions
The questions for CIPP-E were last updated on Oct 2, 2024.
- Viewing page 1 out of 54 pages.
- Viewing questions 1-5 out of 268 questions
Which failing of Privacy Shield, cited by the CJEU as a reason for its invalidation, is the Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework intended to address?
One of the main reasons why the CJEU invalidated the Privacy Shield was that it found that the US surveillance programs were not limited to what is strictly necessary and proportionate, as required by the EU law. The CJEU also criticized the lack of effective judicial remedies for EU data subjects whose data was accessed by US authorities. The Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework is intended to address these issues by introducing new safeguards to ensure that signals intelligence activities are necessary and proportionate in the pursuit of defined national security objectives, and by creating a new mechanism for EU individuals to seek redress if they believe they are unlawfully targeted by signals intelligence activities. The Framework also enhances the oversight and transparency of US surveillance practices.
Pursuant to the EDPB Guidelines 8/2022, all of the following criteria must be considered when identifying a lead supervisory authority of a controller EXCEPT?
According to the EDPB Guidelines 8/2022, the lead supervisory authority of a controller is the supervisory authority of the main or single establishment of the controller in the EEA. The main establishment is the place where the controller has its place of central administration in the EEA, unless decisions on the purposes and means of the processing are taken in another establishment in the EEA, and that establishment has the power to implement those decisions. The controller must be able to demonstrate that such an establishment exists. The supervisory authority of the main establishment is the lead supervisory authority, regardless of what the controller has identified as the authority to which data subjects can lodge complaints. Therefore, criterion C is not relevant for identifying the lead supervisory authority of a controller.
SCENARIO
Please use the following to answer the next question:
ProStorage is a multinational cloud storage provider headquartered in the Netherlands. Its CEO. Ruth Brown, has developed a two-pronged strategy for growth: 1) expand ProStorage s global customer base and 2) increase ProStorage's sales force by efficiently onboarding effective teams. Enacting this strategy has recently been complicated by Ruth's health condition, which has limited her working hours, as well as her ability to travel to meet potential customers. ProStorage's Human Resources department and Ruth's Chief of Staff now work together to manage her schedule and ensure that she is able to make all her medical appointments The latter has become especially crucial after Ruth's last trip to India, where she suffered a medical emergency and was hospitalized m New Delhi Unable to reach Ruths family, the hospital reached out to ProStorage and was able to connect with her Chief of Staff, who in coordination with Mary, the head of HR. provided information to the doctors based on accommodate on requests Ruth made when she started a: ProStorage
In support of Ruth's strategic goals of hiring more sales representatives, the Human
Resources team is focused on improving its processes to ensure that new
employees are sourced, interviewed, hired, and onboarded efficiently. To help with
this, Mary identified two vendors, HRYourWay, a German based company, and
InstaHR, an Australian based company. She decided to have both vendors go
through ProStorage's vendor risk review process so she can work with Ruth to
make the final decision. As part of the review process, Jackie, who is responsible
for maintaining ProStorage's privacy program (including maintaining controller
BCRs and conducting vendor risk assessments), reviewed both vendors but
completed a transfer impact assessment only for InstaHR. After her review of both
boasted a more established privacy program and provided third-party attestations,
whereas HRYourWay was a small vendor with minimal data protection operations.
Thus, she recommended InstaHR.
ProStorage's marketing team also worked to meet the strategic goals of the
company by focusing on industries where it needed to grow its market share. To
help with this, the team selected as a partner UpFinance, a US based company
with deep connections to financial industry customers. During ProStorage's
diligence process, Jackie from the privacy team noted in the transfer impact
assessment that UpFinance implements several data protection measures
including end-to-end encryption, with encryption keys held by the customer.
Notably, UpFinance has not received any government requests in its 7 years of
business. Still, Jackie recommended that the contract require UpFinance to notify
ProStorage if it receives a government request for personal data UpFinance
processes on its behalf prior to disclosing such data.
What transfer mechanism did ProStorage most likely rely on to transfer Ruth's
medical information to the hospital?
According to the GDPR, one of the legal bases for transferring personal data to a third country or an international organization is when the transfer is necessary for the protection of the vital interests of the data subject or of another person, where the data subject is physically or legally incapable of giving consent (Article 49(1)). This exception applies only in very limited and exceptional situations, such as life-threatening medical emergencies. In this scenario, ProStorage most likely relied on this legal basis to transfer Ruth's medical information to the hospital in India, where she suffered a medical emergency and was hospitalized. Ruth was presumably unable to give her consent due to her health condition, and the transfer of her medical information was necessary to protect her vital interests, such as her life or health. Therefore, this transfer mechanism was more appropriate than the other options, which either require consent or are not relevant to the situation.
Which of the following elements does NOT need to be presented to a data subject in order to collect valid consent for the use of cookies?
According to the EDPB Guidelines 05/2020 on consent under Regulation 2016/6791, valid consent for the use of cookies must meet the following conditions:
* It must be freely given, which means that the data subject must have a genuine choice and the ability to refuse or withdraw consent without detriment.
* It must be specific, which means that the data subject must give consent for each distinct purpose of the processing and for each type of cookie.
* It must be informed, which means that the data subject must receive clear and comprehensive information about the identity of the controller, the purposes of the processing, the types of cookies used, the duration of the cookies, and the possibility of withdrawing consent.
* It must be unambiguous, which means that the data subject must express their consent by a clear affirmative action, such as clicking on an ''I agree'' button or selecting specific settings in a cookie banner.
* It must be granular, which means that the data subject must be able to consent to different types of cookies separately, such as essential, functional, performance, or marketing cookies.
Therefore, a ''Cookies Settings'' button is not a necessary element to collect valid consent for the use of cookies, as long as the data subject can exercise their choice and preference through other means, such as a cookie banner with different options. However, a ''Cookies Settings'' button may be a good practice to enhance transparency and user control, as it allows the data subject to access and modify their consent settings at any time.
On the other hand, a ''Reject All'' cookies button is a necessary element to collect valid consent for the use of cookies, as it ensures that the data subject can freely refuse consent without detriment. A list of cookies that may be placed and information on the purpose of the cookies are also necessary elements to collect valid consent for the use of cookies, as they ensure that the data subject is informed and can give specific consent for each type of cookie.
Since blockchain transactions are classified as pseudonymous, are they considered to be within the material scope of the GDPR, or outside of it?
According to the GDPR, the material scope of the regulation covers the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automated means, or by non-automated means if the data forms part of a filing system or is intended to form part of a filing system (Article 2(1)). Personal data is defined as any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (data subject) (Article 4(1)). An identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person (Article 4(1)). Therefore, pseudonymous data, such as blockchain transactions that use public keys or other identifiers, may still fall within the definition of personal data if the data subject can be identified or re-identified by using additional information or means (Recital 26).
The GDPR also applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the European Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the European Union or not (Article 3(1)). The GDPR also applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the European Union by a controller or processor not established in the European Union, where the processing activities are related to the offering of goods or services to such data subjects in the European Union or the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the European Union (Article 3(2)). Therefore, the territorial scope of the GDPR covers both controllers and processors established in the European Union, and controllers and processors not established in the European Union but targeting or monitoring data subjects in the European Union.
In this scenario, blockchain transactions are classified as pseudonymous data, which may still be considered as personal data under the GDPR if the data subjects can be identified or re-identified. Therefore, such transactions are within the material scope of the GDPR, as they involve the processing of personal data by automated means. However, the GDPR only applies to such transactions to the extent that they include data subjects in the European Union, either by having a controller or processor established in the European Union, or by offering goods or services to or monitoring the behaviour of such data subjects. Therefore, the answer is C.
Unlock All Questions for IAPP CIPP-E Exam
Full Exam Access, Actual Exam Questions, Validated Answers, Anytime Anywhere, No Download Limits, No Practice Limits
Get All 268 Questions & Answers