CIPP-C Exam Dumps - Certified Information Privacy Professional/ Canada (CIPP/C)

Under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Acts (FIPPA), personal information typically includes details that are about an identifiable individual. This can include information about an individual's creditworthiness, employment history, and character references, as these relate directly to the person. However, information about an individual's home business does not generally qualify as personal information under FIPPA because it pertains more to their commercial activities rather than their personal life or identity. Therefore, the correct answer is A, "Information about an individual’s home business."

In addressing emerging AI issues, frameworks that are specific to product safety, copyright, or criminal behavior may provide some indirect governance, but their applicability is limited compared to more direct regulatory mechanisms. Among the options listed, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act is the least effective in addressing AI issues as this act is specifically targeted towards the safety regulations of motor vehicles and is less applicable to broader AI issues that may involve data privacy, ethical considerations, and other non-vehicle-specific technologies. Therefore, while AI can be involved in vehicle safety, this act is less equipped to broadly address emerging AI issues beyond automotive safety standards. Hence, the correct answer is B, "The Motor Vehicle Safety Act."

In 2007, four employees of TELUS Communications Corporation filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in connection with the collection of their urine samples. This case involved concerns about privacy and the appropriateness of collecting biological samples for drug testing purposes. The issue raised questions about the balance between workplace safety and privacy rights, highlighting the sensitivity and potential intrusiveness of collecting such personal information. The complaint underscored the need for clear policies and justifications when sensitive personal data, particularly biometric data, is collected by employers.

The privacy principle intended to ensure that an organization like Vision 3072 verifies that the information they collect is up to date to avoid misinformed actions or decisions is "Accuracy." This principle stipulates that personal information must be as accurate, complete, and up-to-date as necessary for the purposes for which it is to be used. Maintaining the accuracy of personal information is crucial for making informed decisions and providing relevant services, thereby avoiding errors that could result from outdated or incorrect data. This principle is fundamental across various privacy legislation frameworks, including PIPEDA, which mandates that personal information shall be as accurate, complete, and current as is necessary for the purposes for which it is used.

Biometric information is considered sensitive personal information primarily because it possesses characteristics that are uniquely and intrinsically linked to the individual. Biometric data such as fingerprints, facial recognition patterns, and DNA are distinctive, largely unique to the individual, unlikely to change over time, and difficult to alter. This inherent nature of biometric data makes it extremely sensitive, as its misuse or unauthorized access can lead to significant privacy invasions and potentially irreversible harm. Therefore, the correct answer is C.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), express consent is not required when the personal information is publicly available as defined by the regulation. According to the regulations specifying publicly available information under PIPEDA, certain types of information, like that published in directories or records where the individual has provided the information for public dissemination, are excluded from the consent requirement. This provision is aimed at balancing the need for privacy protection with the practicalities of information that has been intentionally made public by the individual or by legal requirement. The other options listed (A, C, D) generally require express consent as they involve uses of personal information that either extend beyond what the individual would reasonably expect, or change the context in which the information was originally collected.

The role of Canadian courts in reviewing decisions made by provincial oversight authorities generally involves examining whether there have been specific types of errors in the decision-making process, such as a misinterpretation of a term in the legislation or application of the law. This judicial review focuses on the legality and reasonableness of the decisions, ensuring that oversight authorities correctly interpret and apply the legislative framework governing privacy and data protection. This review does not extend to re-evaluating all investigative notes or comparing decisions across different provincial authorities, as such tasks are beyond the scope of a typical judicial review process. Therefore, Option C correctly describes the court's role.

Under the Privacy Act, which governs the handling of personal information by federal government institutions, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada does not have the authority to order institutions to take remedial action. The Commissioner's powers are limited to investigating complaints, making recommendations, and, where necessary, taking matters to the Federal Court for resolution. While the Commissioner can recommend solutions and proceed to court to seek orders for compliance, direct enforcement powers, such as ordering remedial actions independently, are not granted under the Privacy Act. Thus, the correct answer is B.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), when an organization transfers personal information to a third party for processing, it remains responsible for that information. It is required to use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while the information is being processed by the third party. The most appropriate answer here is A, establishing a contract outlining the individual outsourcing arrangement. This ensures that the third party adheres to privacy obligations equivalent to those of PIPEDA. This requirement is directly stated in PIPEDA’s accountability principle, which mandates organizations to use contractual or other means to provide a comparable level of protection while information is being processed by a third party.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), when personal information is collected by a Canadian company and shared for purposes other than those for which the customer provided consent originally, additional consent from the customers is required. This is particularly necessary when the information is intended to be used for a new purpose, such as marketing. Therefore, if ABC Corp wishes to send the data sets to a US-based marketing partner for new uses, they must first seek additional consent from their customers, as this involves a new purpose not previously agreed upon by the data subjects. This requirement is fundamental to ensuring compliance with PIPEDA's consent principle, which mandates that consent must be obtained whenever personal information is used for a purpose not previously consented to by the individual.

The federal Privacy Commissioner of Canada is authorized to initiate a court action in Federal Court after completing an investigation under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) if there has been a refusal to comply with a recommendation made by the Commissioner or if there is a need to clarify the application of the Act. Specifically, the Commissioner can seek a Federal Court determination when there is a dispute about whether personal information was properly withheld from release. This function aligns with the Commissioner's mandate to oversee compliance with PIPEDA and address complaints regarding the handling of personal information by organizations. This provision is found under Section 14 of PIPEDA.

Individuals can determine whether their personal information was used by the federal government for data matching by referring to descriptions of the Personal Information Banks (PIBs) available through Info Source. Info Source is a series of publications and an online resource designed to assist individuals in understanding how the government manages personal information. It is managed by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and provides information about the existence, purpose, and use of personal information banks within government institutions. This resource is the most direct and reliable way for individuals to identify how their personal data is handled and if it has been used for data matching purposes.

British Columbia's Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) specifically differentiates between regular personal information and employee-related or work-product information. BC's PIPA applies to all private sector organizations within the province and includes provisions that treat employee personal information somewhat differently than other types of personal information. This act allows for the collection, use, and disclosure of employee personal information without consent when it is reasonable for the purposes of establishing, managing, or terminating an employment relationship. This distinction is significant as it acknowledges the unique nature of employee information in the workplace context, differentiating it from other personal information that typically requires consent for similar activities under more general privacy laws.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), there are specific circumstances where a commercial business in Canada is allowed to collect personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual1. These exceptions include:

• Journalistic or literary purposes (option A): Organizations may collect personal information without consent when it’s for journalistic, artistic, or literary purposes, as these activities are considered to fall under the freedom of expression provisions.
• Interests of the individual (option B): If the collection is clearly in the interests of the individual and consent cannot be obtained in a timely way, for example in emergency situations where the individual’s life, health, or security is threatened.
• Investigative purposes (option D): When the collection with the knowledge of the individual would compromise the availability or accuracy of the information, and the collection is reasonable for purposes related to investigating a breach of an agreement or a contravention of the laws of Canada or a province.

However, option C is not one of the exceptions provided under PIPEDA. The act does not allow for the collection of personal information without consent solely on the basis that the collection would lead to the creation of products that would benefit the public and consent would be difficult to obtain. While public benefit is a consideration in the ethical use of personal information, it does not override the requirement for consent under PIPEDA unless the situation falls under other specific exceptions1.

Therefore, the correct answer is C, as it is the exception that is not permitted under the current framework of PIPEDA for collecting personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual1.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), when transferring personal information to a foreign country, an organization must meet the Act’s transparency requirements by advising customers that their data may be accessed by another jurisdiction's courts or law enforcement. This requirement ensures that individuals are aware of the risks associated with the international transfer of their personal information, including potential access by foreign government entities. This transparency is crucial for maintaining trust and helps individuals make informed decisions about their personal information. This guideline is directly stipulated in the guidance provided by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, emphasizing the importance of informing individuals about the potential legal exposure their data might face in foreign jurisdictions.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and similar provincial privacy laws, there are certain circumstances where the collection of personal information without explicit consent is permitted. One such circumstance is when obtaining timely consent is impractical, and the collection of the information is clearly in the interests of the individual. This could occur in emergency situations where the individual's health or safety is at stake, or where immediate action is required for the individual's benefit, and consent cannot be obtained in a timely manner. Thus, the correct answer is A.

Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), certain types of data are considered particularly sensitive due to the potential for harm if misused or disclosed. This includes information about an individual's physical disability, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religion. Religion, as a category of sensitive information, can reveal deeply personal beliefs and affiliations that, if mishandled, could lead to discrimination or other adverse effects. PIPEDA recognizes that sensitive information requires a higher level of protection and generally mandates that explicit consent is obtained before such information is collected, used, or disclosed.

Under the Privacy Act, government institutions are typically allowed to disclose personal information without the consent of the individual in certain circumstances, such as for law enforcement purposes or in compliance with court orders (e.g., search warrants). Disclosures to a member of parliament to assist in resolving a problem also usually do not require consent if they are for a purpose consistent with the reason the data was initially collected. However, disclosing personal information to a registered charitable organization would not fall under these usual exceptions and would generally require the individual's consent unless another specific exception applies. This ensures that personal information is not shared beyond the scope of its original collection purpose without appropriate authorization.

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.