Red Flag Rule: Background

Report home | Read the report (PDF) | Previous section | Next section

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) as amended in 2003 requires the Federal Trade Commission and bank regulatory agencies to issue joint regulations and guidelines regarding the detection, prevention, and mitigation of identity theft. The requirement includes special regulations directing debit and credit card issuers to validate notifications of changes of address under certain circumstances. 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(e). Another FCRA amendment calls for additional joint regulations offering guidance regarding reasonable policies and procedures that a user of a consumer report (e.g., a credit grantor) should employ when the user receives a Notice of Address Discrepancy. 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(h).

These Red Flag and Address Discrepancy regulations were published in final form on November 9, 2007, 72 Fed. Reg. 63718 (Nov. 9, 2007). They are separate regulations. The mandatory compliance date for both rules is November 1, 2008, but the FTC delayed enforcement of its Red Flag rule until November 1, 2009. [4] Although six agencies issued common regulations, the regulations that will affect health care providers are those from the Federal Trade Commission. 16 C.F.R. Part 681. The Federal Trade Commission will also be the agency that enforces the rule for the health care sector.

___________________________

Endnotes

[4] See <http://ftc.gov/opa/2009/07/redflag.shtm>.

Roadmap: Red Flag and Address Discrepancy Requirements – Suggestions for Health Care Providers: I. Background

Report home | Read the report (PDF) | Previous section | Next section

Posted September 25, 2009 in Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Health Privacy, Red Flag Rule, Uncategorized

New Report: Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools

We are pleased to announce the publication of a new WPF report, “Risky Analysis: Assessing and Improving AI Governance Tools.” This report sets out a definition of AI governance tools, documents why and how these tools are critically important for trustworthy AI, and where these tools are around the world. The report also documents problems in some AI governance tools themselves, and suggests pathways to improve AI governance tools and create an evaluative environment to measure their effectiveness. AI systems should not be deployed without simultaneously evaluating the potential adverse impacts of such systems and mitigating their risks, and most of the world agrees about the need to take precautions against the threats posed. The specific tools and techniques that exist to evaluate and measure AI systems for their inclusiveness, fairness, explainability, privacy, safety and other trustworthiness issues — called in the report collectively AI governance tools – can improve such issues. While some AI governance tools provide reassurance to the public and to regulators, the tools too often lack meaningful oversight and quality assessments. Incomplete or ineffective AI governance tools can create a false sense of confidence, cause unintended problems, and generally undermine the promise of AI systems. The report contains rich background details, use cases, potential solutions to the problems discussed in the report, and a global index of AI Governance Tools.
National IDs Around the World — Interactive map

About this Data Visualization: This interactive map displays the presence...
Report: From the Filing Cabinet to the Cloud: Updating the Privacy Act of 1974

This comprehensive report and proposed bill text is focused on the Privacy Act of 1974, an important and early Federal privacy law that applies to the government sector and some contractors. The Privacy Act was written for the 1970s information era -- an era that was characterized by the use of mainframe computers and filing cabinets. Today's digital information era looks much different than the '70s: smart phones are smarter than the old mainframes, and documents are now routinely digitized and stored and perhaps even analyzed in the cloud, among many other changes. The report focuses on why the Privacy Act needs an update that will bring it into this century, and how that could look and work. This work was written by Robert Gellman, and informed by a two-year multi-stakeholder process.