CVS Caremark | FTC proposed consent agreement — The World Privacy Forum filed comments with the Federal Trade Commission in response to its proposed consent agreement with the CVS Caremark pharmacy chain. The proposed agreement is in resonse to a CVS data breach. The agreement does not impose a monetary penalty on CVS, and does not provide remedies for consumers affected by the data breach.
The World Privacy Forum filed comments with the Federal Trade Commission in response to its proposed consent agreement with the CVS Caremark pharmacy chain. The proposed agreement is in resonse to a CVS data breach. The agreement does not impose a monetary penalty on CVS, and does not provide remedies for consumers affected by the data breach. The World Privacy Forum urged the FTC to reconsider the agreement.
On January 14, 2009, the DMV issued a Section 11 (2008 Budget Act) letter to the Legislature stating its intent to change the terms of its driver license and id card contract – including the use of biometric systems including facial recognition scans and biometric thumbprints on people seeking driver’s licenses and ID cards. Unless the Joint Legislative Budget Committee objects within 30 days, the contract with the vendor will take effect.
School privacy | FERPA — In May 2008 the World Privacy Forum submitted detailed comments on proposed changes to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act regulations (FERPA). The FERPA regulations are the rules that control how schools treat and release student information. The final FERPA regulations have now been published and reveal that the World Privacy Forum comments had a positive impact. The new regulations agreed with WPF’s comment that if a school requests a Federal tax return from a parent, that the parent has the right to redact all financial information from the form, and affirmed that the school does not have a requirement to ask for the tax form in the first place. The regulations also agreed with the WPF comment that the risk of re-identification of published student information is cumulative, and made recommendations that educational institutions take into account all releases of student information it has made, not just new releases.
In response to a Request for Information (RFI) from U.S. federal agencies regarding the recently passed GINA (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act), the World Privacy Forum filed a detailed response with suggestions on what aspects of GINA need clarification. The comments focus on a number of privacy issues the RFI raised, including model privacy notices and the issue of what the GINA statute calls “incidental collection” of genetic information. Currently, GINA states that some kinds of information are exempted from being considered as regulated for medical underwriting purposes. For example, medical information gleaned about patients for underwriting purposes from medical databases is regulated. But medical information gleaned about patients for underwriting purposes from, for example, marketing lists containing robust patient information may be unregulated if the law is not clarified in the regulatory process. The World Privacy Forum urged HHS and the Department of Labor to substantially clarify what constitutes “incidental collection,” and urged the agencies to consider lists containing identifiable patient information to be considered in the same category as a “medical database.”