Sentences with phrase «privacy act because»

LERIS is a system of records subject to the Privacy Act because it is searched by Name.

CCM is a system of records subject to the Privacy Act because it is searched by name or other unique identifier.

Payroll Labor Distribution System contains information that is part of a System of Records subject to the Privacy Act because it is searched by an individual's social security number.

LAACS is a system of records subject to the Privacy Act because it is searched by a unique identifier.

CETS is a system of records subject to the Privacy Act because it may be searched by an individual's unique identifier.

PRISM is a system of records subject to the Privacy Act because it is searched by Vendor Number and Taxpayer ID Number, which could possibly be an individual's social security number.

The information contained in Web Printing is subject to the Privacy Act because it is routinely searched by an individual's name or other unique identifier.

DTF is not a system of records subject to the Privacy Act because it is not designed to be searched by name, SSN, address, phone number, or any other personally identifiable field.

Not exact matches

Because we value your privacy, we have taken the necessary precautions to be in compliance with the California Online Privacy Protectiprivacy, we have taken the necessary precautions to be in compliance with the California Online Privacy ProtectiPrivacy Protection Act.

If you choose to opt out at any time after granting approval, email [email protected] Because we value your privacy, we have taken the necessary precautions to be in compliance with the California Online Privacy Protectiprivacy, we have taken the necessary precautions to be in compliance with the California Online Privacy ProtectiPrivacy Protection Act.

For the first time since the Sex Offender Registry Act took effect in January 1996, some individuals often viewed as untouchables are getting back some of their privacy because they're aging off the list.

The Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act, passed in 1974, is widely seen as outdated because of its limited definition of a «student record» in a world where states, educational service vendors, and others are gathering new and diverse types of data about students.

Because the LAN is not a system of records for purposes of the Privacy Act, a SORN is not required to be published.

RMS contains information that is part of two existing systems of records subject to the Privacy Act, because it is searched by an individual's name and unique identifiers.

PACS and ARFSS is a system of records subject to the Privacy Act, because it is routinely searched by name.

Because MCMIS is the source for information stored in CoTs DOT LAN, notice is provided to individuals through the Privacy Act System of Records Notice (SORN) for MCMIS (DOT / FMCSA 001).

DATMIS contains information that is part of existing System of Records subject to the Privacy Act, because it is searched by an individual's SSN, Name, and Specimen ID number.

Because the VCDR will not be a system of records for purposes of the Privacy Act, a SORN is not required to be published.

ENS is not a system of records subject to the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552a, because records are not normally retrieved by name or unique ID of an individual.

Because the CARS Database System contains PII that is retrieved by personal identifier (e.g., by an individual car buyer / lessee's State ID number or, in the case of electronic consumer complaint files, by car buyer / lessee's name or telephone number), it is a system of records subject to the Privacy Act.

IComplaints is a Privacy Act system of records (SOR), because it is searched by an individual's name and last four digits of his or her social security number.

OWCP contains information that is part of existing System of Records subject to the Privacy Act, because it is searched by an individual Name.

The FAA developed the UASME Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) pursuant to Section 208 of the E-Government Act of 2002 because the DZ back - end applications require sUAS owners or operators to provide personally identifiable information (PII).

ESS contains information that is part of existing System of Records subject to the Privacy Act, because it is searched by an individual's name, position and phone number.

The FAA previously published a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) in accordance with the E-Govemment Act of 2002, because the Aircraft Registiy records contain personally identifiable information on individuals registering aircraft - see Airmen / Aircraft registry Modemization System.

JITS does not contain information that is part of existing System of Records subject to the Privacy Act, because its records are searched only by Name.

DIMS contains information that is part of existing System of Records subject to the Privacy Act, because it is searched by an individual's name.

Because data is stored in the cloud, Nimble complies with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) privacy regulations, according to ClearPractice.

Because of this, we will make all efforts to comply with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA).

Yesterday the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the Ontario Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act violates section 2 (b) of the Charter because it goes too far to protect the privacy of parties, witnesses and others in matters heard by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, Onta... morePrivacy Act violates section 2 (b) of the Charter because it goes too far to protect the privacy of parties, witnesses and others in matters heard by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, Onta... moreprivacy of parties, witnesses and others in matters heard by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, Onta... more»

Much uncertainty currently exists because: it is commercial companies (rather than the state) operating technologies that are potentially invasive; this data can sometimes be generated and distributed from another country — making it harder for an individual to protect their privacy rights; and the application and adequacy of search warrant laws like the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

There, the FTC argued that because lawyers engage in «financial transactions» and provide «financial services,» they were «financial institutions» and could be subject to the privacy provisions of the Act.

SIU reports are generally not made public because, among other things, they contain information protected under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act («FIPPA»).

In the meantime in the UK, the 2014 Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act was challenged before the High Court of Justice of England and Wales and declared invalid on 17 July 2015, because the data retention regime did not provide for adequate safeguards in order to protect the right to privacy and the right to protection of personal data laid down in the Charter.

While most of the Digital Privacy Act took effect in June 2015, the breach notification sections still aren't in effect because they depend on regulations that the government hasn't yet released.

The union grieved the termination and made an application in advance of the arbitration that the internet investigative report is excluded as inadmissible because it infringed the employee's privacy and was in violation of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act («FIPPA&rprivacy and was in violation of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act («FIPPA&rPrivacy Act («FIPPA»).

Some may recall the aftermath of the south Asian tsunami where the federal government said they couldn't name victims or survivors because of the Privacy Act.

It may be argued that the common law tort should not be recognized in B.C. because of the operation of the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection Act.

11 Mr. Borowski further submits that the reports should be excluded because Aviva breached the provisions of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, 2000 (the PIPED Act) and its own Privacy Policy by sending his medical records to Brigham & Associates.

As to the other arguments, the Divisional Court agreed with the Secretary of State that it should not make any reference to the CJEU, either because the challenged aspect of the 2016 Act is compatible with EU law, or because it was already being dealt with by a separate preliminary reference to the CJEU made by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in Privacy International on 8 September 2017.

PIAC argued children's privacy is not protected under PIPEDA because the Act lacks specific requirements.

Similarly, in the recent B.C. privacy class action against Facebook, Douez v. Facebook, Inc., the court rejected that Seidel applied because of the lack of any forum selection clauses in the Privaprivacy class action against Facebook, Douez v. Facebook, Inc., the court rejected that Seidel applied because of the lack of any forum selection clauses in the PrivacyPrivacy Act.

About a year ago, I learned that the U.S. was considered «high risk» on privacy and security by the international community because of the Patriot Act.

Chitrakar v. Bell TV Damages — Exemplary or punitive damages — Violation of privacy Chitrakar applied for relief against Bell TV under s. 14 (1) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), because Bell TV ordered a credit report without his consent.

The Court dismissed ICBC's argument that the Privacy Act only contemplates direct liability because its statutory tort rests on wilful misconduct.

The Transparent Ratings on Usability and Security to Transform Information Technology Act (or TRUST IT Act, because acronyms) is looking to put punishments in place if medical information is being blocked when there isn't a privacy or security reason for doing so.

California Online Privacy Protection Act Compliance Because we value your privacy we have taken the necessary precautions to be in compliance with the California Online Privacy ProtectiPrivacy Protection Act Compliance Because we value your privacy we have taken the necessary precautions to be in compliance with the California Online Privacy Protectiprivacy we have taken the necessary precautions to be in compliance with the California Online Privacy ProtectiPrivacy Protection Act.

Because we value your privacy we have taken the necessary precautions to be in compliance with the California Online Privacy Protectiprivacy we have taken the necessary precautions to be in compliance with the California Online Privacy ProtectiPrivacy Protection Act.

Formerly, voice apps targeting children were prohibited on both the Alexa and Google Assistant platforms because they could not comply to federal regulations associated with the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

Because of the many ban the box, privacy and employment laws, employers are doing a «balancing act» when it comes to their hiring processes.