Review The Below Case Study On Sharing Concerns ✓ Solved

Review the below case study on issues related to sharing con

Review the below case study on issues related to sharing consumers’ confidential information. 1. What is EFF’s mission statement? 2. Explain in detail, privacy issues related to the case study. 3. Identify the U.S. citizen privacy law violations in the case study and the implications of those violations have on privacy and confidential information.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction

This paper addresses three specific tasks derived from a case study on sharing consumers’ confidential information: (1) state the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) mission statement; (2) explain in detail the privacy issues evident in the case study; and (3) identify likely U.S. privacy law violations and discuss their implications for privacy and confidential information. Because the case study concerns sharing consumers’ confidential information, analysis focuses on consent, notice, data security, third-party disclosure, and applicable statutory protections in U.S. law (Electronic Frontier Foundation, n.d.; Solove, 2006).

1. EFF’s Mission Statement

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) states that it is a nonprofit organization dedicated to defending civil liberties in the digital world. EFF’s work focuses on defending free expression, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights online (Electronic Frontier Foundation, n.d.). This mission frames advocacy against unauthorized disclosure and misuse of consumer data and supports remedies, transparency, and policy reform where digital privacy is at risk.

2. Detailed Privacy Issues Related to the Case Study

Although the case study text is not reproduced here, common privacy issues that arise when consumer confidential information is shared include:

  • Lack of informed consent and notice: Consumers often are not adequately informed about what data are collected, how they will be used, and with whom data will be shared. This violates principles of transparency and informed consent and can lead to unauthorized secondary uses of data (Nissenbaum, 2004).
  • Unauthorized third-party disclosure: Sharing data with vendors, advertisers, analytics firms, or overseas partners without appropriate contractual safeguards or consumer consent increases risk of misuse and re-identification of anonymized records (Solove, 2006).
  • Insufficient data minimization and retention: Retaining more data than necessary or collecting irrelevant data increases exposure from breaches and misuse (FTC, 2012).
  • Security vulnerabilities and breaches: Poor technical protections (weak encryption, inadequate access controls) make shared data susceptible to breaches, identity theft, and downstream harm (Romanosky, 2016).
  • Secondary use and profiling: Using consumer data to build detailed profiles for targeted advertising, credit decisions, or risk scoring without clear opt-in consent raises ethical and legal concerns about fairness and autonomy (Solove, 2006).
  • Cross-jurisdictional transfers: Transferring consumer data internationally may weaken protections and complicate regulatory oversight when foreign controllers are involved (CCPA; GDPR discussions inform context even if non-U.S. law) (CCPA, 2018).
  • Children’s data issues: If the shared information involves minors, regulations such as COPPA strictly limit collection and disclosure without verifiable parental consent (U.S. Congress, 1998).

Collectively, these issues undermine the contextual integrity of consumer data flows: information shared in one context is inappropriately used in another without consent, damaging trust and increasing risk for harm (Nissenbaum, 2004).

3. U.S. Privacy Law Violations and Implications

Depending on the facts of the case study, several U.S. federal and state laws could be implicated when consumer confidential information is improperly shared:

  • Federal Trade Commission Act (unfair or deceptive practices): The FTC can act when businesses misrepresent privacy practices or fail to follow publicly stated privacy policies. Deceptive disclosures or omissions regarding sharing could trigger enforcement (FTC, 2012).
  • Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA): Financial institutions that share customers’ nonpublic personal information without proper notice and opt-out may violate GLBA privacy and safeguard rules (Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, 1999).
  • Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA): If the data involve protected health information and a covered entity or business associate improperly shares data, HIPAA privacy and security rules would be violated (HHS, 2013).
  • Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) / Stored Communications Act (SCA): Unauthorized access to certain electronic communications or improper disclosure by service providers may violate ECPA/SCA provisions (U.S. Department of Justice, 2018).
  • Privacy Act of 1974: Federal agencies that disclose personally identifiable information from their systems without statutory authority or consent may violate the Privacy Act (U.S. Congress, 1974).
  • California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) / CPRA: For businesses subject to California law, selling or sharing personal information without required notice or opt-out options could breach statutory obligations and trigger civil penalties (CCPA, 2018).
  • COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act): If children’s personal information is shared without verifiable parental consent, COPPA violations occur (U.S. Congress, 1998).

Implications of these violations are multi-faceted. Legally, entities may face regulatory enforcement actions, monetary fines, mandated audits, corrective orders, and civil litigation from affected consumers (FTC, 2019). Operationally, organizations suffer reputational damage, customer attrition, and increased compliance costs to remediate practices (Romanosky, 2016). On an individual level, improperly shared confidential information increases the risk of identity theft, financial loss, discrimination, and emotional distress for consumers (Solove, 2006).

Beyond immediate harms, systemic sharing of consumer data without adequate safeguards can chill free expression and consumer willingness to engage in online services. The EFF’s mission to defend civil liberties in the digital sphere underscores broader social harms when privacy norms and legal protections are circumvented (Electronic Frontier Foundation, n.d.).

Recommendations

To address the violations and mitigate harms, organizations should implement the following measures: (1) provide clear, conspicuous notices and obtain informed consent for data sharing; (2) adopt data minimization and purpose limitation; (3) implement robust technical and organizational security measures (encryption, access controls, logging); (4) use contractual safeguards with third parties; (5) conduct privacy impact assessments; and (6) provide meaningful opt-out mechanisms and user controls consistent with CCPA/CPRA and other applicable laws (FTC, 2012; HHS, 2013).

Conclusion

Sharing consumers’ confidential information without proper notice, consent, or safeguards raises significant privacy issues and can violate multiple U.S. laws depending on the context and data types involved. The EFF’s mission highlights the civil-liberty dimension of these practices. Organizations must align data practices with legal obligations and privacy-by-design principles to protect consumers and reduce legal and reputational risk.

References

  • Electronic Frontier Foundation. (n.d.). About EFF. https://www.eff.org/about
  • Federal Trade Commission. (2012). Protecting consumer privacy in an era of rapid change: Recommendations for businesses and policymakers. https://www.ftc.gov/privacy
  • Federal Trade Commission. (2019). FTC privacy and data security update. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2013). Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html
  • U.S. Department of Justice. (2018). Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) overview. https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ccips/ecpa-overview
  • U.S. Congress. (1974). Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/privacy-act-1974
  • Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801–6809 (1999). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/pdf/USCODE-2011-title15-chap94.pdf
  • California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). (2018). California Civil Code §§ 1798.100–1798.199. https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa
  • Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–158. https://www.washingtonlawreview.org
  • Solove, D. J. (2006). A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3), 477–564. https://www.pennlawreview.com
  • Romanosky, S. (2016). Examining the costs of data breaches. Journal of Cybersecurity, 2(2), 121–135. https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity

Related Assignments