Public Comments

World Privacy Forum files comments on proposed genetic discrimination regulations

Genetic Privacy | GINA -- The World Privacy Forum filed comments on the proposed regulations on the Genetic Information NonDiscrimination Act, or GINA. The comments request that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission close down several potential loopholes in consumer protection in the proposed regulations. The Forum specifically asked the EEOC to consider curtailing the amount of commercially available information employers could access about employees, for example, through marketing databases. WPF also requested that those covered under GINA be required to maintain audit trails in certain circumstances, and urged that wellness programs be structured in such a way so as to prevent information leakage through billing and other activities.

Public Comments: April 2009 – Request for declaration regarding fairness of opt-out methods and investigation into Acxiom, US Search, PublicRecordsNow, and USA People Search consumer opt-out methods

The Commission has laid down specific examples of what constitutes unreasonable opt- out procedures, particularly in its Affiliate Marketing Rule, which describes three distinct types of opt-out methods the Commission considers to be unreasonable. Some companies are ignoring the standards the Commission has set, and are requiring consumers whom they have notified online of an opt-out opportunity to then use paper and postal mail processes to accomplish the opt out.

World Privacy Forum asks FTC to reconsider proposed consent agreement with CVS

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.

Public Comments: March 2009 - Comments on the Proposed Consent Agreement with CVS / Caremark

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.

Public Comments: February 2009 - DMV proposes a major policy shift to biometric systems

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.

New privacy rules for schools released; World Privacy Forum comments had positive impact for student and parent privacy

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.

Public Comments: December 2008 - GINA – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

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."

Public Comments: September 2008 - World Privacy Forum urges more attention to the protection of research study participants

Human Subjects Research Protection (OHRP) -- The World Privacy Forum filed comments with the Office of Human Research Protection urging the office to do more to protect the privacy of people who are subjects of research. The comments urge the OHRP to focus more attention on providing privacy-specific training for boards overseeing research, which are often weak in knowledge about the breadth of privacy issues in research. The WPF also voiced its strong support for certificates of confidentiality for research involving human subjects, stating that "nearly all research that involves identifiable health data or other personal data about individuals should have a certificate of confidentiality unless a researcher can state a substantive reason why a certificate is not appropriate for the study."

Public Comments: August 2008 - Border Crossing Information, System of Records Notice, DHS-2007-0040

The World Privacy Forum filed comments regarding DHS's proposed Border Crossing Information system of records, finding that many of the Routine Uses proposed for the system were impermissible and illegal under the Privacy Act of 1974. The comments focus on the Routine Uses, rather than the system itself.

Public Comments: May 2008 - Proposed changes to FERPA don't protect student and parent privacy

FERPA comments: WPF is concerned about the U.S. Department of Education's proposed changes to its FERPA regulations, FERPA standing for the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. FERPA is a significant regulation that controls how students' school records and "directory" information may be shared. The proposed regulations have one item the WPF is supporting, which is that SSNs are not considered part of the directory information. However, other aspects of the proposed regulation still need work to adequately protect students' and parents' privacy interests. The WPF commented in particular that schools should not be allowed to request and then store a full tax refund from parents in order to prove students' eligibility. The Forum also requested that students' electronic identifiers are not included in the definition of directory information. One area of substantial concern is that the Department of Education has not expressly provided that students who opt-out of having their directory information shared should not be penalized for opting out. Currently, the proposed regulations may be read to suggest that schools may be able to deny benefits, services, or even required activities to students who have exercised the right to opt-out of the publication of directory information..

Public Comments: April 2008 - WPF files comments on behaviorally targeted ads online; requests separate rulemaking for sensitive medical information

The World Privacy Forum filed comments in response to the Federal Trade Commission's proposed self-regulatory guidelines for companies targeting online advertising to consumers based on consumer behaviors. The WPF requested a separate, formal rulemaking process for determining how sensitive medical information should be handled online regarding behaviorally targeted advertisements. The WPF also discussed genetic data and requests for genetic tests, and noted that genetic information should be included in any definition of sensitive medical information. The WPF reiterated that the definition of personally identifiable information should include IP address, and encouraged the FTC to work from a rights-based approach regarding online advertising. The WPF also urged the FTC to include all fair information practices in any self-regulatory regime, and to enforce the regime directly.

World Privacy Forum files comments on proposed rules regarding Patient Safety Organizations

Patient Safety Organizations | Proposed rulemaking -- The World Privacy Forum filed extensive comments today regarding privacy protections for patients whose health care information will be shared with patient safety safety organizations under newly proposed Department of Health and Human Services regulations. After a landmark Institute of Medicine report on the prevalence of medical errors and their harmful impact on patients (To Err is Human), the U.S. Congress eventually passed the Patient Safety Act (2005). The Patient Safety Act allows extensive health care data of patients to go to patient safety organizations. The idea is to provide a form of quality control. The Agency for Heathcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), part of HHS, has published its proposed regulations implementing the Act. The World Privacy Forum has made 14 recommendations for substantive changes in the proposed rules to protect patient privacy. The World Privacy Forum asked the Agency to expressly mandate that all patient data be de-identified or anonymized to the greatest extent possible, that the proposed rule should expressly require data use agreements for any data sharing, that the patient information be labeled as subject to the Patient Safety Act, and strongly urged that patient safety organizations be required to maintain an accounting of disclosures at least equal to HIPAA, among other recommendations.

Public Comments: April 2008 WPF files comments on proposed rules regarding Patient Safety Organizations

The World Privacy Forum filed extensive comments today regarding privacy protections for patients whose health care information will be shared with patient safety safety organizations under newly proposed Department of Health and Human Services regulations. After a landmark Institute of Medicine report on the prevalence of medical errors and their harmful impact on patients (To Err is Human), the U.S. Congress eventually passed the Patient Safety Act (2005). The Patient Safety Act allows extensive health care data of patients to go to patient safety organizations. The idea is to provide a form of quality control. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), part of HHS, has published its proposed regulations implementing the Act. The World Privacy Forum has made 14 recommendations for substantive changes in the proposed rules to protect patient privacy. The World Privacy Forum asked the Agency to expressly mandate that all patient data be de-identified or anonymized to the greatest extent possible, that the proposed rule should expressly require data use agreements for any data sharing, that the patient information be labeled as subject to the Patient Safety Act, and strongly urged that patient safety organizations be required to maintain an accounting of disclosures at least equal to HIPAA, among other recommendations.

Public Comments: April 2008 - Freedom of Information Act Request; NHIN Cooperative Workgroups

Disclosure of the requested information to our organization is in the public interest because it will contribute significantly to public understanding of the NHIN Cooperative and its workgroups. The subject of the requested information will directly illuminate government activities for which information is unavailable otherwise. As far as we can tell, information regarding the NHIN Cooperative Workgroups, a topic of vital public interest, have not been made generally available to the public.

Public Comments: February 2008 - WPF, NCLC, and Consumer's Union file extensive comments regarding accuracy of credit reports

The NCLC, Consumer's Union, and the World Privacy Forum filed extensive joint comments today regarding the proposed rulemaking, Procedures to Enhance the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies under Section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The results of the proposed rulemaking will have a significant impact on how the accuracy of credit reports is defined for consumers, and will have a substantive influence over how consumers may handle credit report disputes directly with those who furnish information for the reports.

Public Comments: December 2007 – Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society (SACGHS) regarding its draft report on genetic testing oversight, U.S. System of Oversight of Genetic Testing

The World Privacy Forum filed extensive comments with the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society (SACGHS) regarding its draft report on genetic testing oversight, U.S. System of Oversight of Genetic Testing: A Response to the Charge of the Secretary of HHS. The World Privacy Forum requested SACGHS pay more attention in its final report to the privacy consequences of unregulated genetic testing that occurs outside the health care sector. The WPF comments note that current and proposed remedies for the misuse of genetic information tend to focus on the use of the information within the health care treatment, payment, and insurance systems. What is crucially important is to analyze how to protect genetic information in the realm of commercial collection, maintenance, use and disclosures. Another area the comments discuss is the potential for new forms of fraudulent activity related to genetic testing (Phantom genetic testing, that is, genetic tests marketed to consumers that are not even real or viable genetic tests.) The World Privacy Forum specifically recommended that the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics be tasked with looking at this matter, that an independent pre-market assessment mechanism is created for genetic tests offered outside the clinical setting, and that privacy be expressly discussed in the overarching recommendations in the final report.

Public Comments: November 2007 - Ehavioral Advertising - Tracking, Targeting, and Technology

The online tracking and targeting of consumers –– both in its current form and as it may develop in the future –– needs to be limited so that consumers can exercise meaningful, granular preferences based on timely and contextual disclosures that are understandable on whichever devices consumers choose to use. Consumers must be free to act in their own self-interest. Companies engaged in monitoring and tracking must respect consumer privacy by implementing Fair Information Practices,2 and there must be a structure that allows for enforcement of these rights. A right that is selectively enforced, or that is without effective enforcement, is not a meaningful right.

Public Comments: October 2007 - Consensus Document, Do Not Track Proposal

Ten privacy and consumer groups, including the World Privacy Forum, unveiled a consensus document outlining key consumer rights and protections in the behavioral advertising sector. The document is directed toward the Federal Trade Commission, and urges the FTC to take proactive steps to adequately protect consumers as online and other forms of behavioral tracking and targeting become more ubiquitous. The consensus document was filed with the Secretary of the FTC and its commissioners. Behavioral advertising is the focus of the FTC's eHavioral Advertising Town Hall meeting taking place November 1-2 in Washington, D.C. The network advertising sector has a self-regulatory plan, the Network Advertising Initiative, in place, and has had this plan in place since 2000. The consensus document addresses the many areas where the NAI plan has failed to protect consumers.

Public Comments: World Privacy Forum files comments on CMS plan to allow release of patients' protected health information from Medicare database in some circumstances; benefits do not outweigh the risks

Medicare - CMS -- The World Privacy Forum filed extensive pubic comments on the substantive changes to the Medicare database release policy that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has proposed in a System of Records Notice. As it currently stands, CMS is planning to release the individually identifiable protected health information of patients in the Medicare database to third parties in some circumstances. CMS has not established strong enough checks and controls on its release policy, and it has not explained how it is able to do this under HIPAA. The comments state that CMS has an obligation to explain how each routine use in its new policy is consistent with the authority in the HIPAA privacy rule. If a routine use allows disclosures that are broader than those permitted by HIPAA, then the routine use must be narrowed so that it is consistent with HIPAA. The comments also note that nothing in the CMS notice discusses substance abuse rules and other legal restrictions of the protected health data. The World Privacy Forum asked CMS to specify that the qualifications of any data aggregators who may potentially receive the data exclude any entity that sells other consumer data for any general business, credit, identification, or marketing purpose.

Pam Dixon's keynote speech on medical identity theft at the AHIMA National Convention

Medical identity theft is a crime that harms people and it is a crime that hides itself. This combination makes medical identity theft an insidious crime. It can cause extraordinary damages and harms to its individual and institutional victims. And once begun, the harmful effects of this crime can linger in the lives of its victims for years or even decades.

Public Comments: October 2007 - Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) System of Records Notice regarding substantive changes to the Medicare database release policy

The World Privacy Forum filed extensive pubic comments on the substantive changes to the Medicare database release policy that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has proposed in a System of Records Notice. As it currently stands, CMS is planning to release the individually identifiable protected health information of patients in the Medicare database to third parties in some circumstances. CMS has not established strong enough checks and controls on its release policy, and it has not explained how it is able to do this under HIPAA. The comments state that CMS has an obligation to explain how each routine use in its new policy is consistent with the authority in the HIPAA privacy rule. If a routine use allows disclosures that are broader than those permitted by HIPAA, then the routine use must be narrowed so that it is consistent with HIPAA. The comments also note that nothing in the CMS notice discusses substance abuse rules and other legal restrictions of the protected health data. The World Privacy Forum asked CMS to specify that the qualifications of any data aggregators who may potentially receive the data exclude any entity that sells other consumer data for any general business, credit, identification, or marketing purpose.

World Privacy Forum requests adoption of a "no stakeholders left behind" policy in AHIC successor plans

AHIC successor | health care privacy -- The World Privacy Forum offered public comments on HHS' American Health Information Community (AHIC) successor plans, urging that HHS adopt a "no stakeholders left behind" policy as it forms the new public/private AHIC. The Forum's analysis of the AHIC Successor White Paper concluded that the current succession plans lack processes and checks that would ensure meaningful consumer participation, and that the AHIC successor plans as they currently stand do not bode well for a robust role for privacy or consumer groups in the new AHIC. Specific issues the World Privacy Forum discussed in its comments included fee structures, membership, handling conflicts of interest, stakeholder issues, privacy and identifiability issues, and the need for the new AHIC to achieve credibility.

Public Comments: September 2007 - American Health Information Community Successor White Paper (August 2007)

The World Privacy Forum offered public comments on HHS' American Health Information Community (AHIC) successor plans, urging that HHS adopt a "no stakeholders left behind" policy as it forms the new public/private AHIC. The Forum's analysis of the AHIC Successor White Paper concluded that the current succession plans lack processes and checks that would ensure meaningful consumer participation, and that the AHIC successor plans as they currently stand do not bode well for a robust role for privacy or consumer groups in the new AHIC. Specific issues the World Privacy Forum discussed in its comments included fee structures, membership, handling conflicts of interest, stakeholder issues, privacy and identifiability issues, and the need for the new AHIC to achieve credibility.

Public Comments: August 2007 - AHRQ Joint Comments .....World Privacy Forum and EFF submit comments on AHRQ plan for national healthcare database

In June, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) published a request for information about its plan to create a "public/private" national database of healthcare information tentatively called the "National Health Data Stewardship entity." WPF and EFF raised questions about ownership and management of the proposed database (Would this database fall under HIPAA? Would it fall under the Privacy Act of 1974?), questions about identifiability of patients in the database, and suggested that a full-time, independent privacy officer should be established for the program from the inception of the planning stages. The comments also discussed the numerous questions relating to data security (including medical identity theft) and data quality, as well as consent, access, and opt-out procedures for patients that the proposed national database raises. Read the joint comments (PDF)

Public Comments: August 2007 - NCVHS letter Update to privacy laws and regulations required to accommodate NHIN data sharing practice

We particularly note the Committee’s observation that the non-covered entities “may even sell personal health information without authorization for the purpose of marketing or other purposes that consumers may find objectionable.” The World Privacy Forum agrees with the Committee, and believes that the use of identifiable patient health care information for marketing is a disturbing possibility. New institutions are being developed and implemented to exploit gaps in HIPAA that allow use of patient data for marketing purposes. Action to close those gaps is needed urgently. The Committee’s letter is a small step in that direction.