The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) outlines specific requirements for businesses that collect and maintain personal information of Maryland residents. When a data breach occurs, PIPA mandates that notification must be sent to affected residents without unreasonable delay, and no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach. The law also specifies the content of such notification, which must include a description of the incident, the types of personal information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. The phrase “without unreasonable delay” coupled with the 45-day outer limit establishes the timeframe for reporting. Other state laws might have different notification timelines or content requirements, but for Maryland, this specific timeframe is crucial. Understanding this notification obligation is a key component of complying with Maryland’s data breach response protocols.

The Maryland Online Privacy Protection Act (MOPPA) requires commercial websites or online services that collect personally identifiable information from Maryland residents to conspicuously post a privacy policy. This policy must identify the categories of personally identifiable information collected, the categories of third parties with whom the information may be shared, and a description of the process for reviewing and requesting changes to personally identifiable information. The Act also mandates that the privacy policy include an effective date. While MOPPA applies to entities that collect personally identifiable information from Maryland residents, it does not impose specific data minimization requirements beyond what is necessary for the stated purpose of collection, nor does it mandate the appointment of a data protection officer or require a data protection impact assessment for all data processing activities. The focus is on transparency and consumer control through the privacy policy. Therefore, the most accurate description of a key requirement under MOPPA is the conspicuous posting of a privacy policy detailing data collection and sharing practices.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) outlines specific requirements for businesses that own or license personal information of Maryland residents. A key aspect is the definition of “personal information” and the thresholds for when certain notification obligations are triggered following a data breach. The Act defines personal information as a first name or first initial and last name, in combination with any one or more of the following data elements: social security number, driver’s license number, or state identification card number; account number, credit card number, or debit card number; or any security code or password that would permit access to a consumer’s financial account. The Act also includes provisions for breach notification, requiring a notification to affected individuals and the Maryland Attorney General if there is a breach of the security of the system. The threshold for notification is when the unauthorized acquisition of computerized personal information that, and the acquisition is not authorized by the individual or the business, is reasonably believed to have resulted in the acquisition of personal information, and the acquisition of that information creates a risk of harm to the individual or entity.

The Maryland Online Privacy Act (MOPA) establishes specific requirements for online privacy, particularly concerning the collection and use of personal information from minors. While MOPA does not explicitly mandate a specific monetary threshold for the definition of “personally identifiable information” in the same way some federal laws might indirectly influence such considerations through scope, its focus is on the nature of the information itself and its potential to identify an individual. The Act’s provisions are designed to protect children’s privacy online by requiring clear and conspicuous privacy policies, parental consent for certain data collection practices, and limitations on targeted advertising to minors. Therefore, the concept of a quantitative monetary threshold is not the primary determinant of what constitutes protected information under MOPA; rather, it is the qualitative nature of the data and its potential for identifying an individual, especially a minor, that triggers the Act’s protections. The Act’s intent is to safeguard children’s data regardless of a nominal monetary value, focusing on the sensitivity and potential for misuse.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (MPIPA) outlines specific requirements for state agencies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. When a state agency in Maryland determines that a data breach has occurred, meaning unauthorized acquisition of computerized personal information that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal information, it must provide notification to affected individuals. The MPIPA, specifically referencing its obligations related to data breaches, mandates that this notification must be made without unreasonable delay and in the most expedient time possible and practicable. This notification should generally be made in writing to each individual whose personal information was compromised. However, if the agency demonstrates that the cost of providing written notification to more than 100,000 individuals would exceed \$50,000, or if the agency has insufficient contact information for a majority of the affected individuals, substitute notification is permitted. Substitute notification can include conspicuous posting of the notice on the agency’s website or on a website of a statewide newspaper or major news source, and notification to the Attorney General and other relevant authorities. The core principle is timely and effective communication to individuals whose data has been compromised.

The Maryland Personal Information Privacy Act (MPIPA), codified in Title 14, Subtitle 1 of the Maryland Code, governs the collection and use of personal information by state agencies. Specifically, § 14-103 outlines the requirements for agencies to provide notice to individuals regarding the collection of personal information. This notice must include, among other things, the purposes for which the information is collected, the agency’s authority to collect the information, and the individual’s right to refuse to provide the information and the consequences of such refusal. It also mandates that agencies establish policies for the use and dissemination of personal information. While MPIPA does not impose specific data breach notification requirements directly on all entities, it establishes a framework for how state agencies must handle personal information. Maryland’s broader data breach notification law, found in the Commercial Law Article, § 14-137, requires businesses that own or license computerized data that includes personal information to notify affected Maryland residents in the event of a breach of the security of the system. This state-level breach notification law applies to private entities, not solely state agencies, and sets specific timelines and content requirements for notifications. Therefore, understanding the distinction between MPIPA’s privacy principles for state agencies and the broader breach notification obligations for businesses is crucial.

The Maryland Personal Information Privacy Act (MPIPA) governs the collection and disclosure of personal information by state agencies. A key aspect of MPIPA is the definition of “personal information” and the conditions under which it can be shared. The Act distinguishes between information that is publicly available and information that is considered private. Section 1-301(c) of the MPIPA outlines specific exemptions to disclosure requirements, particularly for information that could compromise security or is deemed confidential by other state or federal laws. When a state agency receives a request for data that includes personal information, it must assess whether the information falls under any of the statutory exemptions. In this scenario, the cybersecurity incident report contains details about vulnerabilities and mitigation strategies that, if disclosed, could be exploited by malicious actors to gain unauthorized access to state systems. This type of information is explicitly protected under MPIPA’s provisions concerning security and the prevention of unauthorized access. Therefore, the agency is justified in withholding the entire report to prevent potential harm, as the sensitive nature of the security-related details outweighs the general public’s right to access the report in its entirety under the Public Information Act, given the specific exemptions within MPIPA.

The Maryland Online Privacy Act (MOPA), codified in Title 14, Subtitle 1 of the Commercial Law Article of the Maryland Code, establishes specific requirements for the online collection and use of personal information by operators of websites and online services directed to children under 13 years of age, or operators that have actual knowledge that they are collecting personal information from children under 13. While MOPA shares some similarities with federal laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), it also introduces distinct provisions. A key aspect of MOPA is its prohibition against the sale of personal information of children under 16 without verifiable parental consent. This goes beyond the age threshold typically addressed by COPPA, which focuses on children under 13. Furthermore, MOPA mandates that operators provide clear and conspicuous notice regarding their data collection practices, including the types of personal information collected, the purposes for collection, and the categories of third parties with whom the information may be shared. The law also grants parents the right to access, review, and request the deletion of their child’s personal information. The scenario presented involves a Maryland-based social media platform that collects location data and browsing history from users under 16. The platform then sells this aggregated data to a third-party marketing firm. This action directly violates MOPA’s prohibition on selling personal information of minors under 16 without verifiable parental consent. The fact that the platform is based in Maryland and the data is collected from users within Maryland subjects it to MOPA’s jurisdiction. The sale of this data, even if aggregated, is considered a sale of personal information under the statute’s broad definition. The absence of verifiable parental consent for this sale is the critical legal failing. Therefore, the platform would be in violation of MOPA.

The Maryland Online Privacy Act (MOPA) requires businesses that collect personal information from Maryland residents to provide certain disclosures and obtain consent under specific circumstances. MOPA, enacted in 2023, builds upon existing federal privacy principles and state-level data protection efforts. A key aspect of MOPA is its focus on transparency and consumer control over personal data. When a business offers services or products to Maryland residents and collects personal information, it must clearly inform consumers about the types of data collected, the purposes for collection, and with whom the data might be shared. Furthermore, for certain sensitive categories of personal information or when data is used for targeted advertising or sold, MOPA mandates affirmative consent. The threshold for applicability is generally based on the amount of personal information processed or the revenue derived from its processing, aligning with trends seen in other comprehensive state privacy laws. Specifically, a business must comply if it conducts business in Maryland or produces goods or services targeted to Maryland residents, and either processes personal information of more than 100,000 Maryland consumers or derives more than 50% of its gross revenue from selling personal information of Maryland consumers. This question probes the understanding of the thresholds that trigger MOPA compliance, particularly concerning the volume of data processed and revenue derived from sales, which are critical for businesses to assess their obligations under Maryland law.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (MIPA) requires businesses to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information to protect personal information. When a data breach occurs that compromises personal information, MIPA mandates specific notification requirements. The law defines personal information as a person’s first name or first initial and last name, in combination with any one or more of the following data elements: social security number, driver’s license number, state identification card number, passport number, checking account number, savings account number, credit card number, debit card number, or electronic signature, or any other data that, if disclosed, could reasonably be used to identify, contact, or locate the person to whom the data pertains. A breach is defined as unauthorized acquisition of computerized personal information that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of the personal information. MIPA requires notification to affected individuals without unreasonable delay and in the most expedient time possible, but no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach. The notification must include a description of the incident, the types of personal information involved, the steps individuals can take to protect themselves, and contact information for the entity. For breaches affecting more than 1,000 Maryland residents, the entity must also notify the Maryland Attorney General without unreasonable delay and in the most expedient time possible, but no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach. The scenario describes a breach of unencrypted medical records containing names, addresses, and dates of birth. While these elements, when combined, could identify an individual, MIPA’s definition of “personal information” specifically requires the inclusion of at least one of the enumerated sensitive data elements (like SSN, driver’s license number, etc.) or an electronic signature. Medical records themselves, without the presence of these specific identifiers, do not automatically fall under the definition of “personal information” for the purposes of MIPA’s breach notification requirements, unless they are linked with one of the statutorily defined identifiers. Therefore, the breach described does not trigger MIPA’s notification obligations.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) outlines specific requirements for data breach notifications. When a breach of personal information occurs that is likely to cause substantial harm to an individual or involves sensitive personal information, such as a Social Security number, driver’s license number, or financial account number, the entity holding the data must notify affected Maryland residents without unreasonable delay. The notification must include specific details about the breach, including the nature of the information compromised, the steps taken by the entity to address the breach, and contact information for the entity. The law also requires notification to the Maryland Attorney General if the breach affects more than 1,000 Maryland residents. The core principle is to inform individuals promptly about potential risks to their personal information and the measures being taken to mitigate those risks. This proactive disclosure is crucial for enabling individuals to take protective actions, such as monitoring their financial accounts or placing fraud alerts. The Maryland PIPA, like many state data breach notification laws, aims to balance the need for timely information with the practicalities of investigating and remediating a security incident. The threshold for “substantial harm” is a key consideration in determining when notification is mandatory, emphasizing the potential impact on the individual.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (MPIPA) outlines specific requirements for businesses that own or license personal information of Maryland residents. A key aspect of MPIPA is the obligation to implement reasonable security measures to protect this data. When a breach of personal information occurs, MPIPA mandates notification to affected Maryland residents. The definition of “personal information” under MPIPA includes a first name or first initial and last name, in combination with any one or more of the following data elements, when the data elements are not encrypted, redacted, or otherwise secured by any other method rendering the data unusable: social security number, driver’s license number, state identification card number, passport number, checking account number, savings account number, credit card number, debit card number, or electronic financial account number. The notification must be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, not to exceed 45 days after the discovery of the breach, unless a longer period is required for the investigation by law enforcement. The notification must contain specific content, including a description of the incident, the types of personal information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. In this scenario, the discovery of unauthorized access to sensitive customer data, including Social Security numbers and financial account details, triggers the notification requirements under MPIPA for the company operating in Maryland. Therefore, the company must provide notice to affected Maryland residents.

The Maryland Personal Information Privacy Act (MPIPA) generally applies to businesses that conduct business in Maryland and own or license personal information of Maryland residents. A key aspect of MPIPA is the definition of “personal information,” which includes a broad range of data that can be used to identify an individual. The act also mandates certain security requirements for businesses that handle this data. The question focuses on a specific exemption within MPIPA concerning data collected by entities acting as service providers or data processors for other businesses. Such entities are typically not directly responsible for the privacy policies and practices concerning the data they process on behalf of their clients, as long as they adhere to contractual obligations and do not use the data for their own purposes beyond the scope of the service agreement. Therefore, a business acting solely as a data processor for a Maryland-based company, processing Maryland residents’ personal information under contract, would not be directly obligated to comply with the consumer-facing provisions of MPIPA regarding data subject rights or direct notification requirements, provided they meet the contractual and usage limitations. The exemption is contingent upon the processor not using the personal information for any purpose other than providing the services specified in the contract and not disclosing the personal information to any third party except as permitted by the contract.

The Maryland Online Privacy Act (MOPA), enacted in 2023, addresses the collection and use of personal information by operators of commercial websites and online services that collect personally identifiable information from Maryland residents. While MOPA shares similarities with other state privacy laws, it has unique provisions. Specifically, MOPA requires operators to provide clear and conspicuous notice regarding the types of personal information collected, the purposes for collection, and any third parties with whom the information may be shared. It also grants Maryland residents certain rights, including the right to access, correct, and delete their personal information, as well as the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information. A key distinguishing feature of MOPA, compared to some other state laws, is its specific focus on the sale of personal information and the associated opt-out mechanisms. The statute mandates that operators who sell personal information must provide a clear link on their website titled “Do Not Sell My Personal Information” and must honor opt-out requests. Furthermore, MOPA defines “sale” broadly to include the disclosure of personal information for monetary or other valuable consideration, even if no direct payment is exchanged. This broad definition ensures a wider range of data sharing practices fall under the purview of the law. The enforcement of MOPA is primarily vested in the Maryland Attorney General, who can seek injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations. The statute also includes a private right of action for individuals whose rights are violated, allowing them to pursue damages. This private right of action is a significant enforcement mechanism that differentiates MOPA from some other state privacy laws that rely solely on governmental enforcement.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) outlines specific requirements for data breach notification. When a breach of personal information occurs that is likely to cause substantial harm to an individual, the data controller must notify affected Maryland residents. The notification must be provided without unreasonable delay, but no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach. This notification must include specific content, such as the nature of the breach, the types of personal information involved, the steps taken to address the breach, and contact information for the data controller. The law also specifies when notification to the Attorney General is required, which is generally for breaches affecting 1,000 or more residents. In this scenario, the breach was discovered on October 15th. The data controller must provide notification to affected Maryland residents no later than 45 days after this discovery. Counting 45 days from October 15th: October has 31 days, so 31 – 15 = 16 days remaining in October. This leaves 45 – 16 = 29 days to be accounted for in November. Therefore, the absolute latest date for notification is November 29th. If the breach affects 1,000 or more Maryland residents, the data controller must also notify the Maryland Attorney General. The law does not mandate a specific timeframe for notifying the Attorney General that is different from the resident notification, but it must be done in conjunction with or prior to resident notification. Therefore, the latest date for notifying both residents and the Attorney General is November 29th.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (MIPPA) governs the security of personal information held by state agencies. Specifically, it mandates that state agencies must develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program. This program must include administrative, technical, and physical safeguards designed to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of personal information. A key component of this program is the requirement for regular risk assessments to identify and address potential vulnerabilities. When a breach of personal information occurs, MIPPA outlines specific notification requirements for affected individuals and the Attorney General. The law emphasizes a proactive approach to data security rather than solely reactive measures. The scenario describes a state agency’s failure to conduct these required risk assessments, which is a direct violation of the proactive security program mandates under MIPPA. The consequence of such a failure, when discovered, would be a directive from the Attorney General to implement the necessary security program, including the missing risk assessments, to ensure compliance with the law.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (MIPA) defines “personal information” broadly, encompassing any information that can be used to identify, contact, or locate an individual. When a breach of this information occurs, MIPA mandates specific notification procedures. The law requires notification to affected Maryland residents without unreasonable delay and in the most expedient time possible, but no later than 45 days after the discovery of the breach. This notification must include specific details about the breach, such as the nature of the personal information involved, the date of the breach, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. Furthermore, MIPA specifies that if the breach affects 1,000 or more Maryland residents, the entity must also notify the Maryland Attorney General. The core principle is to ensure timely and informative communication to individuals whose sensitive data has been compromised, thereby enabling them to take appropriate protective measures. The notification process is a critical component of data breach response under Maryland law, aiming to mitigate potential harm to individuals.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) establishes specific requirements for businesses that own or license the personal information of Maryland residents. A key aspect of PIPA, particularly concerning data breaches, involves the notification obligations of entities. When a breach of the security of the system is discovered, the entity must conduct an investigation to determine the scope of the breach and the personal information involved. If the investigation reveals that personal information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person, the entity must provide notification to affected Maryland residents. The notification must be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay. While PIPA does not mandate a specific number of days for notification, it emphasizes promptness. The law also outlines the content of the notification, which includes specific details about the breach and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. Crucially, PIPA allows for a delay in notification if a law enforcement agency determines that the notification would impede an investigation. However, this delay must be requested by the law enforcement agency and is not an automatic right of the entity. The question asks about the circumstances under which an entity is *not* required to notify affected Maryland residents following a data breach. The primary exception to the notification requirement under PIPA is when the entity demonstrates, through a risk assessment or other documented evidence, that the personal information was not and is not reasonably likely to be misused, acquired, or further compromised. This is a crucial distinction from a law enforcement delay, which is a temporary deferral, not an exemption from notification itself. Therefore, the scenario where the entity can prove no reasonable likelihood of misuse is the only condition presented that removes the obligation to notify.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (MPIPA) governs the security and privacy of personal information held by state agencies and certain private entities. A key aspect of MPIPA is its requirement for data breach notification. When a breach of the security of the system is discovered, the entity must conduct a reasonable investigation to determine the scope of the breach and the personal information involved. If the investigation reveals that personal information has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person, the entity must provide notification to affected individuals. The timing and content of this notification are critical. MPIPA requires notification without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement or the measures necessary to restore the integrity of the system. The notification must include specific details about the breach, the types of personal information compromised, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. The concept of “reasonable security measures” is also central, implying that entities must implement and maintain safeguards appropriate to the sensitivity of the personal information they handle to prevent breaches in the first place. Failure to comply can result in penalties. This question tests the understanding of the proactive and reactive obligations under Maryland law when personal data is compromised.

The Maryland Online Privacy Protection Act (MOPPA) specifically addresses the online collection of personally identifiable information (PII) from minors. While the Act applies to operators of commercial websites or online services that collect PII from individuals in Maryland, its most stringent provisions concerning consent and data handling are triggered when the operator has actual knowledge that the user is a minor. The Act mandates specific privacy policy disclosures and requires operators to take reasonable steps to protect PII collected from minors. However, MOPPA does not explicitly require a data protection officer (DPO) for all businesses collecting PII, nor does it mandate a specific data breach notification period beyond what might be covered by other Maryland laws or federal regulations. The requirement for a data protection impact assessment is also not a universally mandated component of MOPPA for all types of data collection, but rather a consideration for risk management. Therefore, the most accurate and specific requirement under MOPPA related to data handling for minors, when actual knowledge exists, pertains to the implementation of reasonable security measures to safeguard that PII.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) generally requires that a data security breach be reported to the Maryland Attorney General if the breach involves personal information of Maryland residents and the business has a physical presence in Maryland or conducts business in Maryland. The notification threshold is when the breach is reasonably believed to have resulted in the acquisition of personal information by an unauthorized person. The Act defines personal information as a person’s first name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements, when the data elements are not encrypted, redacted, or otherwise secured: social security number, driver’s license number, state identification card number, or account number, credit card number, or debit card number. The Act also specifies that the notification must be made in the fastest practicable time and without unreasonable delay, not to exceed 45 days after the discovery of the breach. In this scenario, the data breach involved the unauthorized acquisition of social security numbers and account numbers of Maryland residents, and the company, “CyberSolutions Inc.,” conducts business in Maryland. The breach was discovered on October 1st. Therefore, the latest date for notification to the Maryland Attorney General would be 45 days after October 1st. Counting 45 days from October 1st: October has 31 days, so 30 days remaining in October after the discovery date (October 31st – October 1st = 30 days). This leaves 15 days to be counted in November (45 days total – 30 days in October = 15 days in November). Thus, the notification must be made no later than November 15th.

The Maryland Personal Information Privacy Act (MPIPA) governs the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by state agencies. Specifically, MPIPA requires state agencies to provide notice to individuals about their data collection practices and to implement reasonable security measures to protect personal information from unauthorized access or disclosure. When a data breach occurs, MPIPA mandates that affected individuals be notified without unreasonable delay, unless a law enforcement agency determines that such notification would impede an investigation. The Act also distinguishes between different types of personal information, with stricter protections for sensitive data. In this scenario, the Department of Health and Human Services is collecting information related to individuals’ vaccination status, which is considered sensitive personal information under MPIPA. The agency must therefore adhere to the heightened security and notification requirements mandated by the Act for such data. The specific requirement to provide a clear and conspicuous notice detailing the categories of personal information collected, the purposes of collection, and the agency’s data retention policies is a fundamental aspect of MPIPA’s transparency obligations. Furthermore, the Act emphasizes the principle of data minimization, meaning agencies should only collect personal information that is necessary for the stated purpose. The disclosure of this information to a third-party research firm for a study on public health trends, without explicit consent or a specific statutory exemption, would likely be considered an impermissible disclosure under MPIPA, especially given the sensitive nature of vaccination status. The notification provisions are triggered by a “breach of the security of the system,” which is defined as unauthorized acquisition of unencrypted computerized personal information that renders the information unreadable, unusable, or indecipherable. In this case, the potential unauthorized access by an external entity constitutes a breach. The absence of a specific contractual agreement with the research firm that outlines data handling and security protocols further exacerbates the compliance risk.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (MPIPA) governs the collection and dissemination of personal information by state agencies. Specifically, MPIPA mandates certain security measures and notification requirements in the event of a data breach. When a state agency experiences a breach of personal information, the law outlines specific procedures for notification. The core of the MPIPA’s breach notification requirement is found in its provisions concerning when and how individuals must be informed about unauthorized access to their data. This includes defining what constitutes a “breach” and the timelines for providing notice. The statute emphasizes the protection of sensitive personal information, such as Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, and financial account information. The notification must be timely and clearly inform the affected individuals about the nature of the breach, the type of information involved, and steps they can take to protect themselves. The law also allows for exceptions to direct notification if alternative methods are deemed equally effective in reaching the affected individuals, such as broad public notice. The question tests the understanding of the procedural obligations of a Maryland state agency following a confirmed unauthorized acquisition of personal information, specifically focusing on the statutory requirements for notifying affected individuals under the MPIPA.

The Maryland Online Privacy Protection Act (MOPPA) specifically targets commercial websites and online services that collect personally identifiable information from Maryland residents. A key provision of MOPPA, particularly relevant to this scenario, is the requirement for operators of commercial websites or online services operating in Maryland that collect personally identifiable information from Maryland residents to conspicuously post a privacy policy. This policy must include specific details about the types of personally identifiable information collected, the third parties with whom the information may be shared, and the process for reviewing and requesting changes to collected information. Furthermore, MOPPA mandates that operators take reasonable steps to secure personally identifiable information. The question focuses on the enforcement mechanism and the specific entity responsible for investigating and prosecuting violations of MOPPA. The Maryland Attorney General is vested with the authority to investigate alleged violations and take appropriate legal action. This includes the power to seek injunctions and impose civil penalties. The Maryland People’s Counsel, while involved in utility regulation, does not have primary enforcement authority for MOPPA. Similarly, the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation is focused on fiscal matters, and the Maryland Cybersecurity Task Force, while important for cybersecurity strategy, does not directly enforce privacy laws. Therefore, the Maryland Attorney General is the correct authority.

The Maryland Personal Information Privacy Act (MPIPA), codified at Title 14, Subtitle 1 of the Maryland Code, specifically addresses the collection and dissemination of personal information by businesses. Section 14-1301(a) of the MPIPA requires that a business that owns or licenses the personal information of a Maryland resident and conducts business in Maryland must implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of the information to protect the personal information from unauthorized acquisition. Section 14-1301(b) further mandates that a business must securely dispose of a customer’s personal information when it is no longer needed. The question asks about the specific requirements for the secure disposal of personal information under Maryland law. While the MPIPA generally mandates reasonable security, the specific methods of secure disposal are not exhaustively detailed in the statute itself but are generally understood to encompass practices that render the information unreadable or indecipherable. Therefore, the most accurate description of the legal requirement for disposal under Maryland law, based on the principles of the MPIPA, is to render the information unreadable or indecipherable. Other options, while potentially good practices, are not the explicit legal standard for disposal as defined by the core tenets of the MPIPA regarding secure disposal. For instance, simply deleting files without ensuring they are unrecoverable does not meet the standard of secure disposal. Storing data indefinitely, even if secured, contradicts the mandate to dispose of it when no longer needed. Returning data to its source, while sometimes appropriate, is not a universal requirement for secure disposal.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (MPIPA) governs the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information by state agencies. While MPIPA does not explicitly mandate a specific timeframe for the retention of all personal information, it emphasizes data minimization and security. The Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) and various record retention schedules established by the Department of General Services, under the authority of the State Archives, dictate specific retention periods for different types of government records, including those containing personal information. For instance, financial records might have different retention periods than personnel files or health-related data. The principle of “as long as necessary” is often applied, balanced with legal requirements and the need for efficient data management. However, without a specific type of personal information or a direct mandate within MPIPA for a universal retention period, the question probes the general understanding of how retention is managed within Maryland’s legal framework, which involves agency policies informed by broader public records management laws and archives guidance. Therefore, the most accurate general principle, absent a specific statutory mandate for all personal information, is that retention is guided by necessity and applicable record retention schedules.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (MPIPA), specifically codified in Maryland Code, State Government § 10-130 et seq., governs the collection, use, and dissemination of personal information by state agencies. While the Act mandates data security measures, it does not establish a private right of action for individuals to sue for violations. Instead, enforcement mechanisms typically involve administrative oversight and potential disciplinary actions against agencies or employees found to be non-compliant. The Act’s focus is on ensuring state agencies protect sensitive personal information held within their systems. The question asks about the primary recourse for an individual whose personal information is compromised due to a state agency’s failure to implement reasonable security measures under MPIPA. Given that MPIPA does not grant a private right of action, individuals cannot directly sue the agency for damages. Instead, the available avenues are typically through reporting the breach to the agency, potentially seeking remedies through administrative channels if established by the agency, or lodging complaints with oversight bodies. The Maryland Attorney General’s office may also have a role in investigating and enforcing compliance with privacy laws, but this is generally not framed as a direct individual right to sue. Therefore, the most accurate description of recourse for an individual is to report the breach and seek resolution through established agency complaint procedures or relevant oversight authorities, rather than initiating a civil lawsuit.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (MPIPA) requires businesses to implement reasonable security measures to protect personal information. While MPIPA does not explicitly mandate specific encryption standards, the concept of “reasonable security” is context-dependent and often interpreted through industry best practices. In the absence of a Maryland-specific mandate for AES-256 for all personal information at rest, the determination of whether a breach constitutes a violation hinges on whether the chosen security measures, including encryption methods, were objectively reasonable given the nature and sensitivity of the data, the business’s size and resources, and the potential harm from unauthorized disclosure. A data breach involving unencrypted sensitive personal information, if that lack of encryption is deemed to fall below the standard of reasonable care, could lead to liability under MPIPA. The notification requirement under MPIPA is triggered by a breach of the security system that safeguards personal information, regardless of the encryption status, but the assessment of the breach’s impact and the adequacy of preventative measures are central to legal culpability. The question tests the understanding that while specific technical mandates are not always present, the overarching requirement for reasonable security is paramount and subject to interpretation based on evolving standards and risk assessment.

The Maryland Online Privacy Act (MOPA) was enacted to protect the online privacy of Maryland residents. A key aspect of MOPA, similar to other comprehensive privacy laws, involves the obligations of businesses that collect personal information from Maryland residents. Specifically, MOPA requires that operators of commercial websites or online services directed to minors in Maryland, or that knowingly collect personal information from minors in Maryland, must implement certain privacy protections. These protections include obtaining verifiable parental consent before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from a minor under a certain age, typically 13. Furthermore, MOPA mandates that such operators must provide clear and comprehensive privacy policies. These policies must detail the types of personal information collected, the purposes for collection and use, and the circumstances under which information may be disclosed to third parties. Operators are also required to provide parents with the ability to review the personal information collected from their child and to request that it be deleted. The law also establishes a right for parents to direct an operator not to collect or use their child’s personal information. The specific age threshold and the details of consent mechanisms are critical components for compliance. The Maryland Attorney General is tasked with enforcing MOPA, and violations can result in penalties. The law aims to strike a balance between facilitating online commerce and safeguarding the privacy of children.

The Maryland Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) addresses data breaches. A reportable breach, as defined by PIPA, is the unauthorized acquisition of computerized personal information that could reasonably subject a resident to a risk of identity theft or other unlawful conduct. The law mandates specific actions upon discovery of such a breach. The Maryland Attorney General’s office provides guidance on these requirements. The core obligation for a data controller is to notify affected individuals and, in certain circumstances, the Attorney General, without unreasonable delay. The definition of “personal information” under PIPA is broad, encompassing data that can be used to identify an individual. The scope of notification is tied to the potential harm posed by the breach. The concept of “unreasonable delay” is critical, implying promptness in the response to mitigate further harm. The law also specifies the content of the notification, which must include a description of the incident, the types of information involved, and steps individuals can take to protect themselves. The Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, and other state agencies, may also have specific reporting requirements depending on the nature of the data and the affected individuals. The legal framework emphasizes transparency and consumer protection in the aftermath of a data security incident.