User:Edits4change/sandbox

Week 11 Response to Peer Review
From the feedback, I have learned that I need to do a real close reading of my article to find errors and small grammar mistakes. I also plan on added more information into the currently empty sections. From this feedback, I think, I am going to print out my article again and do a close read through to see what corrections I can make. I will also have my friends read through my paper. This will help me get more ideas on my paper.

Week 11 Peer Review
I really like the new format, with each state having its own section. I think it is more beneficial for people seeking out privacy laws in their region, to have them grouped in this way. You have a good amount of links, and while you don't have a lot of variety when it comes to citations, it is understandable given the type of article. I think that you do cite often, and where needed. You've compiled a massive amount of information, and done a really great job!

Specific suggestions :

--

However, after the creation of a national economy, after the Civil War, made personal protection of privacy impractical and that led to the creation of governmental agencies which recommended stronger privacy protections. <-- This sentence is a little confusing. Here is my suggestion:

However, after the creation of a national economy, after the Civil War, the personal protection of privacy became impractical, which led to the creation of governmental agencies that recommended stronger privacy protections.

--

Most state legistiations on privacy are expansions of federal laws. <-- Legislations is misspelled.

--

Genetic-specific information relates to information what can find the details of individuals based on their DNA. <-- This sentence is a little confusing. Should what be "about who", or something similar? Perhaps something along the lines of:

Genetic-specific information refers to data that can identify (the details of) individuals based on their DNA.

--

With relation to cybersecurity, the FTC makes sure that companies have security application in place... <-- Should this be applications?

--

Week 10 Peer Review
Ritika,

Great work on your article so far! It’s clear you’ve put a lot of time and effort into writing the article and adding all the legal statutes.

I thought your article has an easily understandable lead section, a clear structure, balanced coverage, neutral content, and uses reliable sources. Further, I thought the article’s tone sounded encyclopedic. I did notice a couple of typos or other small issues in the article:


 * In the lead section, I think you say “legislations” instead of “legislation”
 * Under the history section in the first paragraph, I think you meant to say that “Historically, state laws on privacy date back before the founding of the United States when most authorities left protection of personal information to the individual”
 * The next sentence in the history section, is a little confusing. I’d suggest rewording it to say something like “However, the creation of a national economy after the Civil War made personal protection of privacy impractical, leading to the creation of governmental agencies which recommended stronger privacy protections.”
 * Under types of privacy legislations (is it legislation or legislations?), I’d be slightly more specific in defining medical privacy, data privacy, and financial privacy. For example, “medical privacy, which refers to _____, is an especially important category of legislation” for each bullet
 * In the modern state laws on privacy, under medical privacy, the period comes after the citation “2” when the period should go before the citation
 * “But in some cases state laws can be more detailed and stringent, while being in ordinance to the federal laws in place[2].”
 * Information that can be collected includes race and gender[2].
 * Under “Laws on encryption of collected data,” the last “s” in Kansas appears cut off.
 * Under “laws on notifications and treatment of patients,” California, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia all refer to “human subject.” Do you mean human subjects plural or subject singular?
 * Under digital privacy laws, you say “agains” instead of “against”
 * Under children’s online privacy laws, you state that “several laws have passed legislations that work to protect children’s online privacy.” I think you meant to say “legislation”
 * Under financial privacy laws, you state “All of these acts, make changes at the national level.” I think the correct grammar should be “All of these acts make changes at the national level”

Overall, I thought you did a great job and that the corrections above are very minor.

--

Subsections:


 * Medical Privacy Law
 * Data Protection Laws
 * Finantial Privacy Laws
 * Digital Privacy Laws
 * Search and Seizure Laws.
 * Table with states and laws

Also see:


 * Privacy Laws
 * Privacy Laws in the United States
 * Medical Privacy
 * Financial Privacy Laws in the United States
 * Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act'

Response to Week 10 Peer Review
Like last week, I learned that my article have several places where I can change the grammar and spelling of words. Additionally, I was told that for some of my sections, I can leave a table blank and put in the talk page of my article that the sections with the empty tables need to be worked on. Overall, most of the recommendations were for minor changes and places which need to be explained more, such as terms that I have hyperlinked.

Based on the feedback I have received I am planning on printing out a new version of my article and reading it from top to bottom to see if it makes sense. Then on the second read through I am going to circle and highlight any locations where the grammar or spelling are off. After I publish my article next week, I also plan listing out on the talk section, which pages need more work.

Planned Contributions for "US State Laws on Privacy"
For the US state laws on Privacy page, I would like to make a list of the State laws on privacy. I am thinking that a table format might be important for a preview of the laws, and then separate sections to go more into details on all of the laws. Subsections for this topic will be: Medical Privacy Laws, Online Privacy Laws. This list is a work in progress. I am interested in working on this topics because privacy is a growing topics and it is important that people know the right that they have. Wikipedia is a widely used resource, by people to gain a basic understanding of a topic, and with growth in machine learning prompting questions of privacy, it is important that there be a page on information privacy legislation.

Article outline:


 * List of states with privacy laws
 * Medical Privacy
 * Internet Privacy
 * Other Privacy (work in progress)

Information Privacy
Everything in the article seemed relevant except for the portion about Safe Harbor Programs. From my understanding, this legislation has been updated with the GDPR. This article can be updated by adding a sections about modern legislation and groups that work towards protecting user information privacy. This would include mentioning the GDPR and other legislations that have been passed in the last year.

The article tries to maintain a neutral tone, but lines like "People may not wish for their medical records to be revealed to others." breaks away from the educational ethos.

Most of the citations seem to be working. The sources seem to be coming from books and databases. However some citations only have the URL to the information.

This article has been ranked as a C-level, high importance article. It is in scope for WikiProject Computing, Internet, and Mass surveillance.There is some talk about international relations and some discussion over the working in a sections, with the usage of "we."

Computer Security
Everything seems relevant. There is a lot of material about the different forms of attacks, the different risks, the impact of security breaches, and information on how to protect information.

The article has a neutral tone and talks about different aspects from an educational perspective.

Most citations seem to be working. Some of the citations are from news articles, so it their credibility can be questioned. However, they cover very recent issues, such as a hacking of Texas hospitals in 2016, so it might be hard to find scholarly articles on this information.

From the talk page, I learned that this article was a former featured article and now it is ranked as high and top importance for several Wikiprojects. I can see that there was a request for a move, however that move did not take place. There is also some talk on if cybersecurity is two words (with or without a hyphen) or one.

Deloitte Asia Pacific Defense Outlook 2016: Defense in Four Domains
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/global/Documents/Public-Sector/gx-ps-ap-defense-outlook-2016-160216.pdf

This article provides the citation needed on the Cyberterrorism Wiki page in the sections that talks about South Korean Vulnerability. The periodical provides support for the idea that South Korea is one of the leading countries with respect to technology, and this has also meant that the country faces several cyberattacks. On page 19, there is a graph that specifically shows this.

Arashi, Rieko. et al. 2016. "Deloitte Asia Pacific Defense Outlook 2016: Defense in Four Domains." Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited 18-19.

Week 9 -- QuixoticWindmills
General notes

This is a really impressive article with a lot of work and research put into it; I think you did a really good job putting together a lot of different information. My main advice would be to read over your article and check for consistency, tone spelling and grammar errors. There are numerous misspellings and grammar issues throughout (I’ve noted some below), and some things should be fixed to be consistent throughout the article (whether laws are put in a list or table, if they will be described or not, if the descriptions will be full sentences or not). Some sentences seem to contain judgement, so either cite them more make them more objective. Also, edit the headers/titles so only the first word/proper nouns are capitalized. That tripped me up too, I had to go through and edit all my titles. This is an article on state laws but you also have some laws specifically for territories, which are different from states. I would suggest having a separate section for those, but you would know better than me. In general, really good job on the article! Just have to fix the little things and I think you’re set.

Some specifics:

State Laws on Privacy (United States)

“State laws are typically extensions of existing United States laws” is worded awkwardly, maybe say “State laws are typically extensions of existing United States laws”. Also if you mean existing Federal laws you could clarify that.

History

“At the state level, most regulations expand on federal laws on the topic. “ I’m not sure what this sentence means; what is “on the topic”?

Types of Privacy Legislations

Add hyperlinks to medical/data/financial privacy

Modern State Laws on Privacy Laws

“State legislation on privacy tends to follow the same patterns and orders as federal laws in these matters, however in some cases state laws can be more detailed and stringent, however they must not be in contradiction to the federal laws in place” - This is a run on sentence with two howevers, I would suggest splitting this into two sentences.

“. With focus to biobanks, state laws can restrict the whose request for testing a laboratory can accept and who the results go to”   -  “can restrict the whose” doesn’t make sense to me.

“State Laws can also control who has control over specimens” - Why is Laws in State Laws capitalized?

In general I don’t think you have to mention when laws were passed in the description column of the table, as you already mention the dates in the law label column.

Laws on Genetics - turn into a table?

Corporate Data Security Laws - turn into a table?

“A major aspect of digital privacy laws is cybersecurity, which encompasses corporate data security.” - You may want to cite this or remove the “major” label, it seems like a judgement.

State Social Media Privacy Laws

“There is a huge concern over the usage of social media in the selection for employees and students by companies and educational institutions” - feels like something that should be cited

No descriptions for these laws? Just curious

E-Reader Privacy

“enfrocement” - fix

“States that a e-book is similar to a book, so a user must "borrow" it from a library and must return that material. In addition, the library may not return any information on the reader. “ - I think you should decide whether these descriptions should be full, complete sentences or short fragments. Having both is a bit jarring to me.

Article Peer Review Response -- Week 9 by Edit4Change
This week my article was edited by QuixoticWindmills. He recommended that I read over my article carefully and make sure that there are no grammar issues. I have been having a hard time doing this with my tables, because the tables tend to reformat the information. For example, if I type "science is ..." into a table, it becomes "sciences..." I tend to loose spaces and letters. I have tried making several different edits, but it takes a few times before I can get it in the right format. Other than that, I think QuixoticWindmills gave me great advice on different parts of my paper where I can fix my grammar errors. I have fixed these mistakes and have read through my article.

In class, I was told to make sure that all tables have the same formatting and all of them have the states bolded. I was also told to read over my article carefully to check for grammar error and to fix them. Another mistake that I need to fix is my titles. I need to make sure that only the first thing in the title is capitalized.

Week 08 - Peer review by Tm670
Great work! This seems to be coming along well. I would love to see more on the background on “type of privacy legislations.” This may not be the main point of the article, but I think it potentially be helpful to further understand State Laws. Because you are outlining specific laws, I think providing that historical context on how the categories were formed might be helpful. I also think that providing a section on where to find these specific laws might be helpful. As an average reader, I may be able to see the volume and types of laws, but also lack the knowledge on how to look into each of them. I am not sure how to exactly go about this in an “encyclopedic manner” but I think it might could add value to your particular work. Additionally, I know you are focusing on the United States, but I think it might also be appropriate to include the U.S. Territories such as Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. I think adding these locales will not only provide new perspective, but a more complete pictures about laws “in America.”

Week 8 - Peer Review by Travelqueen27

Good work on this week's draft! Your article is nicely structured and although there is ton of information on it the way it is structured makes it very easy to read. I noticed you started from listing the laws to then placing them in boxes and wanted to ask if that was just to switch up the structure of your article. Having them placed in boxes I think made it easier to follow by looking at the state name on the left hand side to find a specific law. Overall, it is well written and very interesting. Keep up the good work!

Article Peer Review Response -- Week 8
This week my article was reviewed by Travelqueen27 and Tm670.

Tm670 recommended that I add more to the background section of my article. I am planning do this next week and will be researching more on that. I also plan on adding in the terrioties if they have laws that fit into the sections.

Travelqueen27 recommended that I do not alternate between lists and tables. I plan on making all of them into one format. This is something that I plan on adding in next week.

I did not have many grammar corrections, for this week. We did not go my article in lab.

Article Peer Review -- Week 6 by Starshine44
This is a great first draft. You have a ton of information, and I understand the flow of your organization.

Under corporate data security laws, it might make sense to add your comments under each law, rather than in a big paragraph below it. It makes it a little easier on the eye, if someone is searching for a specific state law, to find the comments right under it, rather than having to read through a paragraph at the bottom.

Your topic is interesting and I look forward to seeing it expand and evolve. Great work!

Spelling errors :

Under "United States State Laws on Privacy":

Several state have recently passed...

Should be:

Several states have recently passed...

Under "Types of Privacy Legislations":

There are several different types of privacy legislation currently in place s.

Should be:

There are several different types of privacy legislation currently in place.

Under "Modern State Laws on Privacy Laws":

State legislation on privacy tend to follow...

Should be:

State legislation on privacy tends to follow...

OR

State legislations on privacy tend to follow...

Under "Corporate Data Security Laws:

Out of the list about one key legislation... <---This is a little confusing. Can it be worded a different way?

The law in Rhode Island is also interesting since it stated the the level of .... <--- "the" is written twice.

Article peer review -- Week 6 by Kingfield666
Hi Ritika! You did a great job on the mapping of this topic. You have a clear structure of different types of privacy legislations, and you offered a wide range of information for the topic of medical privacy and digital privacy.

Under the section of laws on medical privacy, I think it might be a good way to replace tens of lines with a table that contains all the information in different columns and rows. In this way, the readers might choose to read it or not and it would be a kind of summary for those laws as well. Also, it would be great if you can add comments to each section of law so that people who are unfamiliar with the laws can know the meaning and application under each section of law.

You are on the right track! I believe you can further dive into it and make it great! Good work!

Spelling errors:

Under the "Laws on Biobank":

Information that can be collected includes, race and gender

should be :

Information that can be collected includes race and gender

Under the "Laws on Genetics":

This California state legislation state that any person with reveals genetic results without consent can be fined

should be:

This California state legislation state that any person with revealed genetic results without consent can be fine

Article Peer Review Response -- Week 6
This week my article was reviewed by StarShine44 and Kingfield666.

Starshine44 recommended that rather than having a paragraph with all the laws, I should have a sperate section with state laws. That way if someone was looking for a specific law they could easily find it on the page. I really like this recommendation, but I think that the laws help to show which regulations are in place when it comes to each from of privacy. Instead of removing the regulations from this page, I plan on adding the regulations to bottom as well, once I have a longer list of regulations.

Kingfield666 recommended that I turn the bullets about state laws into tables. While I think this is a great recommendation, I am a bit hesitant to make this change, because with a table it will be hard to have consistency on the size of the rows of table, since the descriptions of the laws vary in size.

Other than that, both reviewers provided great grammatical corrections. Thank you!

In lab, Malinda recommended that after my description about different types of laws on privacy, I should add a section at the end which has each state and it corresponding laws. This will make it much easier find the laws for a certain state. I really like this comment and will implement this next week, when I have more laws and their descriptions.

In lab, Amber recommended that I also add a section on media privacy. I think this is a great idea. I am going to research into media privacy and work on that next week.

= State laws on privacy (United States) = Privacy laws vary from state to state in the United States of America. Several states have recently passed new legislations that adapt to changes in cybersecurity laws, medical privacy laws, and other privacy related laws. State laws are typically extensions of existing United States laws, expanding them or changing the way to understand them.

History
Historically, state laws on privacy date back before the founding of the United States and most authorities left protection of personal information to the individual. However, after the creation of a national economy, after the Civil War, made personal protection of privacy impractical and that led to the creation of governmental agencies which recommended stronger privacy protections. This led to the creation of de facto privacy commissioners, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the State Attorney General.

The FTC was created in 1914 to protect individuals from harmful trade practices and in 1995 the FTC began to study and analyze privacy issues in electronic commerce and began to place and enforce regulations.

Most state legistiations on privacy are expansions of federal laws.

Types of privacy legislations
There are several different types of privacy legislation currently in place. State laws vary between these niche privacy spheres. Each type of legislation tries to protect a certain area of privacy. Types of legislation include:


 * Medical Privacy
 * Data Privacy
 * Financial Privacy

Laws on biobanks
One major aspect of medical privacy is laws placed on biobanks. A biobank is a collection source that stores and manages human specimens. Major federal laws that apply to biobanks are regulations by the Food and Drug Administration and Common Rule. The Common Rule is a guideline for in the United States on research involving human subjects. Other major federals laws that govern biobanks include: The Privacy Act of 1974, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, and Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2014.

State legislation on privacy tends to follow the same patterns and orders as federal laws in these matters. But in some cases state laws can be more detailed and stringent, while being in ordinance to the federal laws in place. With focus to biobanks, state laws can restrict the a laboratory's ability to reject a customer and can regulate what happened with data after a test. Certain states place privacy laws that deal with genetic-specific information. Genetic-specific information relates to information what can find the details of individuals based on their DNA. Information that can be collected includes race and gender. State can place legislations that let individuals have control over the tests conducted on their genes and regulate how long data is stored in biobanks. State laws can also control who has control over specimens, the individual from whom they were collected or the pharmaceutical companies.

If a state does not have legislation to specific ownership of genetic information, courts have specified that donors do not have rights over their genetic samples. Laws on collection and ownership of Information include:

Laws for minors
Laws that protect the genetic information of minors include:

Laws on genetics
There are several laws in states regarding collection of genetic information, preservation of the genetic information of individuals and the ownership of genetic information. A few laws regarding the genetic information of individuals include:


 * Alaska: AS §18.13.010 et seq: This Alaska legislation provides privacy regulations for genetic information and states that genetic information belong to the individual they come from.
 * Arizona 2016 HB 2144: This Arizona state legislation states that genetic testing can only be conducted with consent with the person being tested.
 * Arizona 2019 SB 1297: This Arizona state legislation removes self-conducted genetics-tests from the definition of genetics testing and it adds details on providing medical-care provider the results of genetics tests.
 * Arizona: ARS §20-448.02: This Arizona state legislation states that a genetics test cannot be conducted without the knowledge of the individual being tested.
 * Arkansas: Ark. Code §20-35-101 et seq.: This Arkansas state legislation states that individual records can not be released without court permission or a consent form.
 * California 2017 AB 375: This California state legislation states individuals control their biometric information and can sell that data to businesses.
 * California: Cal. Civil Code §56.17: This California state legislation state that any person with revealed genetic results without consent can be fine.
 * California: Chapter 55 Statutes of 2018.
 * Colorado 2009 HB 1338
 * Colorado 2010 HB 1422
 * Colorado: CRS §10-3-1104.6
 * Colorado: CRS §10-3-1104.7
 * Connecticut 2019 HB 6544
 * Connecticut: CGA 38a §999
 * Delaware 2015 SB 151
 * Delaware 2015 SB 68
 * Delaware 2015 SB 79


 * Delaware 2017 HS 1 for HB 180
 * Delaware: Del. Code 16 §1201 et seq.
 * Florida: FS §760.40
 * Georgia: OCGA §§33-54-1 et seq.
 * Hawaii: HRS §§431:10A-118
 * Hawaii: HRS §§431:10A-404.5
 * Hawaii: HRS §§432:1-607
 * Hawaii: HRS §§432:2-404.5
 * Hawaii: HRS §§432D-26
 * Idaho: IC §39-8301 et seq.
 * Idaho: IC §39-8301 et seq.
 * Illinois 2007 SB 941:
 * Illinois 2008 SB 2399
 * Illinois 2017 SB 318
 * Illinois 2019 HB 2189
 * Illinois 2019 SB 1307
 * Illinois: 410 ILCS 513/1 et seq.
 * Iowa 2010 SF 2215
 * Iowa 2019 HSB 14
 * Iowa 2019 SSB 1071
 * Iowa: IC §§507B.4
 * Iowa: IC §§507B.4
 * Iowa: IC §§513B.9A
 * Iowa: IC §§513B.10
 * Kentucky 2014 HB 5:
 * Kentucky 2019 SB 152
 * Kentucky: KRS §304.12-085
 * Kentucky: KRS §61.931 et seq.
 * Louisiana 2009 HB 406
 * Louisiana: LRS 22:1023
 * Louisiana: LRS 40:2210
 * Louisiana: LRS 22: 1097
 * Maine: MRS 22 §1711C
 * Maine: MRS 24A §2204
 * Maryland 2017 HB 974:
 * Maryland 2019 HB 1127:
 * Maryland 2019 HB 716:
 * Maryland 2019 HB 901:
 * Maryland 2019 SB 613:
 * Maryland 2019 SB 786
 * Maryland 2019 SB 871
 * Maryland: Md. Commercial Code §14-3501 et seq.
 * Maryland: Md. Insurance Code §27-909
 * Maryland: Md. Health-General Code §19-706
 * Maryland: Md. State Government Code §20-601 et seq.
 * Massachusetts 2013 H 1909
 * Massachusetts 2015 H 1900
 * Massachusetts 2017 H2814
 * Massachusetts: MGL Public Health 111 §70G
 * Michigan 2013 SB 178
 * Michigan: MCL § 500.2212c
 * Michigan: MCL §500.3829a
 * Michigan: MCL §§333.16221
 * Michigan: MCL §§333.17020
 * Michigan: MCL §§333.17520
 * Minnesota 2013 HF 5
 * Minnesota 2019 HF 112
 * Minnesota: MS §13.386
 * Minnesota: MS §144.192
 * Minnesota: MS §176.138
 * Minnesota: MS §62V.06
 * Missouri: MRS §§375.1300
 * Missouri: MRS §§375.1309
 * Nebraska: NRS §71-551
 * Nevada 2009 SB 426
 * Nevada: NRS §629.101 et seq.
 * New Hampshire 2014 HB 1262
 * New Hampshire 2014 HB 1484
 * New Hampshire 2014 HB 1586
 * New Hampshire 2016 HB 1493
 * New Hampshire 2017 HB 523
 * New Hampshire 2018 HB 1373
 * New Hampshire 2019 HB 536
 * New Hampshire 2019 SB 316
 * New Hampshire: NHS §132:10-a V.
 * New Hampshire: NHS §141-H:1
 * New Hampshire: NHS §141-H:2
 * New Hampshire: NHS §141:H-6
 * New Jersey 2018 A4640
 * New Jersey 2018 S3153
 * New Jersey: NJS §10:5-43 et seq.
 * New Mexico 2013 SB 445
 * New Mexico 2015 HB 369
 * New Mexico 2019 HB 141
 * New Mexico: NMSA §24-21-1 et seq.
 * New York 2019 A1911
 * New York 2019 A465
 * New York 2019 S1203
 * New York: NYCL (CVR) 79-l
 * North Dakota 2015 SB 2334
 * Oklahoma 2013 HB 1384
 * Oklahoma: OS §25-2001
 * Oklahoma: OS §36-3614.3
 * Oregon 2007 SB 244
 * Oregon 2009 HB 2009
 * Oregon: ORS §192.531 et seq.
 * Pennsylvania 2019 HB 245
 * Rhode Island 2019 S234
 * Rhode Island: RIGL §§27-18-52
 * Rhode Island: RIGL §§27-18-52.1
 * Rhode Island: RIGL §§27-19-44
 * Rhode Island: RIGL §§27-19-44.1
 * Rhode Island: RIGL §§27-20-39
 * Rhode Island: RIGL §§27-20-39.1
 * Rhode Island: RIGL §§27-41-53
 * Rhode Island: RIGL §§27-41-53.1
 * South Carolina 2010 SB 1224
 * South Carolina: SCCL §38-93 et seq.
 * South Carolina: SCCL §§38-93-10 et seq.
 * South Dakota: SDCL §§34-14-21 et seq.
 * Tennessee 2018 HB 2690
 * Tennessee 2018 SB 2029
 * Texas 2017 HB 2891
 * Texas TS (Civil Practice and Remedies) Code §74.052
 * Texas: TS (Insurance) Code §546.001 et seq.
 * Texas: TS (Occupations) Code §58.001 et seq.
 * Utah 2016 HB 358
 * Utah: UC §26-45-101 et seq.
 * Utah: UC §53A-1-1401 et seq.
 * Vermont: VSA 18 §9331 et seq.
 * Virginia: Code of Va. §§ 38.2-508.4
 * Virginia: Code of Va. §§38.2-613
 * Washington 2017 HB 2213
 * Washington: RCW §70.02.010 et seq.
 * West Virginia 2016 HB 4261
 * West Virginia: WVC §18-2-5h
 * Wyoming WSA §35-31-101 et seq.

Corporate data security laws.
An important aspect of digital privacy laws is cybersecurity, which encompasses corporate data security. At the national level, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is in charge of data security regulation. With relation to cybersecurity, the FTC makes sure that companies have security application in place and that companies are not misrepresenting their level of digital security. Several aspects of the FTC regulations are outdated and are loosely connected to data security though section 5. Section 5 of the FTC fines companies for having substandard security measures, neglecting the security of consumer data, and failing to train employees on data security. Additional federal laws on this topic include: the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Economic Espionage Act.

State laws on corporate data security which require companies to build data security plans include:


 * Arkansas. Code Ann. §4-110-104(b)
 * California Civ. Code §1798.81.5(b)–(c)
 * 2008 Connecticut Acts 611
 * Florida Stat. § 501.171(2)
 * Indiana Code Ann. § 24-4.9-3-3.5(b)
 * Maryland Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-3503(a)
 * Utah Code Ann. § 13-44-201(1)(a)
 * Oregon. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 646A.622
 * Rhode Island Gen. Laws Ann. § 11-49.3-2(a)
 * Nevada. Rev. Stat. § 603A.215
 * 201 Massachusetts Code Regs. 17.03

One key legislation is Oregon's law has three important aspects which include: training employees, having regular security control tests, and placing reasonable safeguards agains hacks. The law in Rhode Island is also interesting since it stated the the level of security programs a company must have is relative to the size of the company. The legislation in Nevada requires that companies use encryption to store certain type of data and to follow certain procedures when saving payment-card data. Out of the laws listed above, the law with the strictest regulations is Massachusetts, which states that companies must take specific steps to access security risks, train employees, and other security related tasks.

Additionally, forty-eight states and the District of Columbia require companies to notify customers of data breaches.

State social media privacy laws
There is concern over the usage of social media in the selection for employees and students by companies and educational institutions. Several groups feel that this information is personal and should not be viewed by these groups. On the other hand, employers state that the need to access this information to ensure that employees have no conflict of interests that could lead to legal liabilities.

Laws on this field that apply to employers include: Laws that relate to educational institutions include:

Consumer data privacy laws
This is a major concern over the information that business provide to advertisement companies and other sources regarding their customers. California has passed several laws that relate to this. Those include:

Children's online privacy laws
As more children go online, several groups worry about data being collected from children and how that data might be used against them. For these concerns, several laws have passed legislations that work to protect children's online privacy. These laws include:

E-reader privacy
E-books and e-readers read a question on who owns books, libraries, or individuals. Additionally, there is a question on what type of information can be collected on an e-reader. States and their laws are included below.

Privacy policies and practices for websites or online services
States also place regulations on certain types of websites and limit what those websites can do. Regulations include:

Laws related to disclosure or sharing of personal information
Both California and Utah have laws that state that all non-financial businesses which sell information to third parties for marketing purposes or for money, make make the consumer aware of the dispersal of their information.

Privacy of personal information held by internet service providers
Internet service providers collect information on what websites an individual visited. Two states, Nevada and Minnesota, have passed laws that protect consumers, by enforcing that internet service providers must keep information on a user private unless the user allows for that information to be released.

False and misleading statements in privacy policies
Nevada, Oregon and Pennsylvania have all passed laws regarding false or incorrect information being posted online.

Financial privacy laws
Financial Privacy laws regulate how companies, specifically those with a focus in finance, handle financial consumer information. Federal laws that regulate this include, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act, Bank Secrecy Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. All of these acts, make changes at the national level.

The laws by state include:

Also See

 * Privacy laws of the United States
 * Medical privacy
 * Financial privacy
 * Privacy law
 * Information privacy