5 C.F.R. § 297.102

Definitions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

In this part, the terms agency, individual, maintain, record, statistical records, and systems of records have the same meanings as defined in the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a. In addition:

Access means providing a copy of a record to, or allowing review of the original record by, the data subject or the data subject's authorized representative, parent, or legal guardian;

Act means the Privacy Act of 1974, Public Law 93-579, 5 U.S.C. 552a, as amended;

Agency means any department or independent establishment in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, including a Government corporation, of Government-controlled corporation, except those specifically excluded from the Office recordkeeping requirements by statute, this title, or formal agreement between the Office and the agency.

Amendment means the correction, addition, deletion, or destruction of a record or specific portions of a record;

Data subject means the individual to whom the information pertains and by whose name or other individual identifier the information is retrieved;

Disclosure means providing personal review of a record, or a copy thereof, to someone other than the data subject or the data subject's authorized representative, parent, or legal guardian;

Document means a piece of written or printed matter that provides information or evidence or that serves as official record.

Mail means artifacts used to assemble letters and packages that are sent or delivered by the United States Postal Service or other commercial letter or parcel delivery services.

Office means the U.S. Office of Personnel Management;

Personnel record means any record concerning an individual which is maintained and used in the personnel management or personnel policy-making process; and

System manager means the Office or agency official, designated by the head of the agency, who has the authority to decide Privacy Act matters relative to each system of records maintained by the Office.

[53 FR 1998, Jan. 26, 1988, as amended at 89 FR 25750, Apr. 12, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1980–2016 · leading case: Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2010). “1997) (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 297.102 (1997) ). We have also interpreted this definition liberally to include not only the physical disclosure of the records, but also the accessing of private records.”

In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 162 F. Supp. 3d 953 (N.D. Cal. 2016). “” 5 C.F.R. § 297.102 . Courts have restricted this definition to situations where information holders have willfully provided data to an unauthorized third party.”

In Re: Sci. Applications Int'l Corp. (Saic) Backup Tape Data Theft Litig., 45 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.D.C. 2014). “, 5 C.F.R. § 297.102 (Under Privacy Act, “[disclosure means providing personal review of a record, or a copy thereof, to someone other than the data subject or the data subject’s authorized representative, parent, or legal guardian.”

Pippinger v. Treasury, 129 F.3d 519 (10th Cir. 1997). “” 5 C.F.R. § 297.102 (1997). Although the OPM’s definition of “disclosure” would appear to be limited to disclosures of the physical records themselves (or mechanical reproductions thereof), this court and other courts have assumed or held that the Privacy Act more broadly…”

Storm v. Paytime, Inc., 90 F. Supp. 3d 359 (M.D. Penn. 2015). “3d at 28 (citing 5 C.F.R. § 297.102 ). Here, Plaintiffs do not allege that the unidentified hacker was actually able to view, read, or otherwise understand the data it accessed.”

Wrocklage v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 769 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “Vilsack, the Tenth Circuit adopted the definition of disclosure requiring “personal review” by an unauthorized recipient as set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 297.102 to reject a Privacy Act violation claim.”

Liguori v. Alexander, 495 F. Supp. 641 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). “See 5 C.F.R. § 297.102 (b)(5). 11 . The extent of the official immunity of a federal employee charged with tortious conduct is a question governed by federal law, even when the cause of action arises under state law.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.