Which of the following is NOT a type of privacy program metric?

SCENARIO
Please use the following to answer the next QUESTION:
Perhaps Jack Kelly should have stayed in the U.S. He enjoys a formidable reputation inside the company, Special Handling Shipping, for his work in reforming certain "rogue" offices. Last year, news broke that a police sting operation had revealed a drug ring operating in the Providence, Rhode Island office in the United States. Video from the office's video surveillance cameras leaked to news operations showed a drug exchange between Special Handling staff and undercover officers.
In the wake of this incident, Kelly had been sent to Providence to change the "hands off" culture that upper management believed had let the criminal elements conduct their illicit transactions. After a few weeks under Kelly's direction, the office became a model of efficiency and customer service. Kelly monitored his workers' activities using the same cameras that had recorded the illegal conduct of their former co-workers.
Now Kelly has been charged with turning around the office in Cork, Ireland, another trouble spot. The company has received numerous reports of the staff leaving the office unattended. When Kelly arrived, he found that even when present, the staff often spent their days socializing or conducting personal business on their mobile phones. Again, he observed their behaviors using surveillance cameras. He issued written reprimands to six staff members based on the first day of video alone.
Much to Kelly's surprise and chagrin, he and the company are now under investigation by the Data Protection Commissioner of Ireland for allegedly violating the privacy rights of employees. Kelly was told that the company's license for the cameras listed facility security as their main use, but he does not know why this matters. He has pointed out to his superiors that the company's training programs on privacy protection and data collection mention nothing about surveillance video.
You are a privacy protection consultant, hired by the company to assess this incident, report on the legal and compliance issues, and recommend next steps.
Knowing that the regulator is now investigating, what would be the best step to take?

Which of the following helps build trust with customers and stakeholders?

SCENARIO
Please use the following to answer the next QUESTION:
Natalia, CFO of the Nationwide Grill restaurant chain, had never seen her fellow executives so anxious. Last week, a data processing firm used by the company reported that its system may have been hacked, and customer data such as names, addresses, and birthdays may have been compromised. Although the attempt was proven unsuccessful, the scare has prompted several Nationwide Grill executives to Question the company's privacy program at today's meeting.
Alice, a vice president, said that the incident could have opened the door to lawsuits, potentially damaging Nationwide Grill's market position. The Chief Information Officer (CIO), Brendan, tried to assure her that even if there had been an actual breach, the chances of a successful suit against the company were slim. But Alice remained unconvinced.
Spencer - a former CEO and currently a senior advisor - said that he had always warned against the use of contractors for data processing. At the very least, he argued, they should be held contractually liable for telling customers about any security incidents. In his view, Nationwide Grill should not be forced to soil the company name for a problem it did not cause.
One of the business development (BD) executives, Haley, then spoke, imploring everyone to see reason. "Breaches can happen, despite organizations' best efforts," she remarked. "Reasonable preparedness is key." She reminded everyone of the incident seven years ago when the large grocery chain Tinkerton's had its financial information compromised after a large order of Nationwide Grill frozen dinners. As a long-time BD executive with a solid understanding of Tinkerton's's corporate culture, built up through many years of cultivating relationships, Haley was able to successfully manage the company's incident response.
Spencer replied that acting with reason means allowing security to be handled by the security functions within the company - not BD staff. In a similar way, he said, Human Resources (HR) needs to do a better job training employees to prevent incidents. He pointed out that Nationwide Grill employees are overwhelmed with posters, emails, and memos from both HR and the ethics department related to the company's privacy program. Both the volume and the duplication of information means that it is often ignored altogether.
Spencer said, "The company needs to dedicate itself to its privacy program and set regular in-person trainings for all staff once a month." Alice responded that the suggestion, while well-meaning, is not practical. With many locations, local HR departments need to have flexibility with their training schedules. Silently, Natalia agreed.
Based on the scenario, Nationwide Grill needs to create better employee awareness of the company's privacy program by doing what?

SCENARIO
Please use the following to answer the next question:
As the director of data protection for Consolidated Records Corporation, you are justifiably pleased with your accomplishments so far. Your hiring was precipitated by warnings from regulatory agencies following a series of relatively minor data breaches that could easily have been worse. However, you have not had a reportable incident for the three years that you have been with the company. In fact, you consider your program a model that others in the data storage industry may note in their own program development.
You started the program at Consolidated from a jumbled mix of policies and procedures and worked toward coherence across departments and throughout operations. You were aided along the way by the program's sponsor, the vice president of operations, as well as by a Privacy Team that started from a clear understanding of the need for change.
Initially, your work was greeted with little confidence or enthusiasm by the company's "old guard" among both the executive team and frontline personnel working with data and interfacing with clients. Through the use of metrics that showed the costs not only of the breaches that had occurred, but also projections of the costs that easily could occur given the current state of operations, you soon had the leaders and key decision-makers largely on your side. Many of the other employees were more resistant, but face-to-face meetings with each department and the development of a baseline privacy training program achieved sufficient "buy-in" to begin putting the proper procedures into place.
Now, privacy protection is an accepted component of all current operations involving personal or protected data and must be part of the end product of any process of technological development. While your approach is not systematic, it is fairly effective.
You are left contemplating: What must be done to maintain the program and develop it beyond just a data breach prevention program? How can you build on your success? What are the next action steps?
What analytic can be used to track the financial viability of the program as it develops?