Also known as: record-keeping · recordkeeping · records keeping · records-keeping · record retention
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A state practice of collecting and computerizing personal information such as the names and addresses of patients prescribed dangerous drugs. The practice does not impermissibly invade a constitutionally protected zone of privacy when reasonable safeguards are in place.
Facilities or systems for data processing or record maintenance concerning securities accounts. The location of such facilities does not determine a securities intermediary's jurisdiction.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A state practice of collecting and computerizing personal information such as the names and addresses of patients prescribed dangerous drugs. The practice does not impermissibly invade a constitutionally protected zone of privacy when reasonable safeguards are in place.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Facilities or systems for data processing or record maintenance concerning securities accounts. The location of such facilities does not determine a securities intermediary's jurisdiction.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The state health department requires pharmacies to report the names and addresses of patients prescribed certain controlled substances. Raymond Ramos, a patient, objects that the computerized records invade his privacy. The department maintains the database with access limits and encryption. Because reasonable safeguards exist, the record keeping does not violate constitutional privacy protections.
No. The right of privacy does not bar the state from collecting and computerizing personal information such as the names and addresses of patients prescribed dangerous drugs when reasonable safeguards are maintained.
Supporting sources
Rhapsody Entertainment serves as securities intermediary for client accounts. Its data processing facilities are located in State A, but the issuer of the underlying assets is organized in State B. When a dispute arises over which law governs the accounts, the location of the record keeping facilities in State A does not control the determination of Rhapsody's jurisdiction.
None. The location of facilities for data processing or other record keeping concerning the account does not determine the securities intermediary's jurisdiction.
Supporting sources