Bill Overview
Title: FACE Act
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of the Treasury from establishing or maintaining any verification process for access to an Internal Revenue Service online account using facial recognition technology.
Sponsors: Rep. Huizenga, Bill [R-MI-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who file taxes and use IRS online accounts
Estimated Size: 150000000
- Facial recognition technology is often used as a verification method for accessing secure accounts, including government accounts such as those hosted by the IRS.
- The legislation specifically targets the use of facial recognition technology for IRS accounts, which are relevant to individuals who file taxes.
- As such, the primary population impacted by this bill would be people who file taxes in the United States or otherwise need to access IRS online accounts.
- Globally, similar legislation could impact governmental processes involving financial affairs in other countries utilizing comparable technology solutions; however, the legislation itself is focused strictly on the US Treasury and IRS specifics.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically limits IRS online account access methods, which affects users who prefer or rely on facial recognition for its convenience or necessity due to disability.
- Some users may be concerned about privacy with facial recognition and thus benefit from the policy as it removes a technology that they might find intrusive.
- The budget allocation s supporting the operational adjustments to the IRS systems to comply with this new legislation, potentially offsetting costs encountered due to increased demand for alternative verification methods.
- People across varied demographics such as technology enthusiasts, privacy activists, disabled individuals, and regular users may experience different levels of impact.
- The financial and time burden on users with accessibility needs is mitigated by alternative easy-to-use verification solutions provided by the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I highly value my privacy and feel uncomfortable with facial recognition technology being used by governmental bodies.
- I don't mind using other methods like OTPs for verification.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Accountant (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm used to the current system, and adapting to any new verification method could be cumbersome.
- Facial recognition is quick, and removal might make my work less efficient.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The use of facial recognition just makes things easier for me.
- I've never had issues with it and wonder why it's being taken away.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (New York City, NY)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm worried about privacy, I am also concerned about security lapses that might occur due to alternative methods.
- Balancing privacy and security is key for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Financial Advisor (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Facial recognition is convenient and secure; without it, I feel constrained.
- I understand privacy concerns, but that should be a personal choice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Changes in verification won't affect me much as my children manage my accounts.
- I am more concerned about security than the method itself.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Graduate Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It might make life a bit more inconvenient as I use facial recognition a lot in academic settings.
- I'm open to alternatives as long as they don't require too much extra effort.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Nurse (Charlotte, NC)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not that tech-savvy, but I prefer methods that are quick and require little setup.
- Facial recognition was simple for me, and adapting to a change could take time I don't have.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Truck Driver (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Most of my tax work is done by professionals, so I have little interaction with these systems.
- Changing tech won't impact me noticeably, until I use it myself.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Recent College Graduate (Boston, MA)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm used to biometric verification and losing one method is slightly inconvenient.
- However, I value privacy and believe this change could benefit me long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $4000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- Enforcement and adaptation of alternate verification systems to ensure security and user convenience without facial recognition.
- Public perception and the balance of convenience, security, and privacy in IRS processes.
- Impact on existing contracts and adaptation of vendor strategies to align with the new regulations.