Bill Overview
Title: To prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from requiring individuals to submit biometric information or geolocation information to access online services, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of the Treasury from (1) establishing or maintaining any verification process for access to online accounts of the Internal Revenue Service that uses biometric or geolocation information from mobile network operators; or (2) collecting, storing, or sharing such biometric or geolocation information without either express consent from the taxpayer to whom such information belongs or a court order.
Sponsors: Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals accessing IRS online accounts
Estimated Size: 150000000
- The bill specifically targets individuals accessing online accounts related to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), indicating it impacts those who interact with IRS's online services.
- The population affected would primarily include U.S. taxpayers, as the IRS is a U.S. government agency focused on tax collection and enforcement within the United States.
- Nowadays, most taxpayers file taxes electronically, suggesting a significant number of individuals could be impacted by changes to electronic processes.
- The bill seeks to restrict the collection or use of biometric or geolocation data by the IRS, which could have been a part of identity verification for accessing IRS services electronically.
- Given the specificity of the bill to IRS services, primarily U.S. citizens and residents who are required to file taxes will be impacted.
Reasoning
- The policy affects people who use IRS online accounts, which could be a significant portion of the adult population in the U.S. given that many file taxes electronically.
- Not everyone uses IRS online services or even has concerns about biometric data collection, so the impact may vary widely.
- Assistance in tax filing by family members or professionals also affects the number of individuals indirectly impacted.
- The budget constraints suggest focusing on highly affected individuals may be necessary, as widespread low-impact changes would dilute the budget's effectiveness.
- The impact duration will depend on how the removal of biometric verification affects individuals' perception of security and convenience in accessing tax services.
Simulated Interviews
Accountant (California)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is essential to protect privacy.
- I'm glad that biometric data won't be used, as it's sensitive information.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rarely use the IRS site, but it's good to know my data won't be misused.
- Privacy is always a concern for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Software Engineer (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step forward in protecting user information.
- It's crucial to have control over personal data.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Teacher (Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not familiar with the technical details, but I prefer knowing my data is safe.
- As long as I can file my taxes easily, any change in process is okay.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Business Owner (Illinois)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides peace of mind regarding data management.
- I just hope it doesn't complicate the login process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Student (Ohio)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a new taxpayer, reducing the complexity of secure logins is important.
- I am concerned about data privacy, so this policy aligns with my values.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Homemaker (Washington)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Even though I don't handle taxes directly, I want our information kept private.
- This seems like a responsible move from the government.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Freelancer (New York)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Data privacy is critical, especially with sensitive business information involved.
- I hope the security measures remain strong despite this change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Financial Advisor (New Jersey)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will reassure clients that their data isn't being used improperly.
- Electronic processes must remain user-friendly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
IT Specialist (Georgia)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Limiting data collection is a step in the right direction for privacy.
- Hopefully, the security remains robust without biometric options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $5000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $10000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring secure and efficient identity verification methods for IRS online services is crucial without relying on prohibited biometric and geolocation data.
- Potential costs of system transitions versus long-term savings in data management must be balanced.