Bill Overview
Title: Government Surveillance Transparency Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires that law enforcement authorities notify subjects of criminal surveillance orders that cover emails, texts, and similar electronic data and limits the ability of authorities to delay or preclude the required notice. In addition, the bill (1) prohibits, subject to exceptions, courts from sealing criminal surveillance orders; (2) generally requires that public docket records related to criminal surveillance orders be made publicly available; and (3) permits any person to request that a court unseal a surveillance order.
Sponsors: Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33]
Target Audience
Population: people using electronic communication technology subject to criminal surveillance globally
Estimated Size: 260000000
- The bill focuses on criminal surveillance orders, which involve monitoring electronic communications like emails and texts.
- Individuals under surveillance due to criminal investigations are directly impacted by this bill because they are the subjects required to be notified.
- Legal professionals, such as defense attorneys and judges, will also be involved because the bill changes how information on surveillance cases is handled.
- To some extent, the general public, who values privacy and transparency in legal processes, are indirect beneficiaries.
Reasoning
- The policy is primarily aimed at individuals who are under criminal surveillance and advocates for transparency in such activities.
- The cost and reach of the policy are manageable within the given budget constraint, considering the targeted nature of notifications and system changes.
- People directly affected are those who are notified about being subjected to surveillance, while others indirectly influenced include the general public as it promotes higher transparency.
- Legal professionals are involved due to the changes in court procedures regarding surveillance orders.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a step in the right direction for transparency and privacy.
- I'm glad that there is now a formal process to inform people about being surveilled, which might keep authorities more accountable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Criminal Defense Attorney (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill assists in providing a fair defense by ensuring I can keep my clients informed about surveillance activity.
- I worry, though, about potential loopholes or agencies finding ways to delay notification delays further.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing transparency with this law can help promote trust in technology, which is crucial for my company.
- However, I'm concerned about how this will add complexity to operating in multiple jurisdictions with differing privacy laws.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Public School Teacher (Dallas, TX)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to know that there are more checks on how surveillance is done and when notifications happen.
- While this may not directly affect my daily life, it's reassuring to see protective measures set.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Freelance Journalist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 41 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is positive for journalistic sources who may otherwise be subject to secretive surveillance.
- Yet, I still see significant flaws in how this fits with broader journalistic freedoms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Law Enforcement Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who was once on the inside, increased transparency in surveillance processes can help build public trust.
- However, there's a risk of hampering legitimate investigations that require confidentiality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's great to see some law looking out for digital rights and privacy, providing transparency about unexpected surveillance.
- I hope this forces authorities to really consider before issuing surveillance orders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Corporate Attorney (Austin, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation will likely require adjustments in how corporations handle compliance related to surveillance issues.
- Transparency is a welcome shift, but it also implies more stringent internal processes to manage these adjustments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Data Analyst (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm not directly affected, it's good to see more openness about surveillance tactics.
- Ensuring people know when they're surveilled could deter misuse of such tools.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Privacy Consultant (Denver, CO)
Age: 60 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law will keep me busy with clients, assisting them in adapting to these new requirements.
- It will hopefully push more firms to opt for transparent practices, which is beneficial overall.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $140000000)
Year 3: $105000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $120000000)
Year 5: $95000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $110000000)
Year 10: $85000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $100000000)
Year 100: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill could enhance transparency and trust in law enforcement agencies, reflecting public demands for privacy rights and accountability.
- Operational impacts on courts and law enforcement need comprehensive planning to minimize implementation burdens.
- Potential for legal costs related to increased public access to surveillance records should be anticipated.