Bill Overview
Title: Cyber Deterrence and Response Act of 2022
Description: This bill imposes sanctions on foreign persons (individuals or entities, including agencies of a foreign state) that are knowingly responsible for or have engaged in certain state-sponsored cyber activities, generally those that originate from outside of the United States and are reasonably likely to contribute to a significant threat to U.S. national security, foreign policy, economic health, or financial stability. The bill also imposes sanctions on certain foreign persons that provide material support for such state-sponsored cyber activities.
Sponsors: Rep. Pfluger, August [R-TX-11]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide involved in or supporting state-sponsored cyber activities against the U.S.
Estimated Size: 0
- The bill targets foreign individuals or entities responsible for state-sponsored cyber activities that threaten U.S. national security.
- The sanctions apply to cyber activities that originate outside the United States.
- Entities providing material support to these cyber actors are also targeted.
- Cybersecurity affects many sectors; hence, it's relevant globally where such actors operate.
Reasoning
- The primary impact of the policy will be indirect, affecting U.S. citizens through cybersecurity improvements and changes in international relations.
- The policy targets external threats, reducing costs related to cybersecurity breaches for U.S. businesses and individuals.
- Due to the nature of the policy, most U.S. citizens may not perceive a direct change in their wellbeing.
- The biggest impact might be on industries frequently targeted by cyber activities, such as technology and finance.
- Concerns about privacy and government’s reach could also affect the perception of the policy among U.S. citizens.
- Considering budget constraints, the policy may need to prioritize higher-threat entities, thus having a moderate to low direct visibility or impact on average citizens.
Simulated Interviews
Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is a step in the right direction. Strong deterrence is necessary to protect our businesses.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (New York, NY)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see policies focusing on cybersecurity; it keeps threats at bay and can help stabilize the economy.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this helps reduce cyber risks, though I'm a bit concerned about the costs involved.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
University Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an InfoSec student, this policy sounds like a smart move to strengthen our defenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
IT Security Consultant (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Effective deterrents are necessary for national security and maintaining a competitive business environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Software Engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sanctions are important for global cyber stability; they signal that the U.S. won't tolerate cyber threats.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a critical measure for national security, though we must ensure it doesn't overreach.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
College Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's interesting to see a strong stance against cyber threats; it shows the U.S. is serious about its cyber policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Teacher (Denver, CO)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope it results in fewer cyber threats and scams, though I'm skeptical about its direct effects on people like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Cybersecurity Researcher (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 44 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sanctions are a powerful tool to deter malicious cyber activities, reinforcing global cybersecurity initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 2: $765000000 (Low: $510000000, High: $1020000000)
Year 3: $780300000 (Low: $520200000, High: $1040400000)
Year 5: $811712000 (Low: $541142000, High: $1082284000)
Year 10: $890000000 (Low: $593000000, High: $1187000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Key Considerations
- Effectiveness of the sanctions in deterring cyber activities.
- Accuracy in identifying perpetrators to avoid unintended international tensions.
- Balance between national security and potential economic slowdown caused by sanctions.
- Potential for retaliation or escalation by foreign entities.