Bill Overview
Title: Warrant for Metadata Act
Description: This bill addresses the disclosure of customer electronic communications or records, including by requiring a governmental entity to obtain a warrant before requesting that a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service disclose a customer's metadata.
Sponsors: Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33]
Target Audience
Population: Internet users whose metadata is managed by a service provider
Estimated Size: 300000000
- The bill focuses on electronic communications and the protection of customer metadata.
- This implies that any individual using electronic communication services could be impacted by this legislation.
- Considering global internet usage, a significant portion of the world's population uses electronic communications, including email, social media, and other digital platforms mainly managed by Service Providers.
- Service providers are located worldwide, and legislation in one area can drastically affect international users if the companies offer global services.
Reasoning
- The policy is focused on protecting metadata through requiring warrants, which means its direct impact will be on the privacy and security of digital communications.
- Implementation will likely have a 'medium' to 'high' impact on people who are particularly conscious about online privacy or have professions that require confidentiality, such as journalists or lawyers.
- The cost and scale of the policy imply that not every individual will feel impacted unless they are directly concerned with metadata privacy or have had interactions with governmental agencies requesting their data.
- The range of perspectives should include individuals unlikely to be affected (e.g., those with limited digital presence), as well as those who heavily rely on digital communications.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy reassures me about privacy when the government requests metadata, which is crucial for my everyday digital activities.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Journalist (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing there is an extra layer of protection makes me feel slightly more secure about communicating with sources.
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 |
Retired (Dallas, TX)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this policy would affect someone like me, as I don't have issues with privacy online.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Digital Marketer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy adds a good layer of protection, but as of now, it's not something that directly impacts my day-to-day work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wasn't really aware of how much metadata can say about me, so I feel this policy is useful but not game-changing.
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 |
Lawyer (Boston, MA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will be beneficial for maintaining client trust, knowing their information is protected from unwarranted government access.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to know the government needs more oversight to access digital records, but it won't have a big impact on my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Stay-at-home parent (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this will change much for me, as I don't deal with anything the government would be interested in.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that enhances privacy seems positive, but it's not something I see affecting me directly right now.
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 |
Cybersecurity Analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a crucial step forward for protecting individual privacy, especially for users more at risk.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 3: $80000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $105000000)
Year 5: $85000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $115000000)
Year 10: $90000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $125000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $130000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill primarily affects service providers and regulatory bodies due to the infrastructural changes required to process warrants.
- Legal challenges from tech companies could influence implementation timelines and costs.
- The balance between privacy and governmental oversight remains a contentious social and political issue, influencing public support.