Bill Overview
Title: Inspector General Notification Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to notify the DOJ Office of the Inspector General in any case in which the metadata or contents of any communication of a covered party (i.e., any member of the legislative branch or any member or employee of the judicial branch) is subject to a subpoena, court order, or warrant.
Sponsors: Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33]
Target Audience
Population: Members and employees of the legislative and judicial branches
Estimated Size: 30535
- The bill primarily affects members of the legislative and judicial branches in the United States.
- There are 535 members in the U.S. Congress (Senate and House of Representatives).
- The judicial branch consists of approximately 30,000 employees, including judges from various levels of the federal judiciary.
- The bill's direct impact is stipulated within the context of the Department of Justice procedures and the Office of the Inspector General.
- This legislation focuses on maintaining privacy and oversight over investigations involving communication metadata or contents related to these branches.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts members and employees within the legislative and judicial branches, which is a specific and small segment of the population.
- Given the nature of the policy, most citizens outside these branches will experience little to no direct effect.
- The policy aims to enhance transparency and protect potential privacy breaches associated with investigations involving these branches.
- We must account for the likelihood that most people will not feel the effects of this policy in their day-to-day wellbeing.
- Budget considerations indicate that only a small targeted implementation is necessary, which aligns with the policy's focus and limited affected population.
Simulated Interviews
U.S. Senator (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support enhanced oversight to guarantee no abuse of power in investigations.
- This policy reassures my communications will not be subpoenaed without proper checks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Federal judge (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is important to have transparency in our legal processes.
- Knowing there is oversight can alleviate worry regarding privacy invasion.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Appellate court clerk (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This may provide us better assurance of privacy at work.
- I hope it doesn't slow down our processes with extra bureaucracy.
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 |
DOJ Analyst (Austin, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy adds another layer of responsibility but is crucial for transparency.
- Could impact workload but ensures accountability.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Legislative Assistant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected but supports accountability measures.
- It assures staff members our communications are adequately safeguarded.
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 |
Public Interest Attorney (Miami, FL)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This should not impact my daily operations.
- Anything that improves transparency is generally positive.
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 |
Court Reporter (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My role is unaffected directly by procedural policy adjustments.
- It's reassuring for judges and lawyers I work with.
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 |
Data Privacy Specialist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Adopting this policy shows a commitment to safeguarding sensitive information.
- It aligns with pressing demands for privacy enhancement in legal sectors.
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 |
Legal Analyst for DOJ (Denver, CO)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've felt a need for improved communication oversight.
- It comes with challenges in processing efficiency but assures public trust.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Junior Congressman (Boston, MA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bolsters the checks and balances which protect us as public servants.
- It's important to avoid misuse of personal data in highly political times.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- This bill specifically targets oversight in the context of legislative and judicial communications being investigated.
- The bill emphasizes privacy and procedural integrity at minimal cost.
- Necessary for ensuring transparency and oversight without complicating existing procedures.