Bill Overview
Title: Public Servant Protection Act of 2022
Description: This bill allows government officials to demand that persons and interactive computer service providers (e.g., social media companies) remove certain forms of their personal information from the internet. Specifically, a federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local government official may make a demand in writing for the removal of the official's (or an immediate family member's) home address or home phone number that is publicly displayed online. Within 48 hours of receiving a demand, a person displaying the address or phone number online must remove it and may not publicly display a removed address or phone number online during the 4-year period following receipt of the demand. A provider must also remove within 48 hours of receiving a demand the address or phone number publicly displayed through its service. Officials may sue a person or provider for failing to remove an applicable address or phone number. Courts may award to an aggrieved official injunctive relief, the greater of actual damages or $1,000, and reasonable costs and attorney's fees.
Sponsors: Rep. Hill, J. French [R-AR-2]
Target Audience
Population: Government officials and their families
Estimated Size: 10000000
- This bill primarily impacts government officials at various levels and their immediate family members whose personal information might be at risk of being exposed online.
- Government officials often include elected positions, appointed positions, and perhaps certain public servants who have direct roles with sensitive information, making them potential targets for information exposure.
- Immediate family members might include spouses, children, or other dependents living with government officials, increasing the scope slightly beyond officials themselves.
- Persons and interactive computer service providers such as social media companies will be regulated under this legislation to ensure compliance with removal requests.
- Given the legal scope in which this applies, it includes federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local levels.
- There are about 20 million public sector employees in the US according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and although not all may qualify as 'government officials', a significant portion involves positions of interest.
- Including immediate family members, the total number impacted would be larger than the number of officials alone.
Reasoning
- This bill primarily impacts government officials at various levels and their immediate family members whose personal information might be at risk of being exposed online.
- Government officials often include elected positions, appointed positions, and perhaps certain public servants who have direct roles with sensitive information, making them potential targets for information exposure.
- Immediate family members might include spouses, children, or other dependents living with government officials, increasing the scope slightly beyond officials themselves.
- The financial allocation suggests that this policy covers costs related to legal advice, enforcement, and the system to verify and action removal requests.
- Social media companies may have to allocate resources to compliance ensuring addresses and phone numbers are not publicly available post-request, potentially diverting from other business areas.
- Considering the target population involves government employees and their families, we estimate around 5 to 10 million people might be directly or indirectly impacted.
Simulated Interviews
Senator (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel this policy enhances my family's safety.
- Having had threats in the past, this gives me peace of mind.
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 | 9 | 7 |
Local council member (California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps not just me, but my children too.
- I am worried about online exposure and harassment.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Police Chief (Texas)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My position requires me to make tough decisions that aren't always popular.
- Keeping my personal information secure is crucial for my safety.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
School board member (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- After being doxxed, I feel vulnerable.
- This policy offers protection and reassurance for me and my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Public Health Official (Florida)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven't faced threats, but knowing there's protection is comforting.
- It's great to see proactive measures for safety.
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 |
Federal Judge (Ohio)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Judges often face backlash due to rulings, so this policy is essential.
- I feel the safety net is stronger with such measures.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Tribal Council Leader (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to have a mechanism to protect my personal data online.
- While our community is small, access to information can travel fast.
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 |
Governor (Arizona)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having personal information secure is very important for my family's safety.
- Such policies reinforce the seriousness of protecting officials.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
State legislator (Montana)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I value the right to privacy, both online and offline.
- This policy helps maintain the balance between public service and personal privacy.
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 |
Mayor (Illinois)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being a mayor can put you in the spotlight, making it crucial to guard personal data.
- This policy provides essential protection to avoid misuse of personal information.
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: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $16000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $21000000)
Year 5: $17000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $22000000)
Year 10: $19000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $19000000, High: $31000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential legal challenges based on free speech rights.
- Technological capabilities of interactive computer service providers may affect compliance timelines.
- Intergovernmental collaboration might be necessary for smooth implementation.
- Administrative readiness and resource allocation for handling requests.