Bill Overview
Title: Buzz Off Act
Description: This bill prohibits federal law enforcement from using unmanned aerial vehicles to intentionally conduct surveillance of a specifically targeted U.S. citizen or the property of such an individual, with certain exceptions. Specifically, this prohibition shall not apply if (1) the federal law enforcement agency in question first obtains a search warrant, (2) the Department of Homeland Security certifies that such surveillance is necessary to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specified person or organization, or (3) the citizen gives written consent.
Sponsors: Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Target Audience
Population: People concerned about government surveillance by drones
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill primarily impacts U.S. citizens who are concerned about privacy regarding surveillance by federal law enforcement using drones.
- Given that exceptions include obtaining a warrant, a high terrorist threat certification, or citizen consent, the everyday impact on the general population might be limited unless in those specified situations.
- While federal law agencies can use drones in certain situations, the general populace may not be directly affected unless involved in a situation where exceptions apply.
- The population impacted would include U.S. citizens who are subjects of federal investigations potentially involving drone surveillance without the specified exceptions.
Reasoning
- Considering the Buzz Off Act is primarily concerned with protecting privacy against unauthorized drone surveillance, it seems directly impactful to those either under law enforcement scrutiny or those sensitive to privacy concerns.
- The policy, while impactful in principle, affects a relatively small population directly due to the exceptions outlined for federal use.
- Its likely indirect influence might be on people's perceived sense of privacy and security, which could subtly improve wellbeing among privacy-conscious communities.
- Budget constraints suggest that the policy's implementation and enforcement costs will be contained, potentially limiting the scope or frequency of oversight available.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Privacy is a crucial aspect of our freedom, and this law helps protect it.
- I feel more at ease knowing unwarranted surveillance is limited.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Homemaker (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't understand much about drones, so this law doesn't affect me.
- As long as I'm safe in my home, I don’t worry too much.
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 |
Journalist (Miami, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protecting journalists from drone surveillance without warrant is essential.
- Trust this act helps shield our investigations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Lawyer (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law underlines liberty and privacy rights.
- Vital step towards defining limits on surveillance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired teacher (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Relieved to know that drone use will be more regulated now.
- Policy reassures my concerns about unauthorized surveillance.
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 | 6 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Drone regulations are tough; it could limit innovation.
- Balancing privacy and innovation is tricky.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Real estate agent (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Understanding more control on surveillance reassures me.
- Hopeful this brings more transparency in law enforcement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Artist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Art often reflects wars on privacy, and this law is thought-provoking.
- This may influence my future projects on technology.
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 |
Business consultant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A stricter drone policy means businesses need to ensure compliance.
- My role usually involves ensuring the lines are not crossed. This policy aids in that effort.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Civil servant (New York, NY)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- City life is hectic and drones add to that chaos.
- This bill may help calm some worries about constant surveillance.
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 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $40000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Implementation involves changes in federal law enforcement procedures, which could incur significant start-up costs but taper off as systems and practices adjust.
- While the bill enforces stricter regulations, exceptions maintain the ability of law enforcement to respond to threats efficiently.
- The anticipated impact on U.S. citizens is largely around privacy concerns and reducing unauthorized surveillance areas.