Bill Overview
Title: Fourth Amendment Restoration Act
Description: This bill limits surveillance conducted for foreign intelligence purposes. Specifically, the bill repeals provisions authorizing without a court order various types of searches and surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, including electronic surveillance and access to business records. An officer of the U.S. government must obtain a warrant for certain search and surveillance activities against a U.S. citizen, including (1) conducting electronic surveillance, (2) conducting physical searches of property under a U.S. citizen's exclusive control, or (3) targeting a U.S. citizen to acquire foreign intelligence information. The bill provides for criminal penalties for a person who knowingly violates these requirements or otherwise obtains such information under color of law without statutory authorization. Information about a U.S. citizen acquired under Executive Order 12333 (relating to intelligence gathering) or during surveillance of a non-U.S. citizen shall not be used against the U.S. citizen in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding or investigation.
Sponsors: Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals worldwide subject to US intelligence surveillance or related international intelligence operations
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill affects rules surrounding surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, focusing on individuals' privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment.
- It specifically targets procedures involving U.S. citizens and their protection against unwarranted searches and surveillances without a court order.
- The scope of impact includes any personal physical search, electronic surveillance, and broad data access under previous intelligence acts.
- Globally, there are estimates of foreign and multinational communications or business entities interacting with the U.S., though the bill's impact is mostly concerning U.S. legal proceedings.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects U.S. citizens, with a focus on their privacy rights regarding surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. This is fairly universal, as it could potentially impact any citizen interacting with digital communication channels or subjected to surveillance.
- The budget constraints suggest this act can influence technology and infrastructure costs for surveillance processes, but also legal and administrative costs for ensuring compliance and handling potential litigations.
- Given the privacy focus, well-being changes are expected to be nuanced and vary widely based on personal values, trust in the government, and direct experiences with surveillance.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (New York City, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel that the government should have constraints on how they gather information for foreign intelligence, especially when it concerns U.S. citizens.
- This policy gives me some peace of mind knowing that there will be a legal process to protect personal privacy.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Marketing Specialist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for intelligence gathering, but it makes me uncomfortable not knowing how my information might be used.
- This policy seems like a step in the right direction toward balancing security and 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 |
Retired School Teacher (Fargo, ND)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven't been too worried about this kind of thing before, but it's good to see protections are in place.
- I'm happy if this means personal details and privacy are more secured.
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 |
Human Rights Activist (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Government overreach in surveillance is concerning and this policy is a small but necessary change.
- This could set a precedent for more transparency and accountability in surveillance activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
International Business Consultant (Miami, FL)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My business concerns outweigh privacy worries, but having policies like this in place is positive.
- It's a good balance between security and personal freedom.
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 |
University Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I only worry about these things when I see news about data breaches and government surveillance.
- It's nice to have added protections but it's still very abstract for me.
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 |
Cybersecurity Analyst (Seattle, WA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my views on the importance of digital privacy.
- It adds layers of protection and promotes responsible use of surveillance capabilities.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Lawyer (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is essential for reinforcing Fourth Amendment rights.
- It represents progress in protecting citizens from undue surveillance.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Tech Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Surveillance can be a double-edged sword; it poses risks to our business models that hinge on data security.
- This policy is reassuring but more needs to be done to ensure digital rights.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Government Official (Washington, DC)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems well-intentioned but may complicate intelligence operations.
- However, it's crucial to adapt and maintain public trust.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 5: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $210000000)
Year 10: $170000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $220000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- The balance between national security and privacy rights is a central concern, potentially affecting public opinion and compliance.
- Administrative and operational changes may require phased implementation to manage costs effectively.
- Effects on international relations might materialize if the U.S. appears to curtail surveillance; this might either bolster or complicate diplomatic connections, affecting economic considerations.
- The judicial workload can increase due to more warrant requests, requiring strategic resources planning.