Bill Overview
Title: Public Servant Anti-Intimidation Act of 2022
Description: This bill creates a new federal crime for knowingly publishing on the internet or otherwise making publicly available the personal information of a public servant or a spouse, child, parent, or sibling of a public servant.
Sponsors: Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]
Target Audience
Population: Public servants and their immediate family members
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill specifically targets the protection of public servants by criminalizing the dissemination of their personal information.
- It extends the protection to the immediate family members of public servants - spouses, children, parents, and siblings.
- Public servants can include a large range of professionals, such as government employees, police officers, firefighters, and elected officials, among others.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects public servants and their immediate family members, aiming to reduce intimidation by criminalizing the dissemination of their personal information.
- The estimated target population is 60 million individuals when including the family members, which is about 18% of the total U.S. population.
- The budget constraints suggest that the policy may not cover all cases of doxing or intimidation, but can still provide a deterrent and relief to many public servants and their families.
- We included interviews with a range of individuals – from young public servants to family members and those outside the direct impact zone—to gauge diverse perceptions and impacts.
- The policy is likely to have a more significant impact on those who are more public-facing and therefore more vulnerable to having personal information exposed.
Simulated Interviews
Congressional Staffer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have personally faced harassment when my information was leaked online.
- This policy makes me feel slightly safer at work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Firefighter (Austin, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a firefighter, I didn't think this would affect me much, but knowing my family is safe feels good.
- I'm cautious about online privacy, so this policy offers some peace of mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Police Officer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I constantly receive threats because of my job and identity.
- This policy might deter some from doxxing, but enforcement is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Public School Teacher (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven't been directly affected, but I worry about my child's safety.
- The policy feels like a step in the right direction, but there are doubts about coverage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
City Council Member (New York, New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In the past, I've faced harassment from politically motivated individuals.
- This policy could be beneficial, but I'd like to see how effectively it is put into practice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Administrative Assistant at Public Health Department (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven't felt personally at risk of doxxing.
- I support the policy, even if the impact on me is minimal.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Federal Judge (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's essential for my family, and it's overdue.
- I'm skeptical of how enforceable it will be, but it’s a necessary start.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Public Health Official (Miami, Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been a target during controversies, having my data published online.
- The policy provides a small sense of security, but there's more to fear from public perception.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Public Defender (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I advocate for policies that protect privacy, and this is a good start.
- It doesn’t impact me much now, but my family appreciates knowing there's protection.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Graduate Student and Intern in a Government Office (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interning in a government office and I think it's a necessary safeguard.
- My family feels safer knowing that there's a policy, although I've not been directly impacted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)
Year 3: $53000000 (Low: $43000000, High: $63000000)
Year 5: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $70000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $80000000)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring that enforcement does not excessively infringe on free speech rights, while effectively preventing intimidation of public servants is a delicate balance that could involve legal challenges.
- Implementing necessary IT and cybersecurity support systems proficiently could determine the success of this act.
- Collaboration among federal, state, and local agencies might be required for effective enforcement across jurisdictions.