Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to authorize civil actions against persons who aid or abet violations under such law, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill expands criminal and civil liability for violations related to electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, including by making civilly liable a person who knowingly aided or abetted such a violation.
Sponsors: Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by civil liability under FISA expansions
Estimated Size: 50000
- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 primarily impacts individuals who are subjects of electronic surveillance for national security purposes.
- This legislation will affect not only those entities directly conducting surveillance but also any person or entity that aids or abets such actions, increasing their civil liability.
- The population impacted includes those working in intelligence and private sectors that manage electronic data or communications.
- Legal professionals specializing in national security law are also impacted as the scope of litigation and liability extends.
- Globally, individuals who are either subjects of such surveillance or work within international frameworks dealing with U.S. intelligence operations are impacted.
Reasoning
- The population directly impacted by this policy includes individuals and entities involved in electronic surveillance operations, such as intelligence agencies, cybersecurity firms, and telecom companies that may handle data relevant to espionage or national security.
- Legal professionals specializing in these areas would see an impact on their practice, as the policy increases avenues for litigation.
- Costs and timeframes suggest limited direct impact on average Americans not involved in national security or telecommunications sectors, so we must include various professionals rather than general public perspectives.
- The policy likely poses variable impacts based on occupation, legal involvement, and technological participation in surveillance activities. Those in national security and private intelligence sectors will most likely be under scrutiny, thus a high impact.
- The policy might indirectly impact citizens by changing privacy terms or agreements within telecom industries due to compliance shifts.
Simulated Interviews
Intelligence Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about how this policy will impact internal protocols and my liability as an analyst.
- While the intention is clear, it could lead to overly cautious behavior among analysts, potentially delaying important surveillance work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Corporate Lawyer (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could increase my workload significantly as many clients in tech will need clearer lines on aiding liability.
- It's an opportunity but could be overwhelming if not managed correctly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cybersecurity Consultant (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy introduces new compliance challenges for my clients, which means more business for me.
- However, constant changes in regulations can wear out relationships with tech firms.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Telecom Executive (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There’s significant concern about the potential increase in legal exposure for our company.
- Revising compliance frameworks will be expensive but necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Software Engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy ups the stakes for security measures, but that's a positive challenge for our company.
- We expect to see more demand for our encryption technology.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry this policy will complicate efforts to balance security and privacy.
- In my retirement, I'm more concerned about my own privacy than before.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Compliance Officer (Boston, MA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There will be increased compliance costs but also opportunities for training our staff.
- It is a double-edged sword impacting both budget and strategic planning.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Privacy Advocacy Lawyer (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could bring more cases to address balance issues between surveillance and privacy.
- It's aligned with my goals, though others in my field might find it more burdensome.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Startup Founder (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expect this policy to drive interest and investment in our products.
- But the legal costs might offset some of the benefits if we're too slow to adapt.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Digital Rights Activist (Miami, FL)
Age: 39 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my advocacy to increase public consciousness of surveillance.
- But, continued vigilance is necessary to ensure enforcement aligns with civil liberties.
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: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $210000000)
Year 3: $170000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $220000000)
Year 5: $180000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $230000000)
Year 10: $195000000 (Low: $145000000, High: $245000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- The expansion to civil liability could significantly impact both governmental and corporate practices related to surveillance.
- Legal costs may significantly increase, potentially impacting other spending in national security.
- The technology sector could face compliance challenges related to data management necessitating investment in legal defense resources.
- Global perception of U.S. intelligence operations could be influenced which might affect diplomatic relationships.