Bill Overview
Title: END Child Exploitation Act
Description: This bill modifies the reporting requirements for electronic communication service providers and remote computing service providers (providers) that report information to the CyberTipline of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children on crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children. Specifically, the bill increases the amount of time—from 90 days to 180 days—that a provider must preserve the contents of a report. Additionally, the bill permits a provider to voluntarily retain the contents for longer than 180 days to reduce the proliferation of or to prevent the online sexual exploitation of children.
Sponsors: Sen. Blackburn, Marsha [R-TN]
Target Audience
Population: People using electronic communication services
Estimated Size: 210000000
- The bill targets electronic communication service providers and remote computing service providers, as they will need to adapt to new requirements.
- Increasing the preservation period for reports from 90 to 180 days may impact the operational procedures of these service providers.
- The voluntary retention clause might create operational changes for providers looking to contribute to reducing child exploitation online.
- The bill indirectly impacts children who are at risk of sexual exploitation by increasing the chances of successful intervention and prevention.
Reasoning
- The END Child Exploitation Act is primarily targeting electronic communication and remote computing service providers. As such, everyday users of these services may not be directly aware of or influenced by the policy, but the corporate entities behind these services need to adjust their operational procedures.
- Given the large budget associated with this policy, it is reasonable to assume that the policy will significantly affect the operations of these companies. They may need to invest in more robust systems for data retention and reporting, influencing how their business operates and possibly passing some of these costs onto consumers.
- The potential secondary impact on everyday consumers is that their data may be involved in these extended retention periods, though they are not the primary target of the policy.
- The policy also aims to affect the wellbeing of children at risk of exploitation, as increased data retention is intended to aid legal and protective efforts.
- For this simulation, I will cover perspectives from a range of stakeholders, including engineers at service providers, customers of these services, parents concerned about child safety online, and policymakers.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change means I will need to work on updating our data retention systems, which might be a great professional opportunity but also comes with challenges.
- Maintaining much more data for longer periods could strain our server capabilities.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Customer Support Agent (Seattle, WA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I expect to get more questions from clients about our changed data retention policies.
- Overall, it might be a hectic transition period, but I'm not directly responsible for the tech side.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Product Manager (Austin, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems well-intentioned, especially if it can genuinely reduce cases of child exploitation.
- Personally, I hope this doesn't increase costs transferred to consumers.
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 |
Paralegal (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I find this policy to be a necessary step in the right direction for preventing child exploitation online.
- It will likely increase the compliance workload in my field.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
IT Director (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will require significant adjustments to our data infrastructure, which could lead to increased project budgets.
- However, preserving data for longer can be justified if it's for a noble cause like preventing child exploitation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Child Advocate (Chicago, IL)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that can help bring down the rates of child exploitation is a win in my book.
- The policy isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
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 | 9 | 8 |
Policy Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The END Act will help standardize retention practices across providers, improving long-term reporting consistency.
- Implementation cost might be high for service providers, but it is for a moral imperative.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Digital Privacy Advocate (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Preserving data for longer might unintentionally infringe on privacy rights.
- While the act targets a very critical issue, it may open the door to other privacy compromises.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rarely think about data policies, but it's good to know companies are being pushed to do more about child protection.
- Overall, my daily life won't change, but it's probably a positive improvement for society.
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 |
Retired Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this kind of policy does more to protect children like my grandchildren.
- The policy makes me feel more comfortable about the future of online safety.
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 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $45000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $46000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $61000000)
Year 3: $47500000 (Low: $32000000, High: $63000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $65000000)
Year 10: $55000000 (Low: $37000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $75000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Key Considerations
- Service providers will need to absorb additional costs related to data retention, possibly affecting their pricing or service strategies.
- The strengthened data retention could enhance the ability to tackle child exploitation, offering societal benefits not quantified in GDP or cost savings.
- The policy implementation might face resistance or compliance challenges from smaller service providers with limited resources.
- Coordination with law enforcement and child protection agencies will be crucial to maximize the policy's intended impact.