Bill Overview
Title: No Facial Recognition at the IRS Act
Description: This bill prohibits the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from using, or contracting to use, biometric recognition technology for tax administration purposes. The bill defines biometric recognition technology as any technology that measures a biological (anatomical and physiological) or behavioral characteristic for automated recognition. The bill requires the IRS to delete all biometric data collected for purposes of tax administration not later than 60 days after the enactment of this bill.
Sponsors: Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: U.S. Taxpayers who interact with the IRS
Estimated Size: 166000000
- The bill affects people who interact with the IRS, including taxpayers and IRS employees.
- The population directly impacted by the bill includes those who could potentially have their biometric data collected by the IRS, if it were allowed.
- Indirectly impacted individuals may include legal and technology professionals engaged with the IRS's operations.
- Globally, the population directly targeted by this legislation are U.S. taxpayers.
- Those who are concerned about privacy and data security will also be impacted, as their biometric data will no longer be collected by the IRS.
Reasoning
- Most Americans must file tax returns, and thus interact with the IRS, so the policy potentially affects a large number of people.
- Not everyone will have been subject to facial recognition technology by the IRS if it were implemented, but the potential for its use is a concern for many citizens.
- The budget constraint suggests that the policy change is relatively low-cost, possibly implemented through simple administrative changes.
- There will be a range of perspectives, from those who see strong value in privacy protections to those who may not be concerned about IRS practices.
- The impact on taxpayers' wellbeing is likely to vary based on their level of concern about privacy and personal data security.
Simulated Interviews
Research Scientist (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am glad the IRS won't use facial recognition. Privacy is crucial and biometric data can be misused.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Auto Worker (Detroit, MI)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't trust any agency with my facial data. They don't need it for taxes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Tech Startup Founder (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This move is positive. Biometric data should be strictly controlled and collected only when absolutely necessary.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
IRS Employee (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see pros and cons. It's a relief not to deal with potential public distrust about misuse.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
CPA (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Biometric bans might not have immediate tax implications, but I am relieved privacy concerns are considered.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Public School Teacher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Happy to see the government isn't overstepping with things like facial recognition. It's risky.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Graphic Designer (Miami, FL)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring. The less biometric data collected by the government, the better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Logistics Manager (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't mind facial recognition, but it's important it doesn't become a new fee or hassle.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Lawyer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fantastic policy. Protecting biometric data is crucial for citizens' privacy.
- I often deal with cases where private data is misused; this is a preventive step.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Engineer (Denver, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about broad data collection.
- This policy has merits in limiting unnecessary data extraction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 3: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1250000)
Year 10: $500000 (Low: $350000, High: $650000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Biometric data security and privacy concerns are high among taxpayers, and this bill aligns with addressing those concerns.
- Transition costs will involve deleting existing biometric data and modifying administrative procedures.
- There is minimal effect on revenue collection processes since this bill is administrative.