Bill Overview
Title: SHIELD Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes a new criminal offense related to the distribution of intimate visual depictions. Specifically, it makes it a crime to knowingly distribute (or intentionally threaten to distribute) an intimate visual depiction of an individual (1) with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the individual's lack of consent and reasonable expectation of privacy, and (2) without a reasonable belief that distributing the depiction touches a matter of public concern. A violator is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to five years, or both.
Sponsors: Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals at risk of having their intimate visual depictions shared non-consensually
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The distribution of intimate visual depictions is a global issue, as individuals worldwide are affected by the non-consensual sharing of such content.
- Technological advancements and the internet make it easy to share visual depictions without consent, impacting people in nearly every country.
- Cultural and legal approaches to privacy and consent vary, but the core issue of distributive exploitation is universally recognized.
- Awareness and legal protections against image-based sexual abuse are increasing, indicating a global recognition of the issue's severity.
Reasoning
- The SHIELD Act of 2022 primarily affects individuals who are vulnerable to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Given the global scope of this issue and the significant online presence of US citizens, it's reasonable to focus on those who are directly impacted by such actions or are at high risk of exposure.
- The budget constraints suggest that while support and resources can be provided, extensive outreach to all potentially impacted individuals may be limited, hence prioritization and efficient allocation are crucial.
- Many individuals may not have direct experiences with non-consensual image sharing but still have a vested interest due to societal attitudes towards privacy and digital safety.
- A significant portion of the US population may empathize or feel indirectly affected due to broader privacy concerns and the potential societal consequences of non-consensual distribution acts.
- The diversity in reactions and experiences is pivotal, considering cultural, socio-economic, and individual differences in handling privacy violations.
Simulated Interviews
student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's about time there's real legal action against this kind of behavior. I've seen how devastating it can be for some of my friends when their personal images were shared.
- This law might not stop everyone, but it definitely sets a precedent and could deter people.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
tech worker (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act is a positive step in protecting personal privacy rights. It's essential to have such laws as part of a larger framework for digital regulation.
- The fear of having images distributed without consent is very real, and legal measures can alleviate part of this fear.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
small business owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives me a sense of security that wasn't there before. I was always worried about what could happen if someone got hold of my personal images.
- Even with this law, it's hard to shake off past experiences, but knowing there's a legal recourse is a massive relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
retired (Houston, TX)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might not be directly impacted, but I worry about my grandkids and the world they're growing up in.
- Laws like these won't solve everything, but they are steps in the right direction to ensure a safer environment online.
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 | 5 |
lawyer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From a legal perspective, this act adds a necessary layer of protection and deterrence for those likely to violate privacy rights.
- It's encouraging to see the legal system catching up with digital realities, but enforcement and awareness are key.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
freelancer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad there's finally some legal backing in case something happens with my images online. It's scary to think about how little control we have.
- I hope it also helps in raising awareness among my peers.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
retired educator (Miami, FL)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might not be directly affected by non-consensual image distribution, but I'm supportive of measures that protect the community.
- It's good to see steps being taken to address these issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
artist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having a backup plan in case intimate or private images get shared is such a relief. This law can help protect people like me who are worried about what people might do with our online presence.
- It's essential, but I hope it's enforced effectively.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
IT consultant (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SHIELD Act is a necessary step forward. With the increasing misuse of personal data, this is a timely and much-needed policy.
- People need to feel secure online, and this is a good message from the government.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
office administrator (Portland, OR)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm really pleased to see laws catching up to technology. It's about safety and making sure people don't misuse the internet.
- There's always the fear of images being shared without consent, and this takes away some of that worry.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $12000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $12000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $12000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $12000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $12000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill primarily focuses on reducing harm and protecting individuals' privacy rights, with secondary economic impacts.
- Ensuring implementation will require appropriate legal training and awareness programs.
- Measuring the impact on reducing harm from non-consensual image distribution is essential for evaluating effectiveness.