Bill Overview
Title: Government Surveillance Transparency Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires that law enforcement authorities notify subjects of criminal surveillance orders that cover emails, texts, and similar electronic data and limits the ability of authorities to delay or preclude the required notice. In addition, the bill (1) prohibits, subject to exceptions, courts from sealing criminal surveillance orders; (2) generally requires that public docket records related to criminal surveillance orders be made publicly available; and (3) permits any person to request that a court unseal a surveillance order.
Sponsors: Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: People using electronic communication systems and subject to surveillance orders
Estimated Size: 250000000
- The bill addresses surveillance orders related to electronic data including emails and texts, affecting anyone who uses electronic communication systems.
- It restricts the power of law enforcement to keep surveillance subjects unaware, hence impacting their right to privacy and due process.
- By altering how surveillance orders are sealed and documented, any individual involved or potentially involved in surveillance investigations could be impacted.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects individuals who are potential subjects of surveillance orders related to electronic communication. However, the common person may not notice any drastic changes initially since surveillance activities usually occur behind the scenes.
- People who become aware of surveillance might experience a decrease in stress and an increase in a sense of security and privacy due to increased transparency.
- The degree of impact may vary depending on how likely an individual is to be involved in activities that would lead to surveillance orders against them. For example, activists, journalists, or politically active individuals could have more at stake and therefore experience more noticeable effects.
- Common individuals may not see a significant change in their wellbeing scores unless they are directly involved in or become aware of surveillance cases.
- The economic cost of the policy may primarily be borne by adjustments in law enforcement and judicial procedures, with a large part of the population experiencing indirect and long-term benefits regarding civil rights rather than immediate changes in material conditions.
Simulated Interviews
Journalist (New York, NY)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could help protect journalists by making it harder for law enforcement to monitor our communications without us knowing.
- The transparency is a step towards protecting our freedoms and rights.
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 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see measures being taken against unnecessary government snooping. It's reassuring.
- Privacy is a big deal nowadays, and knowing when I'm being surveilled helps me feel safer online.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this will affect my daily life much.
- It's good to know these policies are considered, but it doesn't mean much for my business right now.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Activist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a huge step forward for activists like me. We've faced too much secret scrutiny.
- I hope the government will truly commit to the transparency outlined in this act.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired (Seattle, WA)
Age: 61 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect this to change anything for me.
- Surveillance transparency is good, but it sounds more relevant to younger people or those in more sensitive jobs.
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 |
University Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will protect students who express their views online.
- I can participate in online activism with less fear of unjust surveillance.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Freelance Writer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pleased to know there's an effort to limit how our information is accessed without knowledge.
- This could pave the way for more rights-focused legislation.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Lawyer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill could be vital in protecting civil liberties, especially in preventing unjust surveillance.
- It aligns with protecting constitutional rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Part-time retail worker (Portland, OR)
Age: 18 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy won't really change my daily life.
- It sounds like a good measure, but it seems more applicable to those with higher stakes in privacy.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Professor (Boston, MA)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a law professor, this is an important procedure towards governmental accountability.
- How this is implemented will be key to its success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $75000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $70000000)
Year 5: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The primary costs stem from implementing technological and administrative systems to comply with the new transparency requirements.
- Second-order effects related to legal disputes and societal trust in law enforcement processes are difficult to quantify but worth considering.
- There's potential political and public interest given the focus on privacy and transparency.
- Efficient management could moderate longer-term costs after initial implementation.