Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Military Servicemembers' Data Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits businesses that collect consumer personal information from selling lists containing the personal information of members of the Armed Forces to North Korea, China, Russia, or Iran.
Sponsors: Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]
Target Audience
Population: Members of the Armed Forces worldwide
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill directly involves members of the Armed Forces, thus they are the core population affected by this legislation.
- This legislation applies to businesses that collect consumer personal information, implying they too will need to adjust their practices.
- The countries mentioned (North Korea, China, Russia, Iran) are relevant as they are prohibited from receiving this personal data.
- Families of servicemembers may also be indirectly impacted, as data privacy can affect family safety and security.
Reasoning
- The policy is specifically designed to protect U.S. military personnel's data, so it will directly affect mainly current and former servicemembers. However, the overall civilian population might have some indirect opinion about its implications, which includes views on national security and digital privacy.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy aims to protect a sizeable portion of the U.S.'s 2.2 million servicemembers without immediately impacting those beyond this group significantly.
- The policy should trickle down some benefits, marginally influencing civilian perceptions of national security and personal data safety, but primarily remains a safeguard measure for servicemembers.
- We need to simulate interviews with a few servicemembers to reflect direct impacts and a diverse set of civilians who might express indirect opinions or notice societal implications.
Simulated Interviews
Army Officer (Fort Hood, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more secure knowing my personal data won't be mishandled by those adversaries.
- This is a step towards better data protection for us in the military.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Navy Veteran (Virginia Beach, Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time such legal steps are taken; we in the military should have had this protection ages ago.
- I'm glad to see steps in securing our personal information on a legal front.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Developer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy affects me directly, but it seems crucial for national security.
- It's reassuring to know there's effort going into protecting servicemembers' data from adversaries.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Teacher (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe protecting personal data, especially for those serving our country, is more than necessary.
- It's a relief to know concrete steps are being taken against data being misused by foreign powers.
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 | 6 |
Coast Guard (Norfolk, Virginia)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having our data protected is a huge load off my mind, given what I've seen in my line of work.
- It's comforting to know this policy limits access to potential threats.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Air Force Engineer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Data security is critical. I'm glad to see this step implemented.
- It provides peace of mind for veterans like me, albeit a bit late for meaningful personal impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Data Privacy Consultant (Columbus, Ohio)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a positive move towards safeguarding sensitive data, not just for the military.
- Such steps should inspire broader data protection laws across various fields.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Marine Corps Staff (Jacksonville, Florida)
Age: 26 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see it as vital that my data is protected from entities that could misuse it.
- This law reassures us that steps are taken for our safety off the battlefield.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Military Spouse (Austin, Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad this policy helps keep my family's data secure, which adds another layer of comfort for families like ours.
- Anything that protects my husband from unnecessary risks, I am fully supportive of.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't influence me directly, but I believe it's vital for national security.
- I hope that this could be a first step towards comprehensive data protection.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $4000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $4000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $7000000)
Year 5: $3500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $6000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $4000000)
Year 100: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $1000000)
Key Considerations
- The focus of the act is on international adversaries, emphasizing the geopolitical importance of the legislation.
- Indirect effects on servicemembers' families and related civilians due to increased data security measures.
- Protection mechanisms will need regular updates to keep up with evolving data collection and sales practices.