Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Americans' Data From Foreign Surveillance Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes certain export controls on personal data of U.S. nationals and individuals living in the United States. Among other requirements, the bill directs the Department of Commerce to identify categories of personal data that could be exploited by foreign governments and harm U.S. national security if exported, reexported, or in-country transferred in a quantity that exceeds the threshold established by Commerce.
Sponsors: Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: People whose personal data is protected from foreign surveillance under this bill, including U.S. nationals and residents.
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill affects individuals whose data may be exported, reexported, or transferred to foreign entities, especially data that can affect U.S. national security.
- As the focus is on protecting data belonging to U.S. nationals and individuals living in the United States, both citizens and residents are included.
- The legislation implicates foreign governments as it restricts their ability to access personal data of U.S. persons.
Reasoning
- The target population includes U.S. nationals and individuals residing in the U.S. whose personal data might be exported to foreign entities.
- Understanding and estimating effects on self-reported wellbeing requires acknowledging that the policy's direct impact will be on those highly sensitive to data security.
- Budget and program considerations must be managed, focusing mainly on better protection for population segments at risk of data exploitation.
- The policy is preventative and security-oriented, so direct wellbeing impacts may not be significant immediately or for all.
- Since the focus is on security, many participants might not observe tangible changes, yet increased perceptions of safety can improve wellbeing.
- The diversity in situations among the population who might report different levels of impact based on their awareness of data security issues must be represented in the sample.
Simulated Interviews
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is a positive step to protect our privacy from foreign threats.
- As someone working with user data, knowing there's more oversight is reassuring.
- I hope this policy will bring more trust from our international clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Oil Industry Executive (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems necessary given today’s international tensions.
- I am concerned about the possible bureaucracy that this policy may introduce.
- Overall, better protection is worth some operational headaches.
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 School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not sure how much of my data is vulnerable, but I'm glad for the added protection.
- I hope this policy keeps my information safer, especially from foreign interference.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Data Scientist (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support this policy since it's critical to control how data moves across borders.
- This could be a foundation for future, more robust data privacy regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Digital Marketing Specialist (Miami, FL)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hadn't considered foreign threats as a source of concern before this.
- Stronger protection of my online presence seems a good thing.
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 | 6 | 4 |
Cybersecurity Consultant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with our need for increased protection against international cyber threats.
- It could serve as a catalyst for others in the industry to tighten security measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Start-up Founder (Austin, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced data protection is always welcome, especially given the sensitive nature of health data.
- We foresee needing assistance to comply with new regulations, but it’s manageable.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Attorney (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring data security is good for business relations, but this policy could complicate international deals.
- While it may cause some friction, the long-term benefits outweigh the costs.
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 |
University Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 9.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome more protection regarding my digital footprint.
- It's essential to strengthen our defenses against foreign surveillance.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Freelance Photographer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm uncertain about how direct this impact will be on my line of work.
- If it means fewer chances of data misuse, I'm for it.
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 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $280000000 (Low: $230000000, High: $330000000)
Year 3: $290000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $350000000)
Year 5: $310000000 (Low: $260000000, High: $370000000)
Year 10: $340000000 (Low: $290000000, High: $400000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Key Considerations
- The need for securing personal data against foreign exploitation may lead to partnerships with tech firms to develop effective compliance tools.
- The enforcement of export controls will demand precise guidelines on what constitutes 'sensitive' and 'exportable' data, influencing subsequent regulatory requirements.