Bill Overview
Title: Biometric Collection Improvement Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Justice to (1) study and recommend ways to improve the collection of biometric information by state law enforcement agencies, and (2) award grants to help law enforcement agencies implement the recommendations.
Sponsors: Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]
Target Audience
Population: People whose biometric data is collected by law enforcement agencies globally
Estimated Size: 25000000
- Law enforcement agencies will be affected as they need to comply with new standards and may receive grants for implementation.
- Individuals who are subject to law enforcement activities, as their biometric information will be collected and possibly stored more efficiently and accurately.
- State governments and their respective justice departments since they will need to create and enforce policies about biometric data collection.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts law enforcement agencies, those employed within them, and indirectly affects the general public in terms of safety, privacy, and engagement with the justice system.
- Although not everyone in the U.S. will directly interact with biometric data systems annually, the policy could have an influence on broad segments of the population through extended administrative and security implications.
- Budgetary considerations limit the comprehensive rollout and sustained programs might depend on successive years' budgeting.
- The policy may improve efficiency and accuracy in law enforcement processes, potentially affecting public perception of safety and privacy positively or negatively depending on individual perspectives.
- Certain minority and marginalized groups may feel differently about the collection and usage of biometric data based on historical contexts of law enforcement interactions.
Simulated Interviews
Police Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems like a mixed bag. Improved biometric systems can make our jobs easier and safer if implemented well.
- There is always concern about misuse of biometric data, so strong oversight will be crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Data Analyst (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's tremendous potential for advancing technologies in public safety through this policy, but we must be realistic about costs and ethics.
- Biometric data can significantly prevent and solve crimes, yet we should never ignore privacy risks.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
College Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is concerning from a privacy standpoint. The power dynamics between the police and public with biometric data are unequal.
- Appropriate checks and balances must be prioritized to safeguard citizen's rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
State Government Official (Houston, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am keen to see how the policy will align with state regulations and improve efficiency.
- There has to be clarity on how grants will be distributed equitably to address diverse state needs.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased surveillance from improved biometrics doesn't sit right with me based on privacy expectations in America.
- Policy should have stringent regulations to prevent abuse of power.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Immigration Attorney (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Biometric data collection can be a double-edged sword for immigrants and minorities.
- While it may streamline some processes, it may also exacerbate biases if not handled cautiously.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Detroit, MI)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think the policy will directly impact me much unless there's a noticeable change in public interactions or security.
- So long as personal privacy is preserved and improvements are beneficial, it seems a practical step.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There are significant ethical considerations regarding biometric information, particularly with its potential misuse.
- Public education and clear legal frameworks are necessary to ensure public trust and safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Security Consultant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am generally supportive of this plan's objectives as it advances the security field.
- However, public perception and ethical application are areas we must tread carefully with if we want sustained support.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Freelance Reporter (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy walks a fine line between innovation and intrusion.
- My work sees firsthand how public opinion can be sharply divided on such issues, which influences societal trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $75000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Year 2: $80000000 (Low: $64000000, High: $96000000)
Year 3: $70000000 (Low: $56000000, High: $84000000)
Year 5: $60000000 (Low: $48000000, High: $72000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Effectiveness and acceptance of biometric technology in law enforcement settings.
- Potential privacy and ethical concerns with increased biometric data collection.
- Implementation pace and administrative burden on state law enforcement agencies.