Bill Overview
Title: A bill to provide the Under Secretary for Science and Technology of the Department of Homeland Security with the authority to temporarily extend the duration of protections provided under the SAFETY Act, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill authorizes the Science and Technology Directorate to extend, during FY2023 and under certain circumstances, liability protections that apply if qualified anti-terrorism technologies are deployed in defense against, in response to, or for recovery from an act of terrorism.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People benefiting from or involved with qualified anti-terrorism technologies
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The SAFETY Act provides incentives for the development and deployment of anti-terrorism technologies by offering liability protections to manufacturers and providers of these technologies.
- Manufacturers and providers of qualified anti-terrorism technologies will be directly impacted, as they will gain extended liability protection under the bill's provisions.
- Individuals and corporations that rely on these technologies for protection against terrorism, such as infrastructure companies, public venues, and possibly even some government entities, could also be impacted by the increased availability and enhanced reliability of these technologies.
- The extension of liability protections might encourage more innovation and investment in anti-terrorism technologies globally, potentially making such technologies available to a broader population.
Reasoning
- The budget constraints suggest that the policy might initially be limited in scope, likely impacting only a small but critical group directly involved with anti-terrorism technology development and deployment. Thus, most immediate impacts will not permeate broadly across the population.
- Given the complexities and specifics of the policy, the primary affected group includes technology developers/manufacturers, infrastructure companies, and security personnel who might see direct benefits from reduced liability risks and incentivized developments.
- The policy's potential to spur innovation means that its effects could grow over time, potentially leading to indirect benefits for broader segments of the population, particularly if these technologies expand into other areas of public safety or commercial applications.
- The American target population's estimate of 200,000 suggests the likely beneficiaries might include a mix of direct stakeholders (engineers, developers, security professionals) and indirect beneficiaries (employees and clients of protected infrastructures).
Simulated Interviews
Security Technology Developer (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides us the protection we need to innovate without the constant fear of litigation.
- It opens up opportunities to collaborate with larger corporations who previously were wary of liability issues.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cybersecurity Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It gives us extra peace of mind to push technology boundaries.
- We're expecting some financial reallocations thanks to reduced legal liabilities.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Government Infrastructure Planner (Washington D.C.)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will likely lead to better, more innovative solutions being available for our infrastructure needs.
- There could be an increase in trust in technology utilized in critical projects.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Event Coordinator (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing advanced security technologies are supported brings us relief when planning large events.
- There's hope for more effective and affordable solutions coming our way.
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 | 6 | 5 |
CEO of a Public Transport Company (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reduces some of the financial risks associated with deploying new tech.
- It could lead to faster upgrades of security measures across public transport networks.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The liability protection helps secure my job, as projects can move forward with reduced legal concerns.
- I expect an increase in demand for advanced projects and solutions.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Military Officer now Consultant (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction, potentially changing how secure the public feels.
- Consultants like myself would see increased opportunities due to a more robust tech landscape.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public Policy Researcher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could be a game-changer in terms of innovation incentives.
- I'm curious to see how this shapes policy development in other tech domains.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Public Works Director (Chicago, IL)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reduced liability means more tech options to consider for new projects.
- This policy might encourage new players into the market, offering competitive solutions.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Attorney specializing in Technology Law (Boston, MA)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy greatly clarifies liability issues, potentially reducing legal barriers for many nnovation projects.
- I anticipate a shift in the nature of contractual agreements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $3000000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $1500000)
Year 5: $500000 (Low: $200000, High: $800000)
Year 10: $100000 (Low: $50000, High: $150000)
Year 100: $10000 (Low: $5000, High: $20000)
Key Considerations
- The bill provides economic incentives for the development of qualified anti-terrorism technologies through extended liability protections.
- The policy has limited direct government expenditures, as it primarily extends existing legal frameworks rather than creating new spending programs.
- Potential savings and increased efficiencies in anti-terrorism responses could provide long-term fiscal benefits.