Overview
Title
To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a plan to identify, integrate, and deploy new, innovative, disruptive, or other emerging or advanced technologies to enhance, or address capability gaps in, border security operations, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
Imagine a plan where the people in charge of keeping borders safe want to use cool new tools like robots and cameras to help them. They're making a list of all the new gadgets they could use to make sure everything is safe and sound at the borders.
Summary AI
H. R. 7832, titled the "Emerging Innovative Border Technologies Act," aims to enhance U.S. border security operations by mandating the Secretary of Homeland Security to create a plan for utilizing new and advanced technologies. This plan includes identifying and integrating tools like artificial intelligence, fiber-optic sensing, and unmanned aerial systems to address current capability gaps. The bill requires collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate and other partners, with a focus on developing strategies, setting goals, and assessing the impact of these technologies on privacy and security at the border. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) must also maintain committees called CBP Innovation Teams to research and apply commercial technologies to improve border security successfully.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The Emerging Innovative Border Technologies Act is proposed legislation aiming to enhance the United States border security operations by integrating new, innovative, and emerging technologies. The Secretary of Homeland Security is tasked with creating a detailed plan within 180 days of the bill's enactment. This plan should focus on incorporating technologies like artificial intelligence, drones, fiber-optics, and surveillance systems, among others, to address and fill any existing gaps in border security. The bill outlines how these technologies should be researched, developed, and deployed efficiently, and it requires collaboration with the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other federal entities and private sectors.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise with the bill's current language and objectives. Firstly, the tight deadline of 180 days for submitting the plan might push the involved agencies toward hastily made decisions, possibly compromising the plan's comprehensiveness and effectiveness. Additionally, many terms used in the bill, such as "disruptive technologies" and "capability gaps," are vaguely defined, potentially leading to interpretations that vary widely. This could make it difficult to measure success and ensure accountability.
Furthermore, the bill lacks specific details regarding budget implications, which is a critical omission that could lead to overspending or necessitate new appropriations. The broad scope of proposed technologies may also suggest an undefined targeting strategy, risking fragmented efforts. Finally, the bill does not thoroughly address the feasibility of implementing these technologies within current CBP capabilities and resources.
Broad Public Impact
The broader public would be affected by this bill in various ways. Enhanced border security could potentially lead to improved national safety, creating a safer environment for the general public. However, there are concerns about privacy and data security, especially in border communities, as advanced surveillance technologies could lead to increased monitoring and data collection. The focus on emerging technologies might also spur economic growth and innovation in the tech sector, but there could be resistance due to the "disruptive" nature of these technologies.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Stakeholders like the CBP and private technology companies stand to be impacted both positively and negatively by the legislation. For the CBP, the bill provides an opportunity to modernize and enhance its border security operations, which could improve efficiency and effectiveness. However, it also creates pressure to meet demanding deadlines and effectively manage and integrate a wide array of technologies, requiring substantial effort and possibly additional resources.
Private sector technology companies could benefit significantly, as the bill might create opportunities for new contracts and collaborations. However, the challenge of developing and deploying technologies that meet the CBP's stringent requirements and match the rapid timeline could be daunting. Smaller businesses and startups, particularly, might find it difficult to compete with larger, established firms in this space.
In conclusion, while the bill proposes potentially transformative enhancements to border security, it also raises critical questions about implementation, resource allocation, and privacy that need careful consideration to ensure its effectiveness and acceptance among stakeholders.
Issues
The requirement to submit a plan within 180 days of enactment (Section 2(a)) might create pressure that could lead to rushed decisions or incomplete plans, impacting the effectiveness of the deployment of new technologies.
The vague and high-level definitions of terms such as 'disruptive technologies', 'capability gaps', and 'metrics' in Section 2 could lead to inconsistent understanding and measurement of the program's success, potentially undermining accountability and effectiveness.
The lack of explicit mention of budgetary implications or constraints in Section 2 raises concerns about potential overspending or the need for additional appropriations, which could have significant financial repercussions.
The broad list of technologies in Section 2(a) might imply unspecific targeting, potentially leading to fragmented efforts and diffuse accountability, which could impact the overall success of the initiative.
The term 'disruptive' in Section 2(a) may be interpreted negatively, creating possible resistance or misunderstandings during implementation, which could affect the plan's acceptance and execution.
The analysis of procurement authorities in Section 2(b)(5) lacks specificity, making it unclear what criteria will determine the necessity for additional or alternative authorities, which could lead to legal or operational uncertainties.
Section 2(b)(12) identifies technologies passively without assessing if CBP has the capability or resources to adopt them effectively, raising concerns about implementation feasibility and effectiveness.
The language regarding 'existing or new programs of record' in Section 2(c)(1) and (c)(2)(A) is vague, potentially causing confusion on the transition of technologies and impacting the clarity and efficiency of adoption processes.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that the official name of this legislation is the "Emerging Innovative Border Technologies Act".
2. Innovative and emerging border technology plan Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines a plan for the Secretary of Homeland Security to identify and deploy new technologies, such as artificial intelligence and drones, to improve border security. It also explains how the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will form teams to research these technologies, evaluate their effectiveness, and coordinate with other government and private sector entities to enhance border operations.