Overview
Title
An Act To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security to conduct an annual audit of the information systems and bulk data of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The new bill wants to make sure the Department of Homeland Security checks how it uses huge groups of information every year to keep us safe, and it promises to tell Congress how things are going with these checks.
Summary AI
H.R. 8664 aims to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 by requiring the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis to conduct annual audits of the information systems and bulk data used by the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis. The bill defines bulk data as large data sets obtained without specific targeting criteria, focusing on ensuring these data have intelligence or operational value. It mandates notifications to Congress about the use and changes in bulk data sets and requires regular reports to Congress on audit findings. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office is tasked with reviewing the implementation of these audits after four years.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation aims to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002. It mandates the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security to carry out an annual audit of the information systems and bulk data managed by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. This process intends to bolster oversight and transparency by requiring detailed reports of these audits to be submitted to Congress. Furthermore, any use of new bulk data sets and changes to their usage terms are to be reported to specific congressional committees. A review of the implementation of these audits is also mandated, with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) set to report every four years.
Significant Issues
There are several noteworthy issues associated with this bill. The definition of "bulk data" lacks clarity since it refers to "large quantities of data" without clear parameters, which could lead to subjective interpretations. Additionally, this broad definition may lead to privacy concerns and potential legal challenges. The bill also fails to explicitly outline the consequences or corrective actions if the audits reveal irregularities or issues, potentially leading to accountability gaps. A notable administrative burden might arise due to the audit and notification commitments, possibly straining resources if not efficiently managed. Furthermore, the absence of specific qualifications or standards for auditors raises concerns about the reliability and quality of the audits. Finally, the bill’s timelines, particularly with the GAO review occurring every four years, might delay addressing pressing issues.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this legislation represents a step towards greater oversight and transparency of governmental data practices, which might increase public confidence in the safeguarding of data and civil liberties. However, the potential ambiguity in terms like "bulk data" may spark privacy concerns among the public, with individuals wary about how much data could be collected and scrutinized under the rubric of national security. The absence of clear consequences following audit findings could also lead to skepticism over the practical impact of this increased oversight.
Impact on Stakeholders
For government bodies, particularly the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, the bill could result in increased operational scrutiny and potentially demanding administrative requirements. While this might drive improvements in data management and compliance practices, it could also divert resources from other crucial activities if not balanced appropriately.
Congress could benefit from regular, systematic insights into the data management practices within the Department of Homeland Security, facilitating more informed legislative decisions.
On the other hand, privacy advocacy groups might see this legislation as a mixed bag. While they might appreciate the push for transparency and oversight, concerns would likely persist about the potential breadth of data collection and how privacy implications are addressed.
Finally, by not specifying auditors’ qualifications, the bill leaves room for inconsistencies in audit quality, potentially impacting the trust of stakeholders dependent on the reliability of these audits, including policymakers and the public.
Issues
The definition of 'bulk data' as 'large quantities of data acquired without discriminants' in Section 210H could lead to ambiguous interpretations, especially as 'large quantities' and 'reasonably likely to have intelligence or operational value' are subjective terms. This might raise privacy and legal concerns given the potential scope of data collection (Section 210H(a)(2)).
The lack of clear consequences or actions if the audits under Section 210H reveal irregularities or issues with the information systems and bulk data could result in a lack of accountability and corrective measures (Section 210H(c), 210H(d)).
The absence of oversight accountability or independent verification of adherence to the audit requirements, apart from the GAO review scheduled for 4 years later, could be problematic in addressing inefficiencies or non-compliance in a timely manner (Section 210H(d)(2)).
The potential administrative burden and costs associated with meeting the audit and notification requirements may lead to inefficient use of resources if not properly managed (Section 210H(b), 210H(c)).
The requirement for annual audits under Section 210H without a clear measure of success or value could result in consistent expenditures with uncertain benefits, impacting financial accountability (Section 210H(b)).
The timeline for reporting audit results and notifications, like 'not later than 30 days after,' might be challenging to meet consistently given the potential scope and complexity of the audits (Section 210H(c), 210H(d)(1)).
The language in Section 210H surrounding 'new bulk data set and the associated terms and conditions' may be overly complex, potentially leading to misunderstanding or misinterpretation (Section 210H(c)).
There are no specific qualifications or standards mentioned for the auditors in Section 210H, which might impact the audits' quality or reliability (Section 210H(b)).
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 section states that this law will be known as the "DHS Intelligence and Analysis Oversight and Transparency Act".
2. Annual audit of DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis information systems and bulk data Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The new section added to the Homeland Security Act requires the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis to conduct annual audits of the information systems and bulk data within the Department's Office of Intelligence and Analysis. The Under Secretary must report the audit results to Congress and provide updates about any new or changed terms for using bulk data. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office will review the implementation of these audits every four years.
210H. Annual audit of information systems and bulk data Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section requires an annual audit of information systems and bulk data managed by the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, conducted by the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis. It also mandates that any use of new bulk data sets and changes to their usage terms be reported to specific congressional committees, while a review of the audit implementation is to be conducted by the Comptroller General and shared with these committees every four years.