Overview
Title
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Navy and Marine Corps want to use computers to check who can come onto their bases, like how some places use ID cards. They're asking people to comment on this plan by the end of March, but they haven't explained what they'll do with the collected information to keep it safe.
Summary AI
The Department of Defense, through the Department of the Navy and the United States Marine Corps, has submitted a proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) seeking approval for a new information collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This collection involves the Navy Access Control Management System and the U.S. Marine Corps Biometric and Automated Access Control System to manage base access. It aims to ensure security by verifying individual identities using biometric data. The public has until March 31, 2021, to submit comments on this proposal.
Abstract
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The recent notice from the Department of Defense (DoD) outlines a proposal for collecting information under the Paperwork Reduction Act, involving the Navy Access Control Management System and the U.S. Marine Corps Biometric and Automated Access Control System. This information collection seeks to regulate access to military installations by identifying individuals using advanced security methods like biometric data. The public has until March 31, 2021, to comment on this proposal as it awaits clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Summary of the Document
The proposal seeks approval for the information collection necessary to implement advanced security measures, including biometrics, to manage access to DoD facilities. The effort aims to bolster security by ensuring only those with verified identities can enter certain areas. This process is crucial for protecting sensitive military sites and information.
Significant Issues and Concerns
Several concerns arise from this document that could impact public comprehension and engagement. Firstly, the document specifies the purpose of the information collection, primarily as it relates to access control, but does not detail what specific information will be gathered. This lack of specificity may lead to misunderstandings about what personal data is needed and why.
Furthermore, the staggering number of respondents—4.9 million—and the high total burden hours indicate a significant allocation of resources and time. However, without a detailed breakdown of costs or an analysis of cost-effectiveness, questions about potential financial inefficiencies remain unanswered.
Technical language, such as references to "biometric databases and associated data processing," may deter common readers from fully grasping the document's intent. Such jargon can create barriers to public understanding, making it challenging for those without a technical background to engage meaningfully with the proposal.
Additionally, the notice refers to the respondent's obligation as "voluntary." However, individuals needing access to facilities may feel compelled to participate, blurring the lines of true voluntariness.
Finally, the lack of information on data protection measures could lead to privacy concerns. Given the sensitive nature of biometric data, clear guidelines on its security are essential to establish public trust.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
For the general public, the proposal represents an abstract yet pivotal part of national security processes. While most individuals may not be directly affected in their day-to-day lives, those working with or visiting military installations will experience its implications more intensely.
Specific stakeholders, such as military personnel and contractors seeking base access, may see a positive impact through streamlined and potentially more secure access procedures. However, they might also bear the brunt of increased processing times or new administrative challenges associated with the information collection.
Moreover, those concerned with data privacy could view these developments with skepticism, pressuring the DoD to ensure airtight data protection practices. Public participation is vital, as the proposal offers a window for comments, yet the complexity of the document might hinder full community involvement.
In conclusion, while this notice marks a step toward enhancing military installation security, carefully addressing the outlined concerns will be essential in refining its implementation and gaining public trust. Properly communicating how the data will be safeguarded and clarifying all collection details should be priorities to alleviate stakeholder concerns and maximize positive impacts.
Issues
• The document does not clearly specify the exact nature of the information being collected, beyond access control, which may lead to interpretation issues.
• The number of respondents (4,900,000) and the annual burden hours (816,667) suggest a significant resource allocation, but there is no detailed breakdown of associated costs, which might help identify wasteful spending.
• The document uses technical jargon, such as 'biometric databases and associated data processing,' which may not be easily understood by the general public, leading to confusion.
• The voluntary nature of the respondent's obligation might not be clear to all individuals, as some may feel compelled to comply if wanting to access certain facilities.
• The instructions for submitting comments on regulations.gov are concise but assume familiarity with the Federal eRulemaking Portal, potentially excluding those not experienced with the platform.
• There is a lack of detailed information on how the collected data will be protected, which could raise privacy and data security concerns for respondents.