PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 17, 2019
Justice in Forensic Algorithms Act of 2019
This bill establishes federal standards and procedures for the use of computational forensic software. (Computational forensic software refers to software that relies on an automated or semiautomated computational process to process, analyze, or interpret evidence.) It also prohibits the use of trade secret protections to prevent criminal defendants from accessing evidence.
First, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) must establish the Computational Forensic Algorithm Standards for the development and use of computational forensic software. These standards must, among other things, address requirements related to software testing and reporting to criminal defendants on the use and results of software in their cases.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Further, NIST must establish the Computational Forensic Algorithm Testing Program. The testing program must, among other things, test individual software programs using NIST standards. Federal law enforcement agencies and related crime laboratories must comply with these NIST standards and testing requirements in their use of computational forensic software.
In addition, criminal defendants must receive information resulting from analysis by computational forensic software, including access to the software for testing purposes.
Evidence resulting from computational forensic software is only admissible in a criminal case if (1) the software was submitted to the NIST testing program, and (2) the software developers and users waive their legal claims against the defense for the purposes of the defense analyzing or testing such software.
The bill also prohibits the use of trade secret protections when a criminal defendant would otherwise be entitled to obtain evidence.
People & committees
Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-41] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 16, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4368 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4368 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4368 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4368 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.