Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2013
Latest action. By Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 113-34. Additional views filed.
Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2013 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 to prohibit a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public from knowingly divulging to any governmental entity the contents of any communication that is in electronic storage or otherwise maintained by the provider.
(Sec. 3) Revises provisions under which the government may require, pursuant to a warrant, the disclosure by such a provider of the contents of such communications. Eliminates the different requirements applicable under current law depending on whether such communications were stored for fewer than, or more than, 180 days.
Requires a law enforcement agency, within 10 days after receiving the contents of a customer's communication, or a governmental entity, within 3 days, to provide the customer a copy of the warrant and a notice that such information was requested by, and supplied to, the government entity.
Provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the authority of a governmental entity to use an administrative or civil discovery subpoena to: (1) require an originator or recipient of an electronic communication to disclose the contents of such communication to the governmental entity; or (2) require an entity that provides electronic communication services to employees or agents of the entity to disclose the contents of an electronic communication to or from such employee or agent to a governmental entity if the communication is held, stored, or maintained on an electronic communications system owned or operated by the entity.
(Sec. 4) Authorizes a governmental entity that is: (1) seeking a warrant for the contents of communications to include in the application a request for an order delaying the notification required for up to 180 days, in the case of a law enforcement agency, or up to 90 days, in the case of any other governmental entity; and (2) obtaining the contents of a communication, or information or records, to apply to a court for an order directing a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to which a warrant, order, subpoena, or other directive is directed not to notify any other person of the existence of the directive for up to 180 days, in the case of of a law enforcement agency, or up to 90 days, in the case of any other governmental entity. Provides for extensions.
The summary continues for 3 more paragraphs. Read it in full on Congress.gov
Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Reported to Senate with amendment(s)" stage on April 25, 2013. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?
4 steps remain before this bill could become law.
The record's latest action, on May 16, 2013: By Senator Leahy from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 113-34. Additional views filed.
- Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
- Passage by the Senate
- Passage by the House
- The President's signature. If the President vetoes it, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to override.
How likely is it to become law?
Civibrief does not forecast outcomes and this page has no opinion about this one. What the record supports is a base rate, which is a fact about the whole pile, not a prediction about this measure.
In the 113th Congress (2013-14), 296 of the 9,091 bills and joint resolutions introduced became law, about 3.3 percent. That count covers every measure at every stage, including the many that never left committee.
This one is not there yet: 4 steps are still outstanding, listed above.
Has anyone actually voted on it?
No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.
A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.
Who is behind it?
Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced it on March 19, 2013, and 6 members have since signed on as cosponsors.
They come from both major parties: 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans.
Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.
How long has it been in play?
It was introduced on March 19, 2013, 4923 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 4865 days ago, on May 16, 2013.
Measures do not carry over. Anything the 113th Congress has not finished by January 3, 2015 dies when the term ends, and has to be introduced again from the start in the next Congress.
Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.
Vote history
- SenateIn committee, no floor vote yet
- HouseAwaits Senate passage
- PresidentAwaits both chambers