International Communications Privacy Act
The source supplies the latest action, but no lifecycle stage.
Latest action (25 May 2016): Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
What this bill does
H.R. 5323, the International Communications Privacy Act, would amend the federal law governing law enforcement access to electronic communications (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act) to address how the government obtains data stored by providers, regardless of where in the world that data is physically located. It would generally require a warrant to compel disclosure of the contents of communications, and would set conditions for warrants sought for communications belonging to non-U.S. persons located abroad, including consideration of whether the United States has a law enforcement cooperation agreement (such as a mutual legal assistance treaty) with the relevant foreign country. The bill also directs the Department of Justice to create a standardized form and online tracking system for mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) requests, publish annual statistics on such requests, notify the State Department when data is disclosed to a foreign government, and notify providers when a request stems from an MLAT. It also expresses a nonbinding "sense of Congress" opposing foreign data-localization requirements.
The bill would primarily affect electronic communications and remote computing service providers (such as email and cloud storage companies), law enforcement agencies seeking access to stored communications, and both U.S. and foreign individuals whose data is held by these providers. Foreign governments seeking assistance from the U.S. through MLATs would also be affected by the new procedural requirements.
The bill was introduced in the House on May 25, 2016, by Rep. Tom Marino with Rep. Suzan DelBene, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It did not receive a vote and did not advance further in the 114th Congress.
Plain-English summary generated by Bill100 AI from the official record. Always verify against the source below.
Official summary
International Communications Privacy Act
This bill amends the federal criminal code by allowing a governmental entity to require providers of electronic communication services or remote computing services to disclose the contents of communications in electronic storage (e.g., the cloud), regardless of where those communications are located. Thus, a governmental entity may obtain warrants for electronic communications stored outside of the United States if certain conditions for obtaining the warrant are met.
The bill allows a governmental entity to obtain those communications only if a court finds that the governmental entity has taken all reasonable steps to establish the nationality and location of the subscriber or customer whose communications are sought and that there are reasonable grounds to believe that such subscriber or customer is a U.S. person, a person physically located within the United States, or a national of a foreign country that has a law enforcement cooperation agreement with the United States.
The Department of Justice must: (1) establish a process for foreign governments to file mutual legal assistance treaty requests for obtaining access to electronic communications, and (2) publish annually information concerning those requests.
Timeline
25 May 2016
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Common questions
- What does H.R. 5323 do?
- H.R. 5323, the International Communications Privacy Act, would amend the federal law governing law enforcement access to electronic communications (the Electronic Communications Privacy Act) to address how the government obtains data stored by providers, regardless of where in the world that data is physically located. It would generally require a warrant to compel disclosure of the contents of communications, and would set conditions for warrants sought for communications belonging to non-U.S. persons located abroad, including consideration of whether the United States has a law enforcement cooperation agreement (such as a mutual legal assistance treaty) with the relevant foreign country. The bill also directs the Department of Justice to create a standardized form and online tracking system for mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) requests, publish annual statistics on such requests, notify the State Department when data is disclosed to a foreign government, and notify providers when a request stems from an MLAT. It also expresses a nonbinding "sense of Congress" opposing foreign data-localization requirements. The bill would primarily affect electronic communications and remote computing service providers (such as email and cloud storage companies), law enforcement agencies seeking access to stored communications, and both U.S. and foreign individuals whose data is held by these providers. Foreign governments seeking assistance from the U.S. through MLATs would also be affected by the new procedural requirements. The bill was introduced in the House on May 25, 2016, by Rep. Tom Marino with Rep. Suzan DelBene, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It did not receive a vote and did not advance further in the 114th Congress.
- Has H.R. 5323 become law?
- The source does not supply a confirmed lifecycle stage for H.R. 5323. Check the latest action and official source below.
- Who sponsored H.R. 5323?
- H.R. 5323 was sponsored by Rep. Marino, Tom [R-PA-10] (R-PA), with 1 cosponsor.
- What's the latest action on H.R. 5323?
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. (25 May 2016).
Related bills in Crime and Law Enforcement
Enhancing Detection of Human Trafficking Act
National Coordination Center and Commercial Cyber Capabilities Codification Act
Supporting the goals and ideals of "National Nonviolence Week" to raise awareness of youth violence in the United States.
Anthony Amoros Law Right to Know Act
More bills from Rep. Marino, Tom [R-PA-10]
Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act
SNAP Transparency Act of 2013
Bill100 mirrors the public U.S. legislative record from Congress.gov and GovTrack and adds plain-English AI summaries. It is an information tool, not legal, compliance or lobbying advice, and it is not affiliated with the U.S. Congress or any government agency. AI summaries can simplify or omit detail — every bill links to the official source; verify there before you rely on it.