Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act
Latest action (12 Feb 2015): Introduced
What this bill does
S. 512, the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act, would amend the federal statute governing electronic communications privacy (18 U.S.C. Chapter 121) to clarify when U.S. law enforcement can use warrants to obtain electronic communications content stored by service providers overseas. It would generally require a warrant to compel disclosure of stored communications content, and would allow such a warrant to reach data stored outside the United States, but only if the account holder is a "United States person" (a citizen, permanent resident, or U.S.-organized entity). A provider could ask a court to modify or vacate such a warrant if complying would violate foreign law. The bill also sets notice requirements for subscribers whose data is obtained, and preserves the ability to use subpoenas in certain circumstances.
The bill would also require the Attorney General to create a standardized online form and tracking system for mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) requests between the U.S. and foreign governments, publish annual statistics on MLAT request processing times, and notify providers when a warrant is used to fulfill an MLAT request. It expresses Congress's view that foreign "data localization" requirements are harmful to innovation and unnecessary for law enforcement.
This would primarily affect law enforcement agencies, electronic communications and cloud service providers, and individuals whose data is stored overseas. The bill was introduced in the Senate on February 12, 2015, by Senator Orrin Hatch with two cosponsors, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It did not receive a vote and did not become law.
Plain-English summary generated by Bill100 AI from the official record. Always verify against the source below.
Official summary
Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act
Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a governmental entity to require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that is in electronic storage with or otherwise stored, held, or maintained by the provider only pursuant to a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Authorizes such a warrant to require such disclosure regardless of where such contents may be in electronic storage or otherwise stored, held, or maintained by the provider if the holder of the account the contents of which are sought by the warrant is a U.S. person. Requires a court, on a service provider's motion, to modify or vacate such a warrant upon finding that it would require the provider to violate the laws of a foreign country.
Sets forth requirements for government notification of provider customers or subscribers regarding the receipt of communication contents pursuant to such a warrant.
Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish a form for use by a foreign government filing a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) request; (2) establish an online docketing system for all MLAT requests; and (3) publish statistics annually on MLAT requests made by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to foreign governments, and by foreign governments to DOJ, to obtain the contents of communications or other information or records from a provider of electronic communications or remote computing services.
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) data localization requirements imposed by foreign governments on data providers are incompatible with the borderless nature of the Internet, an impediment to online innovation, and unnecessary to meet the needs of law enforcement; and (2) DOJ, the Department of State, and the U.S. Trade Representative should pursue open data flow policies with foreign nations.
Common questions
- What does S. 512 do?
- S. 512, the Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act, would amend the federal statute governing electronic communications privacy (18 U.S.C. Chapter 121) to clarify when U.S. law enforcement can use warrants to obtain electronic communications content stored by service providers overseas. It would generally require a warrant to compel disclosure of stored communications content, and would allow such a warrant to reach data stored outside the United States, but only if the account holder is a "United States person" (a citizen, permanent resident, or U.S.-organized entity). A provider could ask a court to modify or vacate such a warrant if complying would violate foreign law. The bill also sets notice requirements for subscribers whose data is obtained, and preserves the ability to use subpoenas in certain circumstances. The bill would also require the Attorney General to create a standardized online form and tracking system for mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) requests between the U.S. and foreign governments, publish annual statistics on MLAT request processing times, and notify providers when a warrant is used to fulfill an MLAT request. It expresses Congress's view that foreign "data localization" requirements are harmful to innovation and unnecessary for law enforcement. This would primarily affect law enforcement agencies, electronic communications and cloud service providers, and individuals whose data is stored overseas. The bill was introduced in the Senate on February 12, 2015, by Senator Orrin Hatch with two cosponsors, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It did not receive a vote and did not become law.
- Has S. 512 become law?
- Not yet. As of 12 Feb 2015, S. 512 is introduced.
- Who sponsored S. 512?
- S. 512 was sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT, 1977-2018] (Republican-UT), with 13 cosponsors.
- What's the latest action on S. 512?
- Introduced (12 Feb 2015).
Related bills in Crime and Law Enforcement
Safe Cloud Storage Act
Prison Staff Safety Enhancement Act
BOP Direct-Hire Authority Act
Officer Leslie Coffelt U.S. Secret Service Police Act of 2026
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.