H.R. 1852: Email Privacy Act
Before you vote › Federal bills
H.R. 1852: Email Privacy Act
113th Congress · introduced 2013-05-07 · Crime and Law Enforcement · Latest: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
federal
Follow this bill, step by step
- Where it came from: introduced 2013-05-07 · official record
- Who proposed it: Rep. Yoder, Kevin [R-KS-3] · what a sponsor is
- What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
- Where it stands now: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
- If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.
Official title
Email Privacy Act
Plain summary
Email Privacy Act - 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. 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. 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. Requires service providers, after such extension, to provide the government three business days' notice of their intent to inform a customer or subscriber that the provider has disclosed the individual's electronic communications information to the government. Directs the Comptroller General to report to Congress by September 30, 2015, regarding the disclosure by electronic communication service providers of customer communications and records, including an analysis and evaluation of such disclosure under provisions: (1) as in effect before the enactment of this Act, and (2) as amended by this Act.
Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.
What a vote does
A “Yea” vote
If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.
A “Nay” vote
If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.
PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).
What does this mean? (plain words)
AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text
No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.
Limited to a few requests an hour per person.
The strongest published arguments
Arguments for (supporters)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Arguments against (opponents)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Alternatives
Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes
Officials and money
Sponsor: Rep. Yoder, Kevin [R-KS-3] · 272 cosponsors
Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.
Cosponsors on this site
Charles J. "Chuck" Fleischmann (R-TN), Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr. (D-GA), Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Andy Barr (R-KY), Randy K. Weber, Sr. (R-TX), Andy Harris (R-MD), Bill Huizenga (R-MI), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), David G. Valadao (R-CA), Michael K. Simpson (R-ID), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Marlin A. Stutzman (R-IN), Ann Wagner (R-MO), Gus M. Bilirakis (R-FL) and 212 more.
No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.
Sources
- Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
- Congress.gov
- Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-113hr1852.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/113/hr>
Record fed-us-cong113-hr1852 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong113 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong113