Email Privacy Act

Last updated

The Email Privacy Act is a bill introduced in the United States Congress. The bipartisan proposed federal law was sponsored by Representative Kevin Yoder, a Republican from Kansas, and then-Representative Jared Polis, a Democrat of Colorado. The law is designed to update and reform existing online communications law, specifically the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986. [1] [2] [3]

Contents

In the 113th Congress (2013–15), the bill never made it out of subcommittee. In the 114th Congress (2015–17), the bill was unanimously passed by the House, but was derailed in the Senate following a series of weakening amendments offered by Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate Majority Whip. In the 115th Congress (2017–19) and 116th Congress (2019–21), the legislation passed the House, but failed to receive a vote in the Senate.

Background and bill provisions

The legislation would require authorities such as the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission to obtain a search warrant to access emails, data in cloud storage, and other digital communications more than 180 days old. [4] [5]

Under current law—the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986—authorities can obtain such data by issuing an administrative subpoena to an Internet service provider, without the need to obtain judicial approval. [4] [5] [6] The Congressional Research Service reported in 2015 that: "In recent years, ECPA has faced increased criticism from both the tech and privacy communities that it has outlived its usefulness in the digital era and does not provide adequate privacy safeguards for individuals' electronic communications. In light of these concerns, various reform bills have been introduced in the past several Congresses..." [7]

The Email Privacy Act would codify as federal law the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in United States v. Warshak (2010). In that case, the Sixth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that the government obtain a warrant before accessing emails stored online (e.g., in the cloud). [6] [8] [9] The Warshak ruling currently applies only to the Sixth Circuit; the Email Privacy Act would extend its rule nationwide. [6] [8]

Supporters and opponents

The legislation "is widely supported by the tech industry and privacy advocates." [1]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has pushed for the legislation for over six years, hailing the House vote in favor of the legislation in 2016 as "a win for user privacy" and urging the Senate to approve it without weakening amendments. [8] The EFF noted, however, that the bill "isn't perfect" because it does not require the government to notify users when the government seeks their data from service providers, which the EFF believes is "a vital safeguard ensuring users can obtain legal counsel to fight for their rights." [8]

A wide array of civil society groups, corporations, and trade associations issued an open letter in April 2016 expressing support for the Email Privacy Act. [9] Among the groups to sign on to the letter were Adobe, ACT/The App Association (formerly the Association for Competitive Technology), Amazon.com, Inc., the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Library Association, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the Brennan Center for Justice, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), Cisco Systems, the Consumer Technology Association, the Direct Marketing Association, Dropbox, the EFF, Facebook, FreedomWorks, Google, HP, the Internet Association, LinkedIn, Microsoft, the Newspaper Association of America, Niskanen Center, Symantec, Twitter, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Yahoo. [9] The groups wrote that the Email Privacy Act is a necessary update "to reflect internet users' reasonable expectations of privacy with respect to emails, texts, notes, photos, and other sensitive information stored in "the cloud." [9]

The Digital 4th Coalition—an advocacy coalition consisting of the ACLU, ATR, CDT, and Heritage Action for America —supports the legislation, creating a website to support the legislation and to urge citizens to push for it. The coalition spans the ideological spectrum from left to right. [10] [11]

A public-opinion survey of U.S. registered voters conducted by Vox Populi Polling on behalf of the Digital 4th Coalition found that 77 percent agreed that a warrant should be required to access "emails, photos and other private communications stored online." [12] When respondents heard a summary of the ECPA's provisions, "86 percent said it should be updated, and 53 percent said they'd be more likely to support a candidate who favored 'strengthening online privacy' through reforming the law." [12]

In 2015, the Obama administration expressed support for reforming and updating the ECPA in response to an online We the People petition that garnered more than 100,000 signatures, although the White House did not express support for any particular reform effort. [13]

The bill faces opposition from some federal agencies, who state that they rely on subpoenas to conduct investigations. [1] [12] In Senate committee testimony given in September 2015, Federal Trade Commission officials expressed concern that "recent proposals could impede its ability to obtain certain information" from Internet companies. [12]

113th Congress (2013–15)

The bill failed in the 113th Congress. The bill was introduced in May 2013 by Yoder and 272 cosponsors as H.R. 1852. However, it never made it out of the United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations. [14]

114th Congress (2015–17)

In the 114th Congress, the bill was introduced again, in February 2015, as H.R. 699. The bill garnered the most cosponsors of any bill in this Congress, with 194 Republicans and 115 Democrats cosponsoring. The 14-page bill unanimously passed the House Judiciary Committee and then, on April 27, 2016, unanimously passed the House (419-0). [4] [8] [15] The passage of the bill in the House was hailed by the New York Times editorial board, which called the bill a "sensible" if imperfect update to privacy law and said that the House vote was a "rare and remarkable display of bipartisanship." [6]

The lead sponsors of the companion Senate legislation, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015 (S. 356) were Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah. [4] [16] Twenty-five other senators were cosponsors. [16]

After the House passed its bill, Leahy and Lee called upon the Senate to "take up and pass this bipartisan, common-sense legislation without delay." [5] However, the bill languished in the Senate Judiciary Committee, [4] [5] and the committee's chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley, Republican of Iowa, expressed concern "about the details of this reform, and whether it is balanced to reflect issues raised by law enforcement." [17] Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, offered two amendments in the Judiciary Committee that weakened the legislation: one to give federal authorities the power to access electronic identifying information without a warrant in counterterrorism cases, and the other to give the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or someone acting in his or her capacity "the power to compel a provider to hand over the name, physical address, email, telephone number or other identifying information" if relevant to "an authorized counterterrorism operation." [18] [19] The Cornyn amendments angered civil liberties and tech-advocacy groups who supported the bill, including Computer & Communications Industry Association, ACLU, and Open Technology Institute, who urged the Senate to pass the House bill. [18] Six other senators have also offered amendments in the Senate Judiciary Committee, [19] including an amendment by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, which would have exempted federal agents from the requirement to secure a warrant if the government asserts that an emergency situation exists. [20] The Sessions amendment was opposed by advocates for privacy rights, "because it does not require any judicial backstop to review the action afterward to see if the surveillance was warranted and should continue." [20] After the Cornyn and Sessions amendments were offered, the bill's lead Senate sponsors, Leahy and Lee, withdrew the bill from consideration, saying that they feared that the amendments would make "Americans' electronic communication even less private than it is now." [20]

115th Congress (2017–19)

The Email Privacy Act was again introduced in the 115th Congress, with Polis and Yoder again being the lead sponsors of the bill. [21] It passed the House of Representatives (where it had 109 sponsors) on a voice vote on February 6, 2017, but was again expected to encounter Republican opposition in the Senate, [22] and never made it out of Senate committee. [23]

116th Congress (2019–21)

In the 116th Congress, the Email Privacy Act was included as an amendment to the version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA FY 2019) legislation passed by the House of Representatives; the amendment passed on 351–66 vote. [24] However, the provision failed in the Senate, and so the NDAA FY 2019 "passed without EPA's reforms or the broader ECPA Modernization Act of 2017" proposed by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) or Senator Mike Lee (R-UT). [25]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patriot Act</span> 2001 United States anti-terrorism law

The USA PATRIOT Act was a landmark Act of the United States Congress, signed into law by President George W. Bush. The formal name of the statute is the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, and the commonly used short name is a contrived acronym that is embedded in the name set forth in the statute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ron Wyden</span> American politician and educator (born 1949)

Ronald Lee Wyden is an American politician and retired educator serving as the senior United States senator from Oregon, a seat he has held since 1996. A member of the Democratic Party, he served in the United States House of Representatives from 1981 until 1996. He is the dean of Oregon's congressional delegation and chairs the Senate Finance Committee.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Cornyn</span> American lawyer and politician (born 1952)

John Cornyn III is an American politician and attorney serving as the senior United States senator from Texas, a seat he has held since 2002. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the Senate majority whip for the 114th and 115th Congresses, and previously served as chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee from 2009 to 2013.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patrick Leahy</span> American politician and lawyer (born 1940)

Patrick Joseph Leahy is a retired American politician and attorney who served as a United States senator from Vermont from 1975 to 2023, and also served as the president pro tempore of the United States Senate from 2012 to 2015 and from 2021 to 2023. A member of the Democratic Party, he chaired the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Agriculture Commitee at various points during his 48-year tenure. Leahy is the third-longest-serving U.S. senator in history.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Moran</span> American lawyer and politician (born 1954)

Gerald Wesley Moran is an American lawyer and politician who is the senior United States senator from Kansas, a seat he has held since 2011. A member of the Republican Party, he was chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the 113th U.S. Congress, during which he led successful Republican efforts in the 2014 election, producing the first Republican Senate majority since 2006. Previously, he was a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing Kansas's 1st congressional district.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act</span> 1978 United States federal law

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is a United States federal law that establishes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and the collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of espionage or terrorism. The Act created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electronic Communications Privacy Act</span>

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) was enacted by the United States Congress to extend restrictions on government wire taps of telephone calls to include transmissions of electronic data by computer, added new provisions prohibiting access to stored electronic communications, i.e., the Stored Communications Act, and added so-called pen trap provisions that permit the tracing of telephone communications . ECPA was an amendment to Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which was primarily designed to prevent unauthorized government access to private electronic communications. The ECPA has been amended by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994, the USA PATRIOT Act (2001), the USA PATRIOT reauthorization acts (2006), and the FISA Amendments Act (20

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act</span> Act of Congress

The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA) is a 235-page Act of Congress, signed by President George W. Bush, that broadly affects United States federal terrorism laws. The act comprises several separate titles with varying subject issues. It was enacted in response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chris Murphy</span> American lawyer and politician (born 1973)

Christopher Scott Murphy is an American lawyer, author, and politician serving as the junior United States senator from Connecticut since 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, he previously served in the United States House of Representatives, representing Connecticut's 5th congressional district from 2007 to 2013. Before being elected to Congress, Murphy was a member of both chambers of the Connecticut General Assembly, serving two terms each in the Connecticut House of Representatives (1999–2003) and the Connecticut Senate (2003–2007).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the Patriot Act</span>

The history of the USA PATRIOT Act involved many parties who opposed and supported the legislation, which was proposed, enacted and signed into law 45 days after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act, though approved by large majorities in the U.S. Senate and House of Representative, was controversial, and parts of the law were invalidated or modified by successful legal challenges over constitutional infringements to civil liberties. The Act had several sunset provisions, most reauthorized by the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act. Both reauthorizations incorporated amendments to the original USA PATRIOT Act, and other federal laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Respect for Marriage Act</span> 2022 U.S. federal law

The Respect for Marriage Act is a landmark United States federal law passed by the 117th United States Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden. It repeals the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), requires the U.S. federal government and all U.S. states and territories to recognize the validity of same-sex and interracial civil marriages in the United States, and protects religious liberty. Its first version in 2009 was supported by former Republican U.S. Representative Bob Barr, the original sponsor of DOMA, and former President Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA in 1996. Iterations of the proposal were put forth in the 111th, 112th, 113th, 114th, and 117th Congresses.

The Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act was a bill introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2011 that attempted to limit government surveillance using geolocation information such as signals from GPS systems in mobile devices. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Jason Chaffetz. Since its initial proposal in June 2011, the GPS Act awaits consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the House.

The Fourth Amendment Protection Acts, are a collection of state legislation aimed at withdrawing state support for bulk data (metadata) collection and ban the use of warrant-less data in state courts. They are proposed nullification laws that, if enacted as law, would prohibit the state governments from co-operating with the National Security Agency, whose mass surveillance efforts are seen as unconstitutional by the proposals' proponents. Specific examples include the Kansas Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act and the Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act. The original proposals were made in 2013 and 2014 by legislators in the American states of Utah, Washington, Arizona, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma and California. Some of the bills would require a warrant before information could be released, whereas others would forbid state universities from doing NSA research or hosting NSA recruiters, or prevent the provision of services such as water to NSA facilities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">USA Freedom Act</span> U.S. law

The USA Freedom Act is a U.S. law enacted on June 2, 2015, that restored and modified several provisions of the Patriot Act, which had expired the day before. The act imposes some new limits on the bulk collection of telecommunication metadata on U.S. citizens by American intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency. It also restores authorization for roving wiretaps and tracking lone wolf terrorists. The title of the act is a ten-letter backronym that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act of 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act</span>

The Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act is a United States federal law designed to "improve cybersecurity in the United States through enhanced sharing of information about cybersecurity threats, and for other purposes". The law allows the sharing of Internet traffic information between the U.S. government and technology and manufacturing companies. The bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate on July 10, 2014, and passed in the Senate October 27, 2015. Opponents question CISA's value, believing it will move responsibility from private businesses to the government, thereby increasing vulnerability of personal private information, as well as dispersing personal private information across seven government agencies, including the NSA and local police.

Microsoft Corp. v. United States, known on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court as United States v. Microsoft Corp., 584 U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1186 (2018), was a data privacy case involving the extraterritoriality of law enforcement seeking electronic data under the 1986 Stored Communications Act, Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), in light of modern computing and Internet technologies such as data centers and cloud storage.

The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act is a bipartisan criminal justice reform bill introduced into the United States Senate on October 1, 2015 by Chuck Grassley, a Republican senator from Iowa and the chairman of the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">CLOUD Act</span> United States federal data privacy and government surveillance law

The Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act or CLOUD Act is a United States federal law enacted in 2018 by the passing of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, PL 115-141, Division V.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emmett Till Antilynching Act</span> 2022 US hate crime legislation

The Emmett Till Antilynching Act is a landmark United States federal law which makes lynching a federal hate crime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bipartisan Safer Communities Act</span> Legislation of the 117th United States Congress

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act is a landmark United States federal law passed during the 117th United States Congress. It implemented several changes to the mental health system, school safety programs, and gun safety laws. Gun safety laws in the bill include extended background checks for gun purchasers under 21, clarification of Federal Firearms License requirements, funding for state red flag laws and other crisis intervention programs, further criminalization of arms trafficking and straw purchases, and partial closure of the boyfriend loophole.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Tummarello, Kate (June 18, 2014). "Bill requiring warrants for email searches hits magic number in House". The Hill. Retrieved February 11, 2015.
  2. ↑ Wise, Lindsay. "Government wonders: What's in your old emails?". McClatchy. Retrieved February 11, 2015.
  3. ↑ Jaycox, Mark (January 23, 2015). "Seventy Public Interest Organizations and Companies Urge Congress to Update Email Privacy Law". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved February 11, 2015.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Dustin Volz, Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House, Reuters (April 27, 2016).
  5. 1 2 3 4 House Unanimously Passes Email Privacy Act, National Law Review (May 1, 2016).
  6. 1 2 3 4 The House Votes Unanimously to Strengthen Email Privacy, New York Times (April 29, 2016).
  7. ↑ Richard M. Thompson II & Jared P. Cole, Reform of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Congressional Research Service (May 15, 2015) (republished by Statewatch).
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 Sophia Cope, House Advances Email Privacy Act, Setting the Stage for Vital Privacy Reform, Electronic Frontier Foundation (April 27, 2016).
  9. 1 2 3 4 Coalition Letter in Support of Email Privacy Act (April 26), Center for Democracy & Technology (April 25, 2016).
  10. ↑ About Us Archived 2016-05-07 at the Wayback Machine , Digital 4th Coalition.
  11. ↑ Drew Clark, With unanimous House passage, Email Privacy Act may become real, Deseret News (May 1, 2016).
  12. 1 2 3 4 Andrew Peterson, The government often doesn’t need a warrant to get your e-mails. But most think it should, Washington Post (November 30, 2015).
  13. ↑ Tim Cushing, White House Vaguely Agrees Outdated ECPA Should Be Reformed But Only With An Eye On The Government's 'Interests', TechDirt (July 28, 2015).
  14. ↑ H.R.1852 - Email Privacy Act, 113th Congress (2013-2014).
  15. ↑ H.R. 699: Email Privacy Act, Govtrack.us.
  16. 1 2 S.356 - Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2015: 114th Congress (2015-2016), Congress.gov.
  17. ↑ Mike Masnick, SEC and Chuck Grassley Still Trying To Stop Email Privacy Act That Got UNANIMOUS Support in the House, TechDirt (May 9, 2016).
  18. 1 2 Amir Nasr, Tech, Civil Liberties Advocates Wary of Email Privacy Amendments, Morning Consult (June 2, 2016).
  19. 1 2 Aisha Chowdhry, Email privacy legislation stalls in Senate, Federal Computer Week (May 27, 2016).
  20. 1 2 3 Erin Kelly, Senate derails bill to rein in email surveillance, USA Today (June 9, 2016).
  21. ↑ Steven Trader, Reps. Reintroduce Widely Supported Email Privacy Act, Law360 (January 9, 2017).
  22. ↑
  23. ↑ H.R.387 - Email Privacy Act, 115th Congress (2017-2018).
  24. ↑ David Ruiz, mail Privacy Act Comes Back, Hopefully to Stay, Electronic Frontier Foundation (May 29, 2018).
  25. ↑ U.S. Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Outlook and Review – 2019 , Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (January 28, 2019).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.