Overview
Title
To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a warrant for the disclosure of records from a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 2787 wants to change the rules so that police need to ask a judge for permission before looking at certain details, like phone logs or email records, that aren't the actual messages themselves. This helps keep people's private information more safe.
Summary AI
H. R. 2787, also known as the “Warrant for Metadata Act,” aims to amend title 18 of the United States Code to increase privacy protections for electronic communication records. The bill requires that any government entity must first obtain a warrant before they can access records from providers of electronic communication services or remote computing services. This includes obtaining metadata about a subscriber or customer, but does not include the actual content of the communications. The changes apply to new disclosures requested after the bill's enactment, and any ongoing disclosures will be treated as new requests under the updated rules.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The bill titled "Warrant for Metadata Act", introduced in the 119th Congress, aims to amend existing laws under title 18 of the United States Code. It specifically targets the rules governing the disclosure of electronic communication service records and remote computing service records. The primary change proposed by the bill requires that government entities must obtain a warrant to access certain types of data, including metadata, from providers of electronic and computing services.
Significant Issues
One of the major issues with this bill is the removal of specific timeframes for which electronic data can be stored without requiring a warrant. Previously, information stored for 180 days or less fell under a different set of rules, but the bill eliminates these distinctions, creating potential confusion about when warrants are necessary. Additionally, by demanding warrants for metadata, law enforcement agencies may face delays in obtaining information critical to investigations, potentially hindering swift action.
The bill also contains references to other legal sections and employs technical jargon, which may pose an accessibility challenge to those who are not legally trained. Furthermore, the provision regarding actions taken prior to the bill's enactment might lead to questions about fairness and interpretation of past legal actions, adding another layer of complexity.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this bill represents a significant step forward in the protection of personal privacy. By requiring a warrant for accessing metadata, individuals can expect a higher standard of privacy for their digital records. However, this increased privacy comes with the potential cost of slowing down legal processes, which some may argue places public safety at risk if it delays crucial law enforcement activities.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Privacy Advocates: Privacy advocates are likely to view this bill positively as it enhances the privacy protections for individuals, aligning with broader demands for stricter safeguards on personal data.
Law Enforcement Agencies: Conversely, law enforcement agencies might critique the bill due to the additional procedural burden it imposes, potentially delaying their access to necessary information and impeding their ability to conduct timely investigations.
Legal Community: Lawyers and judges will likely have to navigate the new requirements and interpret the amended legal language, which could lead to an increase in legal challenges as ambiguities are addressed through litigation.
Service Providers: Providers of electronic communication and remote computing services will be subject to more specific and potentially complex legal requests from government entities, requiring them to adapt their compliance strategies accordingly.
In summary, the Warrant for Metadata Act seeks to enhance privacy protections by mandating warrants for accessing electronic record metadata. While it strengthens privacy rights for the public, it introduces potential challenges and complexities for law enforcement, legal authorities, and service providers.
Issues
The removal of the timeframe for electronic storage retention up to 180 days in Section 2(a)(1)(A) and (B) creates ambiguity about when a warrant is necessary. This could lead to inconsistent enforcement and legal challenges regarding the necessity of warrants for varying durations of stored data.
The new warrant requirement that mandates a warrant for the disclosure of metadata under Section 2(a)(2)(A) might be seen as a significant measure to protect privacy, but it also potentially places additional burdens on law enforcement agencies, which could lead to delays in investigations.
The cross-references to other legal sections and the use of technical legal language in Section 2, without adequate summaries or clarifications, might make it difficult for laypersons to understand the changes, thus impacting transparency and public understanding of the bill.
The retroactive provision in Section 2(b) regarding disclosures before the enactment of this bill could create confusion around the legal status of actions taken previously, raising questions about fairness and legal interpretations.
The bill, as outlined in the 'Short title' Section 1, does not provide information on potential fiscal impacts or implementation costs, which are important for comprehensive understanding and evaluation of the bill's effects.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill is titled "Short title" and states that the law may be referred to as the “Warrant for Metadata Act.”
2. Warrant requirement for electronic communication service and remote computing service records Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the rules around accessing electronic communication records, requiring government entities to obtain a warrant for certain types of data, including metadata, from communication services. Additionally, any disclosures made before the law was enacted remain unaffected, but any follow-up requests for related information after enactment will need to comply with the new warrant requirements.