PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 27, 2000
Digital Privacy Act of 2000 - Amends the Federal criminal code to require, within 30 days after the expiration, extension, or denial of a court order approving a disclosure of stored electronic communications, the issuing or denying judge to report to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts regarding such order.Requires the Attorney General to report annually to Congress on the number and kind of warrants and subpoenas applied for by law enforcement agencies of the Department of Justice under provisions governing Government access to stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records.(Sec. 3) Extends the prohibition against the use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications to intercepted electronic communication.(Sec. 4) Revises provisions regarding the issuance of an order for a pen register or a trap and trace device to direct the court to issue such an order if factual evidence reasonably indicates that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed and information likely to be obtained is relevant to an investigation of that crime.(Sec. 5) Extends the protection of a warrant requirement to electronic communications stored by electronic communications services for one year or less.(Sec. 6) Permits: (1) a governmental entity to require disclosure by a provider of mobile electronic information generated by and disclosing the current physical location of a subscriber's equipment only if such entity obtains a court order issued upon a finding that there is probable cause to believe that the equipment has been used, is being used, or is about to be used to commit a felony offense; or (2) a provider of mobile electronic communication service to provide to a governmental entity such information with the consent of the subscriber or the user of the equipment concerned.
People & committees
Rep. Barr, Bob [R-GA-7] · R–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4987 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4987 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4987 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4987 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.