PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 21, 2012
ECPA 2.0 Act of 2012 - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a governmental entity to require the disclosure of the contents of any wire or electronic communication that is stored, held, or maintained by an electronic communication service or a remote computing service only pursuant to a warrant. Requires such entity, within three days after it receives such contents from a provider of such service, to serve upon or deliver to the service subscriber, customer, or user a copy of the warrant and required notice. Includes the contents of such a communication among the information that any such service provider shall not knowingly divulge to any governmental entity except as provided under current law.
Prohibits a governmental entity from intentionally intercepting geolocation information pertaining to an individual, or from intentionally disclosing or using such information knowing that it was obtained in violation of such prohibition or in connection with a criminal investigation, with specified exceptions. Includes among such exceptions: (1) interception by a U.S. employee in conducting electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), (2) interception with the individual's consent, (3) interception through any system that is configured so that such information is readily accessible to the general public, (4) interception and use by an emergency responder to respond to a request by such individual for assistance or in circumstances in which it is reasonable to believe that individual's life or safety is threatened, and (5) interception or required disclosure pursuant to a warrant issued by a court in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or as otherwise provided in FISA.
Prohibits: (1) a service provider from intentionally divulging geolocation information to any governmental entity, except pursuant to the above exceptions or to divulge to a law enforcement agency information which was inadvertently obtained and which appears to pertain to the commission of a crime; or (2) the use of any geolocation information intercepted, used, or disclosed in violation of this Act as evidence in any trial or other government proceeding.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Permits a specially designated investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept geolocation information if: (1) such officer reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists that involves immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any individual or conspiratorial activities that threaten the national security interest or that are characteristic of organized crime, (2) there are grounds upon which an order could be entered to authorize such interception, and (3) an application for such order is made within 48 hours after the interception.
Authorizes civil actions to recover damages from persons, other than the United States, where an individual's geolocation information is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this Act. Requires a federal agency to initiate proceedings to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted against any federal employee when a court or agency has determined that the United States has violated this Act.
Amends the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to require a search warrant to acquire geolocation information.
Prohibits: (1) intentionally obtaining by fraud confidential GPS records from any geolocation information service; or (2) acquiring the geolocation information of a person for protective activities or law enforcement or intelligence purposes except pursuant to a warrant issued pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this Act, or FISA.
Requires an application for an order for a wiretap to include a statement of facts relied upon by the applicant to justify issuance of the order. Authorizes the court to issue such an order if it finds that the application establishes specific and articulable facts showing reasonable grounds to believe that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.
Requires a service provider to disclose subscriber, customer, or user information to a governmental entity pursuant to an administrative subpoena only when that subpoena specifies the person whose information is sought by name, address, telephone or instrument number, subscriber number, or other uniquely identifying information.
People & committees
Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-16] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.6529 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.6529 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.6529 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.6529 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.