PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 12, 2012
Securing Our Borders and Our Data Act of 2011 [sic] - Sets forth rules for the search or seizure at a U.S. border of digital electronic devices or digital storage media. Prohibits a search of the digital contents of such devices or media unless such search is based on: (1) a reasonable suspicion regarding the owner of such devices or media, and (2) an independent constitutional authority to make a seizure (other than the authority for border searches).
Requires officers at U.S. borders to receive appropriate training to make searches of digital devices or media to minimize the possibility of irreparable damage to such devices or media. Allows the owners of such devices and media to request that searches be conducted out of public view.
Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) make rules regarding border searches of digital devices and storage media, including rules to protect the integrity of digital data, for the retrieval of seized devices or media by owners, and for sharing such data with other governmental agencies; and (2) publish such rules on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct an annual study of searches and seizures of digital devices and storage media at U.S. borders and report to Congress on such study.
People & committees
Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [D-NY-17] · D–NY
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 Border and Maritime Security.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, 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 Homeland Security, 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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.6651 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.6651 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.6651 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.6651 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.