PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 18, 2014
Law Enforcement Access to Data Stored Abroad Act - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a governmental entity to require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication that is in electronic storage with or otherwise stored, held, or maintained by the provider only pursuant to a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Authorizes such a warrant to require such disclosure regardless of where such contents may be in electronic storage or otherwise stored, held, or maintained by the provider if the holder of the account the contents of which are sought by the warrant is a U.S. person. Requires a court, on a service provider's motion, to modify or vacate such a warrant upon finding that it would require the provider to violate the laws of a foreign country.
Sets forth requirements for government notification of provider customers or subscribers regarding the receipt of communication contents pursuant to such a warrant.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish a form for use by a foreign government filing a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) request; (2) establish an online docketing system for all MLAT requests; and (3) publish statistics annually on MLAT requests made by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to foreign governments, and by foreign governments to DOJ, to obtain the contents of communications or other information or records from a provider of electronic communications or remote computing services.
Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) data localization requirements imposed by foreign governments on data providers are incompatible with the borderless nature of the Internet, an impediment to online innovation, and unnecessary to meet the needs of law enforcement; and (2) DOJ, the Department of State, and the U.S. Trade Representative should pursue open data flow policies with foreign nations.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
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 10, 2026. 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 S.2871 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 S.2871 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 S.2871 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 S.2871 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.