PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 115-365.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 4, 2017
Protecting Data at the Border Act
This bill prohibits a governmental entity from: (1) accessing the digital contents of electronic equipment belonging to, or in the possession of, a U.S. person (person) at the border without a valid warrant; or (2) denying a person's U.S. entry or exit based on the person's refusal to disclose an access credential or in order to determine whether such person will consensually provide an access credential, access, or online account information.
A border officer may access the digital contents of electronic equipment without a warrant if the officer determines that an emergency situation exists. The officer must subsequently apply for a warrant within seven days, and if such warrant is not granted: (1) digital content copies must be destroyed, (2) digital contents or information may not be disclosed, and (3) the person shall be notified of such destruction.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
A governmental entity may not make or retain a copy of the digital contents of electronic equipment, an online account, or online account information without probable cause to believe that such information contains evidence of, or constitutes the fruits of, a crime.
Unlawfully accessed information: (1) must be destroyed and the person notified of its destruction; (2) may not be disclosed; and (3) may not be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding.
A governmental entity shall keep a record of each instance in which it obtains access to an individual's digital information.
A governmental entity may not seize electronic equipment belonging to, or in the possession of, a person at the border without probable cause to believe that such equipment contains information relevant to a felony.
People & committees
Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR] · D–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 115-365.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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 S.823 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.823 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.823 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.823 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.