This is a Non Profit Project. We don't collect personal data and we don't use cookies.

Contents

Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006

Act Details

Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006 was, as a bill, a proposal (now, a piece of legislation) introduced on 2006-02-08 in the House of Commons and Senate respectively of the 109 United States Congress by Lamar Seeligson Smith in relation with: Administrative procedure, Assault, Business records, Civil rights and liberties, minority issues, Commerce, Computer crimes, Computer hackers, Confidential communications, Consumer protection, Crime and law enforcement, Extraterritoriality, Families, Family violence, Federal employees, Federal law enforcement officers, Federal officials, Fines (Penalties), Fraud, Government operations and politics, Informers, Internet, Judges, Judicial officers, Juries, Jurisdiction, Kidnapping, Law, Law enforcement officers, Murder, Obstruction of justice, Police, Protection of officials, Restrictive trade practices, Right of privacy, Science, technology, communications, Sentences (Criminal procedure), Sentencing guidelines, Stalking, Telecommunication industry, Telephone, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Victims of crimes, Violence, Wife abuse, Witnesses, Women.

Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006 became law (1) in the United States on 2007-01-12. It was referred to the following Committee(s): (2)

House Judiciary (HSJU)
Senate Judiciary (SSJU)

Sponsor

Lamar Seeligson Smith, member of the US congress
Lamar Seeligson Smith, Republican, Representative from Texas, district 21

The proposal had the following cosponsors:

Howard Lawrence Berman, Democrat, Representative, from California, district 26
Frederick C. Boucher, Democrat, Representative, from Virginia, district 9
Christopher B. Cannon, Republican, Representative, from Utah, district 3
Ed Case, Democrat, Representative, from Hawaii, district 2
Steve Chabot, Republican, Representative, from Ohio, district 1
John Conyers, Democrat, Representative, from Michigan, district 14
Jerry Francis Costello, Democrat, Representative, from Illinois, district 12
Bob Goodlatte, Representative, from Virginia, district 6
Sandlin Herseth, Representative, from South Dakota
John Kline, Republican, Representative, from Minnesota, district 2
Dennis Kucinich, Representative, from Ohio, district 10
Zoe Lofgren, Democrat, Representative, from California, district 16
David G. Reichert, Republican, Representative, from Washington, district 8
Steven Rothman, Representative, from New Jersey, district 9
Robert C. Scott, Democrat, Representative, from Virginia, district 3
Addison Graves (joe) Wilson, Republican, Representative, from South Carolina, district 2

Act Overview

Number: 4709 (3)
Official Title as Introduced: To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen protections for law enforcement officers and the public by providing criminal penalties for the fraudulent acquisition or unauthorized disclosure of phone records (4)
Short Title: Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006
Date First Introduced: 2006-02-08
Sponsor Name: Addison Graves (joe) Wilson
Assignment Process: See Committe Assignments (5)
Latest Major Activity/Action: Enacted
Date Enacted (signed, in general (6), by President): 2007-01-12
Type: hr (7)
Main Topic: Crime and law enforcement
Related Bills: (8)
hr4657-109, Reason: related, Type: bill
hr4662-109, Reason: related, Type: bill
hr4714-109, Reason: related, Type: bill
s2177-109, Reason: related, Type: bill
s2178-109, Reason: related, Type: bill
Summary of Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006: Govtrack. Authored by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress.
Primary Source: Congress Website

Text of the Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006

Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006 – Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit the obtaining in interstate or foreign commerce of confidential phone records information from a telecommunications carrier or IP-enabled voice service provider (covered entity) by: (1) making false or fraudulent statements to an employee of a covered entity or to a customer of a covered entity; (2) providing false or fraudulent documents to a covered entity; or (3) accessing customer accounts of a covered entity through the Internet or by fraudulent computer-related activities without prior authorization. Imposes a fine and/or imprisonment of up to 10 years.

Prohibits the unauthorized sale or transfer in interstate or foreign commerce of confidential phone records information by any person or the purchase or receipt of such information with knowledge that it was fraudulently obtained or obtained without prior authorization. Imposes a fine and/or imprisonment of up to 10 years. Exempts covered entities from such restrictions to the extent authorized by the Communications Act of 1934 (e.g. for billing protection of property rights or for emergency purposes).

Doubles fines and imposes an additional five-year prison term for violations occurring in a 12-month period involving more than $100000 or more than 50 customers of a covered entity. Imposes an additional five-year prison term for violations involving the use of confidential phone records information to commit crimes of violence crimes of domestic violence and crimes against law enforcement officials and the administration of justice.

Grants extraterritorial jurisdiction over crimes defined by this Act.

Exempts lawfully authorized federal or state investigative protective or intelligence activities from the prohibitions of this Act.

Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to review and amend if appropriate federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements for crimes defined by this Act.

Act Notes

[Note 1] An Act (like Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006) or a resolution cannot become a law in the United States until it has been approved (passed) in identical form by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as signed by the President (but see (5)). If the two bodys of the Congress versions of an Act are not identical, one of the bodies might decide to take a further vote to adopt the bill (see more about the Congress process here). An Act may be pass in identical form with or without amendments and with or without conference. (see more about Enrollment).
[Note 2] Proposals are referred to committees for preliminary consideration, then debated, amended, and passed (or rejected) by the full House or Senate. To prevent endless shuttling of bills between the House and Senate, bills like Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006 are referred to joint committees made up of members of both houses.
[Note 3] For more information regarding this legislative proposal, go to THOMAS, select “Bill Number,” search on (Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006)
[Note 4] To amend title 18, United States Code, to strengthen protections for law enforcement officers and the public by providing criminal penalties for the fraudulent acquisition or unauthorized disclosure of phone records. The current official title of a bill is always present, assigned at introduction (for example, in this case, on 2006-02-08) and can be revised any time. This type of titles are sentences.
[Note 5] The Act is referred to the appropriate committee by the Speaker of any of the two Houses. Bills are placed on the calendar of the committee to which they have been assigned. See Assignment Process.
[Note 6] Regarding exceptions to President´s approval, a bill that is not signed (returned unsigned) by the President can still become law if at lest two thirds of each of the two bodys of the Congress votes to pass it, which is an infrequent case. See also Presidential Veto.
[Note 7] Legislative Proposal types can be: hr, hres, hjres, hconres, s, sres, sjres, sconres. A bill originating in the Senate is designated by the letter “S”, and a bill originating from the House of Representatives begins with “H.R.”, followed, in both cases, by its individual number which it retains throughout all its parliamentary process.
[Note 8] For information regarding related bill/s to Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006, go to THOMAS.

Analysis

No analysis (criticism, advocacy, etc.) about Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006 submitted yet.

Administrative procedure
Assault
Business records
Civil rights and liberties, minority issues
Commerce
Computer crimes
Computer hackers
Confidential communications
Consumer protection
Crime and law enforcement
Extraterritoriality
Families
Family violence
Federal employees
Federal law enforcement officers
Federal officials
Fines (Penalties)
Fraud
Government operations and politics
Informers
Internet
Judges
Judicial officers
Juries
Jurisdiction
Kidnapping
Law
Law enforcement officers
Murder
Obstruction of justice
Police
Protection of officials
Restrictive trade practices
Right of privacy
Science, technology, communications
Sentences (Criminal procedure)
Sentencing guidelines
Stalking
Telecommunication industry
Telephone
U.S. Sentencing Commission
Victims of crimes
Violence
Wife abuse
Witnesses
Women

Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006

Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006