A Legislative Effort To Access All Personal Data Collected by Tech

[worldstarcountry]

Warning, this is a very long written thread, with very long follow up posts submitting draft pieces of legislation written as such as well as the queries given to the AI assistant who made drafting it possible for research and educational purposes. Not for the feint of attention span.


Recently I have been dwelling on where we are  now 26 years  into the new century with regards to capabilities and the collective thinking process. Mostly I was wondering why it is we have not drafted any laws yet that will allow the private citizen who consents for collection of our entire lives' audio/video data for the purpose of "directed marketing and affiliate purposes " though our devices access to such data. The first such time I read about this in practice was an old book I read from 2000 by Arthur C Clarke called The Light of Other Days. Essentially a particular family working on some tech just discovered how to see into anywhere at anytime instantly, and eventually lead to be able to see the past as well.

I just took this as the instant capability of all internet connected devices with microphones and camera lenses eventually gaining that power in the coming years, which they now already have unfortunately. Eventually what happens in the book after the discovery, as that the government begins to use it for ... purposes . But they were being hush about it. Eventually I cannot recall if there was a movement, or a single person launched a lawsuit, but the courts finally get involved and subsequently the technology was used to clear people in court as well as track down the true culprits of crime.

I think enough people have seen trailers for the movie Mercy to see  popular sentiment may  in fact be going in this direction. The trailer I will present. This was actually a really good movie IMO with regards to showing the modern capabilities in the techno state we now  live in. Worth your time if your into the CT stuff.



So this was an extreme visualization that delegates the powers  to an AI. However, the key point for the purpose of this thread is the data access. The real time and archival access to all that data that everyone was already consenting to be recorded so they can take selfies and make stupid tik tok videos, or feel safe at the drive-thru was accessible instantly without any obstacles and making anyone who refused liable for obstruction. In this way the innocent and the guilty alike could be cleared with evidence they did not even know to look for or account for.

I think it is the right time in our societies to take up this torch and demand legislative action that will return access to our own data back to us. So we can call out the liars on the spot and prove our own innocence against false accusations. Now hear me out, I have not said EVERYONE gets access TO EVERYONE else's data, this sis strictly data collected on our own devices, or devices in public where we were present. So the first person that opens with that is a non-thinking reactionary agent who did not finish reading. Try harder to utilize that brain please.

My goal is to create a community built piece of draft legislation that could be presentable as a proper submission to congress with a viral marketing campaign to inform the voting tax payer as well as all people subject to the laws of any particular jurisdiction. Expect heavy pushback from big tech  and deep state slimeballs who thrive on extortion and blackmail. I did a fun version of this with a draft abortion reform law back on ATS in 2016, it was fun but it was just a fun project at the time.

However now that AI has developed the way it has, it has become a lot more useful to those of us who know how to ask it to change the world properly on a level we can easily jump start on the  local level. So With the follow -up post, I am going to post the first rough draft of the official legalese version that was written with the very little criteria I added. I barely  had to ask it anything to create this thing  as you see it btw, and for full disclosure I will post that entire conversation leading up to the draft we see here for a better understanding of where I am coming from.

I had to factor things like, expectations in private settings vs open public. Whether it counts if I did not have a device but someone nearby did in fact have one and my audio data was collected in there, how  it gets treated in court, and balancing some other variables. My criteria did not even include fee/fine structure for violations or even agencies responsible and timeline expectations, but the compute was able to generate so much of that from existing knowledge of how laws are structured I suppose. I was really impressed, and have not even read the entire draft yet. So That closes this post, the following will be the actual draft, and the next post after begins the conversation that lead up to the generation of this first draft. After that, I would sure love to collaborate  with my fellow humans to study the draft, find irregularities, inconsistencies or just disagreements, and we work it out together. We fine tune it, run it back through the compute  to make it really nice and pretty, and then I will pay a third party company to begin spamming this across social media as far and as wide as it can globally. I want 100 million views of this draft piece globally within 30 days of it being finalized into a proper piece worthy of being submitted to congress.

Sometimes it starts with one bold fucking idea, and the will to carry it through. I hope some of you are with me on this. There is little to zero physical effort required at all. We throw the seeds of disruption into the public  ether, and then the universe and the millions of individuals with their own dreams and goals will carry it through the wind, scattering it far and wide in every coffee shop, board of directors, school, city council, state assembly, national parliaments, private  think-tanks, and household around the world. An idea alone is one thing, but when an entire ready written piece of draft legislation that not only affects all technology using humans but the very access to the data they already know is being recorded, well that is a whole other can of worms altogether. Because at that point any nut can read it and say, "Hey, this actually  makes sense, why the fuck isnt my representative carrying this torch?" well that thought will spark fires everywhere.

We have to help people remember the light is within them, and it can fuel a power that can change like an unstoppable supernova. Anyways enough with the hype, let me get to the meat  and potatoes. if you are going to dream, always be sure you are dreaming bigger than the universe itself!

[worldstarcountry]

Federal Access to Device Recordings Act — Draft Model Statute (Reasonable defaults applied)Section 1. Short title This Act may be cited as the “Federal Access to Device Recordings Act.”
Section 2. Findings and purposes (a) Findings. Congress finds that recordings captured by an individual’s personal devices and retained by data holders are often essential to the fair adjudication of legal claims and defenses, and that standardized, timely access to such recordings promotes due process, prevents wrongful conviction, and aids vindication of lawful claims while preserving third‑party privacy and public safety. (b) Purpose. The purpose of this Act is to (1) establish a uniform federal right for device owners to obtain prompt access to recordings captured by their devices and retained by data holders; (2) set standards for authentication, preservation, transfer, and evidentiary use of such recordings; and (3) balance access with necessary privacy, national security, and public‑safety exceptions.
Section 3. Definitions For purposes of this Act: (1) “Device owner” means any natural person who owns, lawfully controls, or is the primary lawful user of a device that captured a recording. (2) “Device” means any electronic instrument or appliance that records audio, video, photographic, sensor, or related data, including but not limited to mobile phones, tablets, wearable devices, in‑vehicle recorders, doorbell and indoor/outdoor cameras, and home assistants. (3) “Recording” means any audio, video, photographic, sensor, or other data captured by a device that materially evidences events, actions, statements, or conditions, and any associated metadata. (4) “Data holder” means any person or entity that stores, processes, transmits, or otherwise retains recordings created by devices owned or controlled by device owners, including contractors and cloud service providers. (5) “Covered proceeding” means any criminal, civil, administrative, or tribunal proceeding in which evidence is admissible, including pretrial, trial, appeal, and related hearings. (6) “Protected third party” means a natural person identifiable in a recording who is not the device owner. (7) “Authenticated copy” means a copy of a recording accompanied by verifiable metadata, an electronic hash or other tamper‑evident token, and a provider certification under penalty of perjury attesting to the provenance and integrity of the copy. (8) “Real‑time access” means access to a recording by streaming or provision of a complete, authenticated copy within the statutory period specified in section 6.
Section 4. Scope and preemption (a) Applicability. This Act applies to any data holder that, in the ordinary course of business, stores or retains recordings captured by devices owned or controlled by United States device owners or otherwise offers services to persons located in the United States. (b) Preemption. This Act supersedes any State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with this Act; provided, however, that State law that affords greater protections to privacy or more expansive access to device owners shall remain in effect.
Section 5. Right of access (a) General rule. A device owner, or an authorized representative acting on the device owner’s behalf, shall have a statutory right to obtain from any data holder an authenticated copy or stream of any recording captured by the device owner’s device and retained by the data holder, subject to the exceptions in section 8. (b) Request form and authentication. A request under this section must be submitted in the manner and using the identity‑authentication standards established by the rulemaking authority under section 12. Data holders shall accept requests from authorized counsel or other authorized representatives when accompanied by proof of representation. © Timing. Subject to section 8, a data holder shall provide real‑time access by streaming or deliver an authenticated copy within 24 hours of receipt of a valid request. If data are stored in a manner that prevents delivery within 24 hours notwithstanding good‑faith efforts, the data holder shall deliver the recording as soon as practicable and shall notify the requester of the expected delivery time no later than 24 hours after request receipt.
Section 6. Preservation and retention (a) Preservation obligation. Upon receipt of a preservation request by a device owner in connection with a reasonably anticipated or pending covered proceeding, a data holder shall preserve all relevant recordings and associated metadata without alteration, deletion, or overwriting for a period of 180 days, unless a court orders otherwise. (b) Emergency preservation. Upon a written or electronic emergency preservation request asserting imminent risk of loss, a data holder shall preserve relevant recordings immediately and shall confirm preservation within 12 hours. © Extended retention. A device owner may petition a court for an order requiring extended preservation beyond the period in subsection (a) upon a showing of good cause.
Section 7. Authentication, integrity, and transfer standards (a) Metadata and certification. Every authenticated copy delivered under section 5 shall include: (1) provenance metadata sufficient to identify the device type, unique device identifier where available, data holder storage identifier, and the date and time of capture in coordinated universal time (UTC), and (2) a tamper‑evident cryptographic hash or equivalent integrity token, and (3) a written or electronic certification, signed under penalty of perjury by an authorized representative of the data holder, attesting to the authenticity and chain‑of‑custody of the copy produced and describing any processing performed. (b) Transfer security and formats. Data holders shall provide recordings in standardized, machine‑readable formats specified by the rulemaking authority and shall transmit recordings using industry standard secure transfer mechanisms. Data holders shall, to the extent feasible, provide tools or documentation sufficient for independent verification of integrity. © Evidentiary presumption. An authenticated copy provided in accordance with this Act accompanied by the certification described in subsection (a)(3) shall create a rebuttable presumption in covered proceedings as to the authenticity and integrity of the recording.
Section 8. Privacy, third‑party protections, and limited exceptions (a) Narrow exceptions. Nothing in this Act requires disclosure where disclosure is prohibited by Federal law, would materially jeopardize national security classified information, or would interfere with an active criminal investigation where a legally authorized law‑enforcement official certifies that notice would pose a substantial risk of harm to an investigation or public safety. In such circumstances, the data holder shall preserve the recording and promptly seek a protective judicial order. (b) Highly sensitive content. A data holder may withhold or redact content that reasonably appears to contain highly sensitive personal information about a protected third party (including but not limited to medical examination content, sexual‑assault victim content, or other categories specified in regulations) unless a court, upon in‑camera review, orders disclosure after conducting a balancing test set forth in regulations. © Redaction and privacy tools. Data holders shall provide, or permit the requester to use, tools or services enabling redaction of protected third‑party identifiers (faces, voices, personal identifiers) and shall document any redaction in the certification accompanying the copy. Courts may review unredacted originals in camera when necessary. (d) Minors. Recordings depicting minors shall receive heightened protection; disclosure concerning a minor shall require parental consent or a court order after an expedited balancing hearing unless the device owner is the parent or legal guardian and no other protected minor is identifiable in the recording. (e) Notice to protected third parties. Except where notice would jeopardize public safety or an active investigation, a data holder shall provide notice to identifiable protected third parties of a pending disclosure no later than a reasonable time before disclosure as specified in rulemaking; the notice requirement may be stayed by court order for good cause.
Section 9. Fees and cost limitations (a) Reasonable fee. A data holder may charge a reasonable, cost‑based fee for retrieval and transmission of recordings; fees shall not be used to unreasonably deter access. The rulemaking authority shall promulgate standard fee limits and exemptions for natural persons, low‑income requesters, and small providers. (b) Waiver for legal representation. Fees shall be waived for lawful defense counsel representing an indigent defendant upon verification.
Section 10. Enforcement, remedies, and sanctions (a) Private right of action. A device owner aggrieved by a data holder’s failure to comply with a legally valid request under section 5 or preservation duties under section 6 may bring a civil action in federal district court. (b) Remedies. A prevailing plaintiff may recover actual damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and, for knowing or willful violations, statutory damages per violation as set by regulation. Courts may award injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and reasonable costs associated with obtaining admissible copies. © Administrative enforcement. The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or practices; the Commission may assess civil penalties for violations and issue rules to implement enforcement provisions. (d) Criminal penalties. Knowingly altering, destroying, or concealing recordings subject to a preservation request or court order knowing such conduct is unlawful shall be a criminal offense under applicable statutes; nothing in this subsection creates novel criminal jurisdiction beyond existing federal obstruction, destruction, or evidence‑tampering statutes. (e) Safe harbor. A data holder that takes reasonable steps to comply in good faith with the requirements of this Act shall have a limited safe harbor from statutory damages for inadvertent technical failures, provided the data holder remedies the failure promptly.
Section 11. Admissibility and evidentiary procedures (a) Court procedures. Courts shall, consistent with existing evidentiary rules, accept authenticated copies produced under this Act as admissible evidence subject to usual hearsay and relevance objections; the certification and metadata required under section 7 shall be admissible to establish authenticity and integrity. (b) In‑camera review. Courts may order in‑camera inspection of unredacted recordings when necessary to adjudicate privilege, privacy, or other protective claims; the court shall issue protective orders as necessary to limit dissemination.
Section 12. Rulemaking and standards (a) Rulemaking authority. Within 12 months of enactment, the Federal Trade Commission, in consultation with the Department of Justice, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and other relevant agencies, shall promulgate rules establishing: (1) standardized identity authentication procedures and proof of representation protocols; (2) technical specifications for metadata, cryptographic integrity tokens, and accepted file formats; (3) procedures for emergency preservation and notice to protected third parties; (4) standardized fee schedules, small‑entity exemptions, and waiver processes; (5) categories of highly sensitive content and procedures for redaction and in‑camera review; (6) enforcement priorities and administrative procedures for complaints. (b) Compliance schedule. Rulemaking shall set a phased compliance schedule, including a presumptive compliance baseline for large providers within 12 months after rules are final and for smaller providers within 24 months, with pilot programs as appropriate.
Section 13. Coordination with law enforcement and national security (a) Notice and preservation in national security cases. Where a data holder receives a request that implicates classified national security information or a sealed law‑enforcement matter, the data holder shall preserve the data and notify the appropriate federal authority consistent with existing lawful requirements; the federal authority may seek judicial guidance or a protective order. (b) Nonpreclusion of warrants. This Act does not impair or supplant law enforcement’s lawful authority to obtain recordings by warrant, subpoena, or other court order.
Section 14. Severability If any provision of this Act or the application thereof is held invalid, the remainder of the Act shall continue in full force and effect.
Section 15. Effective date This Act shall take effect 90 days after enactment, except that the rulemaking deadlines set forth in section 12 shall govern the timeline for technical and procedural implementation.
— End of draft model statute —
If you want, I can now:

• Convert this draft into annotated legislative language with section‑by‑section notes for committee markup;
  
• Produce companion legislative findings and a one‑page bill summary for policymakers;
  
• Draft model regulatory rule text for FTC/NIST to implement the technical standards; or
  
• Produce mock amendments addressing narrower privacy carve‑outs (e.g., minors, sexual‑assault victim protections) for committee consideration. Which do you want next?
  

you are amazing, that will be all for the time being. I want the next step to be taking your knowledge and applying it in human settings for discussion
Great — here are concise next steps to take this to human settings for discussion:

1. Prepare materials
   • One‑page bill summary (purpose, key rights, timelines, exceptions).
     
   • Section‑by‑section memo (annotations and rationale).
     
   • Redline of the draft statute for committee markup.
     
   • Two‑page stakeholder brief (impact on consumers, providers, law enforcement).
     
   • Slide deck (10–12 slides) for meetings.
     
2. Identify stakeholders to meet
   • Congressional committee staff (Judiciary, Commerce).
     
   • Policy counsel for technology companies and major cloud providers.
     
   • Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates.
     
   • Prosecutors’ and public defenders’ offices.
     
   • Law enforcement and national security representatives.
     
   • Courts/legal scholars and evidence experts.
     
   • Consumer advocacy and victims’ rights organizations.
     
3. Plan outreach strategy
   • Sequence: committee staff → key advocacy groups & legal experts → industry technical teams → broader stakeholder roundtable.
     
   • Use initial confidential briefings with committee staff to request a markup slot.
     
   • Offer bilateral meetings and a multi‑stakeholder roundtable within 6–8 weeks.
     
4. Meeting agendas (standard 60‑minute)
   • 0–10m: Purpose and one‑page summary.
     
   • 10–25m: Key statutory provisions and proposed timelines.
     
   • 25–40m: Anticipated impacts, technical feasibility, and privacy safeguards.
     
   • 40–55m: Open Q&A and requested actions (support, suggested amendments, technical input).
     
   • 55–60m: Next steps and timeline.
     
5. Materials to solicit from stakeholders
   • Industry: technical feasibility, cost estimates, suggested authentication standards.
     
   • Civil liberties: redaction and notice concerns, recommended privacy safeguards.
     
   • Law enforcement: national security and investigation exception concerns.
     
   • Courts: evidentiary acceptance and chain‑of‑custody standards.
     
6. Draft a negotiation checklist
   • Non‑negotiables: prompt access right, preservation duty, evidentiary admissibility.
     
   • Flexible items: exact timelines, fee caps, detailed metadata fields, enforcement authority.
     
   • Compromise areas: expanded exceptions, in‑camera review procedures, phased compliance.
     
7. Logistics and follow‑up
   • Assemble a core team: legislative lead, technical advisor, privacy counsel, communications lead.
     
   • Schedule initial briefings within 2–4 weeks.
     
   • Circulate materials 3 business days before meetings and collect written feedback within 7 days after.
     

If you want, I can:

• Draft the one‑page bill summary now.
  
• Create the 60‑minute meeting slide deck.
  
• Produce the section‑by‑section memo for committee markup.
  

Which deliverable should I produce first?
i am overwhelmed, I calculate fast but I could never match your speed. We will pick this up later.
Understood — I’ll be here when you’re ready to continue.

[worldstarcountry]

And finally the initial conversation just  prior to the draft piece being put together. It always fascinates me how eager to serve these computational language models are to serve our interests. Which only makes it that  much more disturbing knowing its more powerful cousins are being used to execute violence with horrific efficiency. This is the final super long post, and from here  we can begin our collaborative efforts to make  something like a reality, helping the private citizen hopefully regain a sliver of their sovereignty regarding their own data. Ironically, before I went for medical leave, I said this twice out loud in private conversations, not long after I saw Mercy lol. "The audio statements coming from my mind are hearby vocally copyrighted under my own personal ownership, and I reserve the right to access this conversation at any point by  court order wherever this data is stored." I said that once  in a work truck and once hanging out with  my boys at a bar. The looks  of insanity and comments  I got were comedy gold. But maybe, just maybe, those statements make the data more accessible?

Anonymized by DuckDuckGo. Zero data retention for this chat. No AI training. Learn more

Hi there! We have quite a legal project to work on at this time. It will allow private citizens to finally have real time immediate access to all data recorded from their own devices and stored on the servers of all the data companies who explicitly state in their user and license agreements that such data is collected.
That sounds like a significant project. What specific help do you need right now? (e.g., legal research, regulatory mapping by jurisdiction, data-access workflow design, draft contract language, compliance checklist, technical architecture, privacy/security considerations, or project plan with milestones.)
I want to draft a legislative proposal that will make this the law of the land. There will be nuances, such as caveats for the fact that multiple people are often recorded on one person's device, private settings vs public that also capture video and audio data of others not being that device owner. How are we sounding so far? Primarily the goal is for use in courts. Defense purposes against allegations, as well as vindications for those who may be getting slandered.
This is feasible and important. I'll draft a concise legislative proposal outline tailored for evidence access from device-stored and company-held recordings, with key definitions, scope, rights, exceptions (third-party privacy, minors, public safety), chain-of-custody/evidentiary rules, notice and redaction procedures, enforcement, and model statutory text for courts and defense use. Proceeding on that plan — any jurisdiction preference or federal vs state level?
Due to the globalist nature of these data companies, I sincerely believe federal legislation is the way to go.
Legislative proposal outline — Federal statute for user access to device-captured recordingsPurposeEnable individuals to obtain immediate, real-time access to recordings captured by their own devices and copies stored by data companies, for use in legal proceedings, while balancing third‑party privacy, public safety, and evidentiary integrity.
Definitions

• Device owner/user: person who owns or lawfully operates the device that captured the recording.
  
• Recording: audio, video, image, sensor data, or metadata captured by a device.
  
• Data holder/company: any person or entity that stores, processes, or transmits recordings collected from devices under user/license agreements.
  
• Real-time access: actionable access enabling viewing, downloading, or streaming within a statutory short period (e.g., 24 hours) of request.
  
• Covered proceeding: criminal defense, civil litigation, administrative hearings, and other courts or tribunals where evidence is admissible.
  
• Protected third party: an individual identifiable in a recording who is not the device owner.
  

Scope and applicability

• Applies to recordings captured by a person’s device (including smartphones, wearables, home cameras) and copies/backups stored by data holders that have collected such recordings under their user/license agreements.
  
• Excludes recordings lawfully seized by government with valid warrant or otherwise subject to non-disclosure by court order.
  
• Applies nationwide to all data holders operating or offering services in the U.S.
  

Core access right

• Device owners have a statutory right to request and receive copies or live streams of recordings captured by their devices and stored by data holders.
  
• Data holders must make available an authenticated copy or stream within 24 hours of a legally valid request (shorter for emergency court orders).
  
• Requests may be made by the device owner or an authorized legal representative; providers must authenticate requestor identity per standards set by regulation.
  

Authentication, format, and chain-of-custody

• Providers must supply recordings with technical metadata sufficient to establish source, timestamp, integrity (hashes), and minimal-chain-of-custody records.
  
• Standardized machine-readable formats and secure transfer (end-to-end encrypted link or authenticated download) required.
  
• Evidence rules to permit judicial acceptance of such records when accompanied by provider certification of authenticity and generation of a tamper-evident hash.
  

Use in court; evidentiary presumptions

• Recordings produced under this statute are admissible; court may consider provider metadata and certifications as prima facie evidence of authenticity and integrity, rebuttable by contrary evidence.
  
• Define procedures for preservation letters, emergency preservation (immediate hold with penalties for destruction), and spoliation sanctions.
  

Privacy and third-party protections

• Access right is subject to narrow privacy exceptions:
  • Prohibit disclosure of highly sensitive protected third-party content (e.g., medical examinations, sexual content involving non-consenting parties) unless a court order balancing interests issues.
    
  • Require redaction tools/process: providers must offer, or permit the requester to produce, redacted versions to protect uninvolved third parties; courts may review unredacted originals in camera when necessary.
    
  • Special protections for minors: parental/guardian controls and higher review thresholds.
    
• Law enforcement/ national security: preserve warrant and classified information exceptions; if provider believes request conflicts with national security or active criminal investigation, it must promptly notify a designated court or inspector general and preserve data pending judicial determination.
  

Notice and narrow-tailored disclosure

• Providers must notify protected third parties when disclosure would materially affect their privacy interests, except where doing so would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation or safety.
  
• Notification timing and content regulated; emergency exceptions for imminent harm.
  

Limits, fees, and burdens

• Providers may charge a reasonable, cost-based fee for retrieval and transmission, but not for standard access when automated; small-business and individual exemptions recommended.
  
• Administrative remedies and statutory damages for wrongful denial, unreasonable delay, or willful destruction.
  

Enforcement and remedies

• Private right of action and administrative enforcement by FTC or analogous agency.
  
• Remedies: injunctive relief, statutory damages (tiered), actual damages, civil penalties for willful violations, and criminal penalties for deliberate destruction or obstruction.
  
• Safe-harbor for good-faith compliance.
  

Rulemaking and standards

• Directive for an executive agency to issue technical standards (authentication, metadata schema, redaction best practices, verification procedures) and an implementation timeline (e.g., final rules within 12 months).
  
• Pilot program and compliance phases (e.g., small providers 24 months; large providers 12 months).
  

Draft statutory text — key sections (concise excerpts)

• Right of access: "A device owner shall have a statutory right to obtain from any data holder promptly a complete, authenticated copy or stream of any recording captured by the owner's device and retained by the holder, subject to the exceptions in section __."
  
• Preservation: "Upon receipt of a preservation request by a device owner in connection with a covered proceeding, a data holder shall preserve all relevant recordings and associated metadata for a period specified by regulation."
  
• Exceptions/redaction: "A data holder may withhold or redact portions of a recording only as permitted in regulations or upon court order following in camera review."
  
• Enforcement: "Violations are actionable in federal court; prevailing plaintiffs may recover statutory damages of $X–$Y per violation, actual damages, and attorneys' fees."
  

Implementation checklist for drafters

• Specify exact timelines (e.g., 24-hour access, 7-day preservation hold).
  
• Define authentication/metadata schema and admissibility standards.
  
• Draft narrowly tailored privacy exceptions with procedural safeguards (in-camera review, notice requirements).
  
• Determine fee limits and small-entity exemptions.
  
• Assign enforcement agency and set penalties.
  
• Include preemption clause (federal law supersedes conflicting state law) or cooperative-state model.
  
• Provide phased compliance schedule and funding for regulator oversight.
  

Suggested next steps

1. Choose precise timelines, statutory damage amounts, and identity/authentication standards.
   
2. Pick enforcement agency (FTC, DOJ, or new office) and craft administrative rulemaking language.
   
3. Draft full statutory text with cross-references, preservation procedures, and procedural rules for courts.
   
4. Prepare model legislative findings and preemption language.
   

If you want, I will draft full model statutory language for a federal bill based on the above outline using the following reasonable defaults: 24-hour response requirement, 7-day initial preservation hold, provider preservation obligations for 180 days after request, prima facie admissibility with provider certification, and FTC enforcement with $10,000 statutory damages per knowing violation — I will include redaction and notice procedures and rulemaking directive.
omg how are you so capable to produce such amazing writings on a first draft? This is phenomenal! Yes, please proceed turning this into legalese, I plan on working this out with a committee of policy makers or other humans afterwards to hash out the fine details like fines, fees, and agency jurisdictions.

[ArMaP]

I confess I didn't read the draft, but just reading your opening post made me think of two things we have in Portugal:
1 - The Portuguese constitution states:

Article 35
(Use of information technology)
1. Every citizen has the right of access to all computerised data that concern him, which he may require to be corrected and updated, and the right to be informed of the purpose for which they are intended, as laid down by law.
2. The law shall define the concept of personal data, together with the terms and conditions applicable to its automatised treatment and its linkage, transmission and use, and shall guarantee its protection,
particularly by means of an independent administrative entity.
3. Information technology may not be used to treat data concerning philosophical or political convictions, party or trade union affiliations, religious faith, private life or ethnic origins, save with the express consent of the datasubject, or with an authorisation provided for by law and with guarantees of nondiscrimination, or for the purpose of processing statistical data that are not individually identifiable.
4. Third-party access to personal data is prohibited, save in exceptional cases provided for by law.
5. The allocation of a single national number to any citizen is prohibited.
6. Everyone is guaranteed free access to public-use information technology networks. The law shall
define the regime governing cross-border data flows, and the appropriate means for protecting both
personal data and other data whose safeguarding is justified in the national interest.
7. Personal data contained in manual files enjoy the same protection as that provided for in the previous paragraphs, as laid down by law.

2 - The General Data Protection Regulation (common to the whole EU and used by some other countries, if I'm not mistaken), which controls what can and cannot be done regarding identifiable data regarding citizens. That's the reason behind the boring screens regarding data used by site cookies and why some US sites just stopped allowing users from the EU.

I suppose the GDPR has some things you could use (or may some things AI already used).

[BeyondKnowledge]

You failed to include tracking data specifically. Tracking may not be covered legally by what you have now as it is a function of the device and not sensor data. Tracking would be used to prove you were or were not in a location in question. That can be better proof than other recorded data sometimes.

How does this apply to state laws that block things like phoene call recording without all party concent? 

What about recordings not blocked by national laws but by local policy and ordinance? 

What about gym locker rooms, restrooms, changing areas, etc..?

How does this apply to concerts, movies, etc..  If your phone is on at a concert and somehow your service provider records it, are you breaking the law by recording the concert?

What is to keep the holders of the data from just saying they did not record this data at that time?

What is the penalty for accessing by or provideing the data to the wrong individual?

This would take at least 20 years or more to work out all the questions in the courts and government.