Reimagining Personal Property Rights in the Digital Age: The Case for Data Ownership
Personal Data Ownership Act
As society rapidly advances into the digital era, the concept of personal property is evolving beyond physical assets to encompass the vast amounts of data generated by individuals. In an age where browsing history, clicks, location data, and shopping habits are meticulously collected by corporations, the need to reassess personal property rights in relation to data is more pressing than ever.
The Modern Dilemma: Data as Personal Property
Traditionally, personal property rights have been well-defined, encompassing physical goods and real estate. However, the rise of digital technology has introduced a new dimension of personal assets: data. Every interaction online—whether it’s a search query, a social media post, or a purchase—generates data that companies eagerly collect and analyze. This data is valuable, often forming the basis for highly profitable business models.
Yet, despite its intrinsic value, individuals typically have little control over their own data. Companies accumulate vast quantities of personal information, using it to target advertisements, influence purchasing decisions, and even make critical business decisions. This imbalance raises a fundamental question: Shouldn’t individuals have ownership over their own data?
The Right to Control and Profit
The argument for data ownership is grounded in the principles of personal autonomy and property rights. Individuals should have the absolute right to review, edit, or delete any information that corporations collect about them. This control ensures that personal data remains accurate and secure, reducing the risk of misuse or exploitation.
Furthermore, individuals should have the right to profit from the sale or transfer of their data. Just as one can sell a physical asset, personal data should be treated as a commodity that individuals can monetize if they choose. This shift would not only empower individuals but also foster a more equitable digital economy where the benefits of data collection are shared.
Proposed Legislative Framework
To address these concerns, a comprehensive legislative framework is needed to safeguard data ownership rights. The proposed “Personal Data Ownership Act” aims to establish clear guidelines for data control:
Title: Personal Data Ownership Act
Section 1: Short Title and Alternate Title
- Short Title: This Act shall be known as the “Personal Data Ownership Act.”
- Alternate Title: This Act may also be referred to as the “I Own Me” Act.
Section 2: Purpose The purpose of this act is to return ownership of data collected about a person to the person who’s data is being collected.
Section 3: Definitions
- Personal Data: Any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, including but not limited to biometrics, physical location history, internet browsing history, shopping history, Personally Identifiable Information (P.I.I.) as defined in other statutes, associations with other persons, video and audio recordings, and other biometric and DNA information. Collecting data from a device, that can be associated to a data subject, is the same as collecting data from a person (ie: personal data).
- Data Collector: Any entity, public or private, that collects, processes, or stores Personal Data.
- Data Subject: An individual whose Personal Data is collected, processed, or stored by a Data Collector.
- Electronic Device: Any electronic device that can be used for the collection of data on an individual, including but not limited to computers, smartphones, tablets, wearables, and IoT (Internet of Things) devices.
Section 4: Personal Data Ownership
- Ownership Rights: Every individual shall have personal ownership of all Personal Data collected about them, regardless of the nature of their relationship with the Data Collector. Ownership rights include:
- History of location.
- History of search activity.
- History of clicks, actions, motions, or scrolls, or any other device measurements.
- Personally Identifiable Information (P.I.I.) as defined in other statutes.
- Video and audio recording information.
- Other biometric and DNA information.
- Control Rights: Data Subjects shall have the authority to review, edit, or remove their Personal Data, in whole or in part, at any time.
Section 5: Right to Review and Edit
- Access to Data: Data Collectors must provide Data Subjects with access to all Personal Data collected about them upon request.
- Correction of Data: Data Subjects shall have the right to demand correction of inaccurate or incomplete Personal Data.
- Deletion of Data: Data Subjects shall have the right to demand the deletion of their Personal Data, in whole or in part, except as provided in Section 6.
- Non-Retaliation: A Data Collector, or a company that contracts with a Data Collector, may not cancel a person’s membership or ability to use a service due to a person requesting that their information be removed.
Section 6: Data Collection and Usage
- Transparency: Data Collectors must inform Data Subjects about the collection and use of their Personal Data, including the purposes for which it is collected.
- Consent: Data Collectors must obtain explicit consent from Data Subjects before collecting or processing their Personal Data.
- Parental Consent: No data may be obtained about a person under the age of 13 without parental consent.
Section 7: Exceptions
- Device Data Collection: This act does not apply to a device that does not store Personal Data for more than 24 hours or transmit that information to another device for storage.
- Governmental Data: This Act does not apply to Personal Data collected, processed, or stored by government entities for official purposes.
- Medical Data: This Act does not apply to Personal Data collected, processed, or stored by medical entities for the purposes of diagnosis, treatment, or healthcare management. This Act does not apply to individuals who are under the medical supervision of another.
- Employment Data: This Act does not apply to Personal Data collected, processed, or stored by employers for employment-related purposes.
- Law Enforcement Data: This Act does not apply to Personal Data collected, processed, or stored by law enforcement agencies for the purposes of criminal investigation, incarceration, public safety, or national security.
- Security of Persons or Property: This Act does not apply to surveillance (video and/or audio) of a person or property conducted to protect against theft, vandalism, or violence.
- Public Spaces: This Act does not restrict the constitutional right to record (video or audio) individuals in public places where there is no expectation of privacy, as long as such recording complies with applicable laws regarding privacy and consent.
- Journalistic Exemption: Journalists and media organizations shall be permitted to gather Personal Data on individuals for newsworthy stories that serve the public good, provided that such data collection is conducted in accordance with applicable laws and ethical standards for journalism.
- Personal and Family Data: This Act does not apply to individuals who collect and store data or documents solely for themselves or their immediate family.
- Ancestral Information: This Act does not apply to the retention of information related to ancestral or genealogical research.
Section 8: Enforcement and Penalties
- Enforcement Authority: The designated regulatory authority shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this Act.
- Penalties for Non-Compliance: Data Collectors found in violation of this Act shall be subject to penalties, including fines and corrective actions as determined by the regulatory authority. An individual may also sue the Data Collector in Civil Court. A plaintiff shall not be required to prove monetary damages to bring a case or have that case adjudicated.
- Class A Misdemeanor: It shall be a Class A Misdemeanor for any person to collect or store data on an individual without their knowledge.
- Corporate Responsibility: When the offender is a corporation, the highest officer of that corporation shall be held responsible for the actions of the corporation and subject to penalties as specified for individual offenders.
- Defense Against Prosecution:
- It shall be a defense against prosecution if a Data Subject has signed an authorization for the collection of data, provided the data to be collected is plainly spelled out as to what is specifically collected.
- It shall also be a defense against prosecution if the information collected is public knowledge or readily available from public sources.
Section 9: Transfer or Selling of Data
- Authorization Required: Data Collectors must seek explicit authorization from the Data Subject prior to transferring or selling their Personal Data to any third party.
- Disclosure of Terms: Data Collectors must disclose the terms of the sale or transfer, including the nature of the data being transferred and the parties involved, to the Data Subject.
- Right to Negotiate Compensation: The Data Subject shall have the right to negotiate compensation for the transfer or sale of their Personal Data.
- Retention of Rights: All other rights of the Data Subject, including the right to review, edit, or remove their Personal Data, shall be retained after the transfer or sale.
Section 10: Effective Date This Act shall take effect six months after the date of enactment.
Section 11: Severability If any provision of this Act is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in effect.
Section 12: Review and Amendment This Act shall be reviewed every five years from the date of enactment and may be amended as necessary to address emerging privacy concerns and technological advancements.
As we navigate the complexities of the digital age, reimagining personal property rights to include data is essential. By granting individuals control over their own data and the right to profit from it, we can create a more equitable and transparent digital landscape. The proposed “Personal Data Ownership Act” serves as a crucial step in this direction, aiming to establish clear and enforceable rights for data subjects, ensuring that personal data is treated with the respect and value it deserves.
References
- Jurcys, P. (2019). Ownership of User-Held Data: Why Property Law is the Right Approach. Retrieved from Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.
- Ritter, J., & Mayer, A. (n.d.). Regulating Data as Property: A New Construct for Moving Forward. Retrieved from Duke Law & Technology Review.
- Global Perspectives on Digital Trade Governance. (2021). Data Ownership and Data Access Rights: Meaningful Tools for Promoting the European Digital Single Market? Retrieved from Cambridge University Press.
- Grimmelmann, J., & Mulligan, C. (n.d.). Data Property. Retrieved from American University Law Review.
- Käll, J. (2020). The Materiality of Data as Property. Retrieved from Harvard International Law Journal.
- Leonard, P. (2020). Beyond Data Privacy: Data “Ownership” and Regulation of Data-Driven Business. Retrieved from American Bar Association.
By considering the proposals and discussions in these resources, we can work towards a legal framework that ensures data ownership rights for all.
Austin
Texas GOP Wants Closed Primaries. New Secretary of State Robert Howden Is Preparing to Fight Them.
Austin, TX – Texas Republicans spent years demanding control of their own primary. Now they have a new Secretary of State, Robert S. Howden, appointed by Republican Governor Greg Abbott, and the man taking over the state’s election machinery is inheriting a lawsuit in which his office is expected to defend the very open primary system the GOP wants to dismantle.
The Republican Party of Texas filed the federal lawsuit in September 2025, arguing that Texas’ open primary system violates the party’s First Amendment right of association. Under the current system, Texas voters do not register by party and may choose which party’s primary to vote in during an election cycle. The GOP wants only registered Republicans participating in Republican primaries.
The case is pending in federal court in Amarillo before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
And Robert S. Howden has now inherited it.
Howden Steps Into the Fight
Gov. Abbott appointed Howden as Texas’ 116th secretary of state on July 17, effective July 18. Howden previously served as Abbott’s senior adviser and director of legislative affairs and has worked in the administrations of four Republican governors. As secretary of state, he is Texas’ chief elections officer.
Abbott has been quite clear about where he stands.
At the 2026 Republican Party convention, he said Texas would eventually make clear that “only Republicans vote in Republican primaries.” Abbott has also said lawmakers “can and should be more responsive to Republicans than a judge may be,” indicating that he expects the Legislature to address the issue during the 2027 session.
But that doesn’t mean the Secretary of State’s office is supposed to simply surrender in court.
That was the position taken by Howden’s predecessor, Jane Nelson.
Nelson argued that changing Texas’ primary system was a job for the Legislature, not a federal judge. In an October 2025 statement, she said it was her responsibility to defend existing election laws and that she would implement whatever changes the Legislature lawfully enacted.
The Attorney General’s office took the opposite position.
Attorney General Ken Paxton sided with the Texas GOP, asking the federal court to strike down portions of the Texas Election Code governing open primaries. According to reporting by The Texas Tribune, Nelson’s lawyers said Paxton’s office gave them less than an hour’s notice before taking the opposing position.
So the Republican Party sued the Republican-controlled state government. The Republican Attorney General joined the plaintiffs. And the Republican Secretary of State fought the lawsuit.
That’s not exactly the tidy party unity politicians like to advertise.
The Real Fight Is Over Who Controls the Nomination
The GOP argues that crossover voting allows Democrats and independents to influence Republican nominations, potentially helping candidates who are less conservative than the party base.
The lawsuit specifically pointed to the 2024 Republican primaries involving former House Speaker Dade Phelan and Rep. Gary VanDeaver. Both won their races by fewer than 800 votes, and the party argued that crossover voters helped determine the outcomes.
The party has already made closing primaries an official priority. Republicans adopted rules supporting closed primaries in 2024 and renewed that push at their 2026 convention.
But changing the system is not as simple as flipping a switch.
Texas has more than 18 million registered voters, and the state’s registration system was never designed around party registration. Moving to closed primaries could require new registration procedures, computer-system changes and a method for existing voters to establish party affiliation.
The GOP wants the courts to clear the way, preferably in time for 2028.
Business
San Angelo’s Data Center Fight Is Now a Recall Fight
San Angelo, TX – San Angelo’s battle over massive data centers has moved from City Hall chambers to the ballot box, and two council members could soon have to defend their seats before voters angry about how the city has handled the projects. What began as a fight over water, power, development and transparency is now a full-blown political revolt, with recall efforts targeting Council Members Harry Thomas and Joe Self.
And the controversy comes at an interesting moment for Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered state regulators to conduct a comprehensive audit of data centers moving through the state’s electric grid interconnection process, saying the review must be completed before any data center project moves forward. ERCOT subsequently told Fox News Digital that Abbott’s directive “effectively pauses all data center projects” while the state reviews their demands on the grid.
That means the questions being shouted at San Angelo City Hall are no longer merely local complaints from residents opposed to a particular development. Texas officials are now asking some of the same questions.
Abbott directed the Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT to examine pending data center projects and gather information, including projected annual and peak electricity demand, water consumption, water sources, and whether facilities intend to generate some of their own electricity. ERCOT reported that roughly 90 percent of the 474 gigawatts of large-load interconnection requests currently under review are associated with data centers, more than five times Texas’ record peak electricity demand.
Back in San Angelo, the San Angelo Data Center Citizen Coalition has been pushing its own accountability campaign.
A petition seeking the recall of Council Member Harry Thomas, who represents Single Member District 3, was submitted July 15 with more than the required signatures. The city clerk later certified the petition after determining 53 signatures were sufficient, clearing the way for a recall election.
Following public comment, the City Council voted 6-1 to call the recall election.
Thomas has maintained that he has no intention of resigning.
“I weigh every decision I’ve ever made on behalf of the 100,000 citizens in San Angelo,” Thomas said after the petition was submitted. “Every time I vote, I vote for all the citizens. I have no plans to resign from my position.”
Self is now facing his own recall effort.
The coalition submitted an affidavit seeking Self’s recall and subsequently collected the signatures necessary to move forward. On Aug. 6, Self issued a statement saying he supports residents’ right to seek a recall but rejected what he described as misinformation about his involvement with data centers.
“I have not signed any non-disclosure agreements,” Self said. “I have not benefited financially. I have not voted in favor of a data center.”
Self said the council has instead voted on regulations that would apply if a data center is established in San Angelo.
That distinction between approving a specific project and approving regulations governing potential projects has become one of the central arguments in the political fight. San Angelo officials have considered rules addressing land use, water and wastewater issues as the city confronts proposals for large-scale data center development.
The proposed Skybox project has become particularly contentious. City officials have described it as a potential $7.2 billion investment, while opponents have raised concerns about water consumption, electricity demand, infrastructure, noise and transparency surrounding the development process.
The political consequences are spreading beyond San Angelo.
Residents in Temple and Granbury have also launched recall or charter efforts amid disputes over data center development. In Temple, opponents have cited concerns about land, water consumption and heat generated by facilities. In Granbury, activists gathered signatures seeking recalls involving the mayor and most members of the City Council.
Election
Texas Senate Hopeful James Talarico Shared Pride Event Stage With 11-Year-Old Child Drag Performer
Federal Court Upholds State Limits on Minors at Adult Drag Shows
Taylor, TX – A federal appeals court has just upheld a Florida law restricting minors from attending certain adult live performances, including some drag shows. Within hours of that ruling, renewed attention was focused on Texas Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico after reports resurfaced showing he headlined a 2021 Pride fundraiser featuring an 11-year-old child drag performer promoted as one of the event’s main attractions.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled in HM Florida-ORL, LLC v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, allowing Florida to enforce its law restricting minors from attending certain adult live performances. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced the decision, calling it a victory for protecting children. The ruling does not prohibit drag performances for adults, but it recognizes that states may impose limits when minors are involved.
The timing has drawn renewed scrutiny to Talarico’s record as he campaigns for the U.S. Senate against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

According to promotional materials first highlighted by the Washington Free Beacon, Talarico was a featured speaker during Taylor PRIDE’s June 26, 2021 fundraiser in Taylor, Texas. The event was organized to raise money for “rural LGBTQ communities” and included live music, Drag Story Hour, adult drag performers, and an 11-year-old performer using the stage name “Kween Kee Kee.”
Taylor PRIDE advertised the child as “the absolute cutest & youngest of our drag performers.” Promotional posts stated the child would perform a drag routine and host “Kee Kee Storytime,” where children would participate in Pride-themed craft activities. The event was held at Texas Beer Company.
Photographs published from the event show Talarico addressing attendees from the stage and posing with participants. Additional photographs and video posted publicly show Kween Kee Kee, a local preteen named Keegan, performing in a shimmering blue dress, platinum blonde wig, and theatrical makeup during what organizers described as a Youth Drag Show. One attendee shared video of the child performing the splits before the audience.
The fundraiser also featured several adult drag performers, including Brianna Brinxx, Belladonna Dior, Felecia Enspire, and a performer using the stage name Sedonya Face.
Following criticism from conservative activists who protested the event, Taylor PRIDE defended the festival on social media. The organization rejected claims that the event was sexually explicit or exploitative and encouraged the public to review photographs from the event and decide for themselves.
Talarico’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment from the Washington Free Beacon regarding his participation.
The resurfaced event adds to a broader record that Republicans have highlighted throughout Talarico’s political career. While serving in the Texas House, Talarico opposed legislation restricting drag performances in the presence of children and argued lawmakers should avoid harming what he described as Texas’ drag performers. He has also opposed Republican-backed legislation restricting certain transgender medical treatments for minors and has frequently spoken in support of LGBTQ causes.
More recently, however, Talarico has attempted to present himself as a more moderate statewide candidate. He has described previous remarks, including referring to God as “nonbinary,” as “cringey” and has removed some progressive messaging from campaign materials as he seeks to broaden his appeal beyond Democratic primary voters.
The renewed attention comes as cultural debates surrounding children and drag performances continue playing out both politically and legally. Florida’s appellate court victory represents one of the most significant recent rulings supporting a state’s authority to restrict minors from attending certain adult-oriented live performances, even as litigation over similar laws continues elsewhere.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login