Connect with us

Published

on

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

  1. Short Title: This Act shall be known as the “Personal Data Ownership Act.”
  2. 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

  1. 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).
  2. Data Collector: Any entity, public or private, that collects, processes, or stores Personal Data.
  3. Data Subject: An individual whose Personal Data is collected, processed, or stored by a Data Collector.
  4. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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

  1. Access to Data: Data Collectors must provide Data Subjects with access to all Personal Data collected about them upon request.
  2. Correction of Data: Data Subjects shall have the right to demand correction of inaccurate or incomplete Personal Data.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

  1. Transparency: Data Collectors must inform Data Subjects about the collection and use of their Personal Data, including the purposes for which it is collected.
  2. Consent: Data Collectors must obtain explicit consent from Data Subjects before collecting or processing their Personal Data.
  3. Parental Consent: No data may be obtained about a person under the age of 13 without parental consent.

Section 7: Exceptions

  1. 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.
  2. Governmental Data: This Act does not apply to Personal Data collected, processed, or stored by government entities for official purposes.
  3. 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.
  4. Employment Data: This Act does not apply to Personal Data collected, processed, or stored by employers for employment-related purposes.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Ancestral Information: This Act does not apply to the retention of information related to ancestral or genealogical research.

Section 8: Enforcement and Penalties

  1. Enforcement Authority: The designated regulatory authority shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this Act.
  2. 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.
  3. Class A Misdemeanor: It shall be a Class A Misdemeanor for any person to collect or store data on an individual without their knowledge.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

  1. Authorization Required: Data Collectors must seek explicit authorization from the Data Subject prior to transferring or selling their Personal Data to any third party.
  2. 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.
  3. Right to Negotiate Compensation: The Data Subject shall have the right to negotiate compensation for the transfer or sale of their Personal Data.
  4. 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

  1. Jurcys, P. (2019). Ownership of User-Held Data: Why Property Law is the Right Approach. Retrieved from Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.
  2. Ritter, J., & Mayer, A. (n.d.). Regulating Data as Property: A New Construct for Moving Forward. Retrieved from Duke Law & Technology Review.
  3. 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.
  4. Grimmelmann, J., & Mulligan, C. (n.d.). Data Property. Retrieved from American University Law Review.
  5. Käll, J. (2020). The Materiality of Data as Property. Retrieved from Harvard International Law Journal.
  6. 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.

Michael Pipkins focuses on public integrity, governance, constitutional issues, and political developments affecting Texans. His investigative reporting covers public-record disputes, city-government controversies, campaign finance matters, and the use of public authority. Pipkins is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). As an SPJ member, Pipkins adheres to established principles of ethical reporting, including accuracy, fairness, source protection, and independent journalism.

Election

Texas Conservatives Turn on Cornyn as Paxton Surges

Published

on

Cornyn vs Paxton

OPINION – For years, Texas conservatives have watched Republicans campaign as fighters back home, only to return to Washington and govern like cautious corporate managers. That frustration is now boiling over in the growing divide between Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and U.S. Senator John Cornyn, a battle that increasingly defines the Republican Party in Texas.

Paxton has become one of the most aggressive conservative legal figures in America. Cornyn, meanwhile, is increasingly viewed by grassroots Republicans as an establishment insider tied to the old Bush era wing of the GOP. The contrast could hardly be sharper.

Paxton built his reputation fighting the Biden administration on immigration, election disputes, COVID mandates, and federal overreach. Supporters say he has consistently used the Attorney General’s office to defend Texas sovereignty and conservative values. President Donald Trump praised Paxton during his 2022 reelection fight, calling him “a true warrior for conservative values” while endorsing him against challenger George P. Bush.

For many Texas Republicans, Trump’s support mattered because Paxton was already viewed as willing to confront Washington directly rather than negotiate with it.

Cornyn has found himself on the opposite side of many of those same debates. Conservatives sharply criticized his role in bipartisan gun negotiations after the Uvalde shooting, but immigration remains the biggest source of anger among the Republican base. Cornyn has long supported expansions of employment based immigration programs, including H1B visa policies favored by major corporations.

Critics argue those programs have displaced American workers in industries like engineering, healthcare, technology, and data services by allowing companies to import cheaper foreign labor. Over the years, outsourcing firms and tech companies have repeatedly faced backlash after replacing American employees with foreign visa workers, sometimes even requiring laid off staff to train their replacements before leaving.

Cornyn argues skilled immigration helps fill labor shortages and strengthens the economy. But many Texas conservatives increasingly see the system as benefiting multinational corporations while middle-class American workers fall behind.

Paxton has aligned himself almost entirely with border hawks and immigration enforcement advocates. He has repeatedly sued the Biden administration over border policies and backed Texas efforts to secure the southern border independently of federal action. Supporters argue those lawsuits helped slow federal policies they believed encouraged illegal immigration and weakened state sovereignty.

Some conservatives also frame the immigration debate in cultural and security terms, warning that unchecked migration and weak assimilation policies can destabilize communities and strain public resources. Paxton supporters often portray him as defending Texas from the kinds of social fragmentation seen in parts of Europe.

Cornyn’s critics increasingly label him a “RINO,” shorthand for Republican In Name Only, arguing that he represents donor class priorities rather than grassroots conservatives. Trump allies have also criticized Cornyn as part of the “old Republican guard” that voters rejected during Trump’s rise. Cornyn’s primary supporter is the Lone Star Freedom Project, a dark money 501c(4) operated by former Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Opinion sections are where political realities become unavoidable. The reality is this: many Texas Republicans no longer want cautious institutional Republicans who focus on compromise while Democrats aggressively push cultural and political change nationwide.

They want confrontation. They want resistance. They want politicians willing to fight publicly and relentlessly.

That explains why Paxton continues to maintain strong support despite years of legal and political attacks. Many conservatives interpret those attacks not as proof he should step aside, but as proof he threatens entrenched political interests.

Cornyn, meanwhile, increasingly represents a Republican era many grassroots voters believe failed to defend the border, protect American workers, or stand firmly against Washington’s expansion of power. In today’s Texas Republican politics, that perception may be impossible to overcome.

Continue Reading

Featured

“Judge Speedy” Hits the Wall: Bexar County Jurist Resigns, Accepts Lifetime Ban from Texas Bench

Published

on

Rosie Speedlin Gonzalez

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — The political and legal downfall of Bexar County Judge Rosie Speedlin-Gonzalez came to a dramatic conclusion after the embattled jurist resigned from office and accepted a permanent lifetime ban from serving on the Texas bench .

The resignation agreement, signed in April and confirmed by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, ends months of controversy surrounding Speedlin-Gonzalez, who faced criminal charges and multiple judicial misconduct complaints stemming from a heated courtroom confrontation involving a San Antonio defense attorney.

Speedlin-Gonzalez, an openly gay Democrat who had served on Bexar County Court-at-Law No. 13 since 2018, formally agreed she would be, “forever disqualified from judicial service in the State of Texas.” The agreement prohibits her from serving as a judge, accepting judicial appointments, or performing judicial duties in the future.

The scandal centered on a December 2024 courtroom incident involving defense attorney Elizabeth Russell. Prosecutors alleged Speedlin-Gonzalez ordered Russell handcuffed and detained in the jury box during a contentious exchange after accusing the attorney of coaching her client during a probation revocation hearing.

A Bexar County grand jury later indicted the judge on charges of unlawful restraint and official oppression. Court documents alleged that Speedlin-Gonzalez knowingly restrained Russell without consent while acting under the authority of her judicial office.

The incident generated national attention and quickly became one of the most talked about judicial controversies in Texas. Video clips and courtroom details circulated widely online, while critics questioned whether the judge had crossed a clear constitutional line by using courtroom authority against a practicing attorney during active proceedings.

KSAT reported last month that special prosecutor Brian Cromeens later moved to dismiss the criminal charges after Speedlin-Gonzalez agreed to resign and permanently leave the judiciary. According to reports, prosecutors concluded the resignation and lifetime ban sufficiently addressed the public interest concerns surrounding the case.

The resignation agreement also referenced several additional complaints against the now former judge. One complaint alleged she displayed an “unprofessional demeanor” toward a criminal defendant and failed to timely address motions involving bond modifications and habeas corpus requests. Three additional complaints accused her of abusing judicial authority by issuing “no contact” orders restricting communications among court personnel and former employees.

Speedlin-Gonzalez had already faced disciplinary scrutiny before the handcuffing controversy erupted. According to the San Antonio Express-News, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct previously issued a public warning after she congratulated winning attorneys on social media and posted their photographs on her official judicial Facebook page. The commission also reportedly ordered additional education after complaints involving a pride flag displayed inside her courtroom.

In January, shortly after the indictment became public, Speedlin-Gonzalez defended herself in comments to the New York Post.

I’m a proud public servant, I’m LGBTQ, I own a gun, I’m bilingual, I’m an American citizen, and I have every right to defend myself,” Gonzalez told the outlet. “As long as I walk in righteousness and have God at my side I will be fine.

The judge was suspended without pay earlier this year while disciplinary proceedings continued. During that suspension, visiting judges rotated through County Court-at-Law No. 13 to handle pending cases and specialty court matters.

Court-at-Law No. 13 is known in part for overseeing Reflejo Court, a specialty program focused on first time domestic violence offenders and treatment based intervention programs.

The controversy also arrived during a difficult reelection season for Speedlin-Gonzalez. In March, she lost her Democratic primary race to challenger Alicia Perez, effectively ending her political future even before the disciplinary case concluded.

The agreement signed by Speedlin-Gonzalez states that by accepting resignation and permanent disqualification, she does not admit fault or guilt regarding the allegations against her. Such provisions are common in negotiated judicial disciplinary settlements.

One narrow exception remains under the agreement. Speedlin-Gonzalez may still officiate wedding ceremonies, provided she does not wear judicial robes or imply she retains judicial authority while conducting them.

Speedlin-Gonzalez was widely described as the first openly LGBT judge elected in Bexar County. Supporters frequently highlighted that milestone during her tenure on the bench, while critics argued the attention surrounding identity politics often overshadowed concerns about courtroom conduct and professionalism.

Permanent judicial disqualifications remain relatively uncommon in Texas, particularly involving sitting elected county judges. The case now joins a growing list of disciplinary actions taken by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct against jurists accused of misconduct or abuse of authority.

Continue Reading

Featured

UFO Files Released

Published

on

UFO Files Released

Trump’s “UFO Files” Drop Lands With a Thud, Leaving Believers and Skeptics Equally Unsatisfied

Department of War – For years, UFO believers promised the truth was buried somewhere deep inside government vaults, hidden behind classified markings and decades of official denials. The long-awaited disclosure, they said, would prove humanity is not alone. So when the Trump administration released a major archive of UFO-related material this week, anticipation exploded across social media and conspiracy circles alike. The result, however, landed with all the excitement of opening a mystery safe only to discover it filled with newspaper clippings, hobby magazines, and blurry photos of distant lights in the sky.

The files were released through the federal archive portal at www.WAR.GOV/UFO Files and include videos, audio recordings, witness statements, correspondence, and archival documents connected to unidentified flying objects, now often called unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAPs.

The website also prominently features a statement from Donald Trump posted from Truth Social:

“Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War, and other relevant Departments and Agencies, to begin the process of identifying and releasing Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

The Department of War website also states that additional material will continue to be released on a weekly basis, suggesting the current archive represents only the first phase of a broader disclosure effort. That announcement has kept many UFO enthusiasts hopeful that more substantial evidence could still emerge in future document dumps.

For now, however, the initial release appears to contain little that fundamentally changes the public understanding of UFO phenomena.

Despite years of sensational claims about craft performing maneuvers that supposedly “defy physics,” none of the videos included in the archive appear to show anything close to that. The objects captured on camera are consistently small, far away, and moving in mostly straight lines at what appear to be ordinary, subsonic speeds. There are no impossible right-angle turns, no instantaneous acceleration, no sudden stops, and no visible flight characteristics beyond what could plausibly be explained by conventional objects or optical effects.

File: DOD_111688964 – Taken 2024-06-01 – The United States Northern Command submitted a report of an unidentified anomalous phenomenon (UAP) to the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) consisting of 21 seconds of video footage from an infrared sensor aboard a U.S. military platform in 2024. An accompanying mission report, DoW-UAP-D8, described the UAP as consisting of an object with a vertical pole or bar attached to the bottom of the object. The observer also reported that the UAP may instead be a reflection from an object in the water.

Most of the footage consists of little more than bright shiny objects against the sky, filmed from such extreme distances that meaningful identification becomes nearly impossible. A few clips appear consistent with balloons or commercial drones. Others show glowing or reflective orbs with no discernible structure or detail. None of the material independently verifies the extraordinary claims often promoted by UFO media personalities and internet commentators.

The release arrives after years of mounting public fascination with UFOs. Congressional hearings, Pentagon acknowledgements of unexplained aerial sightings, and endless online speculation helped create expectations that the government might eventually reveal evidence of non human intelligence. Those expectations likely contributed to the enormous interest surrounding this document dump.

But much of the archive reads less like disclosure and more like an oversized collection of unresolved anecdotes and cultural memorabilia. Witness statements describe strange lights, odd movements, and unusual sightings, but almost none are supported by physical evidence, radar tracking, or technical analysis capable of independent verification. Some are handwritten personal accounts submitted decades ago by ordinary citizens reporting mysterious experiences investigators apparently could neither confirm nor explain.

A surprisingly large portion of the collection focuses on civilian UFO enthusiast organizations that published magazines and newsletters dedicated to sightings and theories about alien life. Rather than classified military revelations, many files simply document the activities of hobbyist groups fascinated by UFO culture during the Cold War era and beyond.

The archive also includes letters from school children asking the government whether flying saucers and aliens are real. While historically interesting as a reflection of American pop culture and public curiosity, the letters offer no evidentiary value regarding extraterrestrial life. Some of the material feels more appropriate for a museum exhibit on twentieth century UFO fascination than for a headline generating government disclosure project.

NASA related recordings and footage included in the release similarly failed to produce dramatic revelations. Most involve routine aerospace operations, ambiguous observations, or discussions about unidentified objects without any conclusion that they originated from beyond Earth. NASA has consistently maintained there is no confirmed evidence of alien visitation, and nothing in this release appears to alter that position.

Reaction online quickly shifted from excitement to frustration. Some UFO believers claimed the truly important files are still hidden behind classification barriers and that the public release was carefully sanitized before publication. Skeptics argued the archive merely reinforces what critics have long maintained, that UFO mythology survives largely because blurry footage and incomplete information allow people to project extraordinary conclusions onto ordinary phenomena.

Notably absent from the release are the kinds of materials long promised in sensational documentaries and conspiracy forums. There are no recovered alien craft, no biological specimens, no authenticated extraterrestrial communications, and no government memos admitting contact with non human intelligence. More importantly, there is no footage of any object displaying flight characteristics that genuinely challenge known physics.

That disconnect between public expectation and documented reality may ultimately be the biggest story.

For decades, UFO culture has operated on the assumption that earth shattering proof exists just beyond public reach. Every blurry light becomes a possible spacecraft. Every vague government statement fuels another round of speculation. Entire media industries now thrive on the promise that disclosure is always right around the corner.

Yet when the files finally arrived, they mostly revealed what Americans have seen for generations, distant lights, uncertain observations, stories without proof, and a government willing to catalog mystery without necessarily solving it.

Perhaps future weekly releases from the Department of War will contain something more compelling. But if this first archive is any indication, Americans waiting for undeniable proof of alien visitation may need to lower their expectations considerably.

Continue Reading