Online/Social Media Presence Removal Act

Liberty
1

The Deletion Act empowers U.S. citizens and permanent residents with the right to permanently erase their digital presence upon request, ensuring privacy, autonomy, and control over personal data. The Act includes stringent measures to prevent misuse by criminals, protect vulnerable individuals, and safeguard against potential government or corporate overreach:

Social Media/Data Collection Deletion or Kill Switch Act

Section 1: Definitions

  1. Social Media/Online Presence: Refers to all personal data, accounts, profiles, images, posts, and other identifiable digital content created or maintained by the individual on social media platforms, websites, or other online services.
  2. Data Controller: Any entity, company, organization, or platform that collects, stores, or processes personal data.
  3. Data Subject: An individual who owns, manages, or has rights over the data that pertains to them personally.
  4. Deletion Request: A formal appeal made by the data subject to remove or erase personal data and content from all online platforms and databases.
  5. Kill Switch: A comprehensive deletion mechanism allowing a data subject to completely and permanently erase their online presence upon request.

Section 2: Individual Rights to Data Deletion

  1. Right to Erasure: Individuals have the absolute right to request the deletion of their personal data from social media and data controllers, ensuring that all identifiable information is permanently erased from online databases and servers.
  2. Scope of Deletion:
  • Personal Data: Includes names, images, videos, contacts, IP addresses, personal identifiers, and other digital traces that identify the data subject.
  • De-indexing: Search engines and aggregators must de-index and remove search results associated with the data subject to prevent residual links from showing up.
  • Complete Account Deletion: Social media platforms must provide a “kill switch” option for complete and immediate account and content deletion.
  1. Universal Application: This right applies to all data controllers, regardless of their location or jurisdiction, if the data pertains to a U.S. citizen.

Section 3: Data Deletion Process

  1. Procedure:
  • Request Initiation: Individuals may initiate a data deletion request via written, digital, or secure forms provided by data controllers.
  • Authentication Requirements: The data controller must authenticate the identity of the requestor to confirm they are the data subject, using strong, multi-factor verification methods.
  • Response Timeframe: Data controllers must comply within 30 days of receiving the request, with a potential extension of 60 days for complex cases.
  • Notification of Completion: Data subjects must receive a confirmation of deletion once the process is completed, along with a summary of the steps taken.
  1. Irreversible Deletion:
  • The deletion must be permanent and irreversible, including data backups and cached versions.
  • Data controllers must delete any related metadata or analytical information associated with the data subject.

Section 4: Safeguards Against Misuse

  1. Protection from Unauthorized Deletion:
  • Prohibition of Fraudulent Deletion: It is illegal for any entity, including government agencies, businesses, or individuals, to request or initiate deletion on behalf of another person without explicit, documented consent from the data subject.
  • Severe Penalties: Any fraudulent attempt to misuse the kill switch will be met with severe legal consequences, including hefty fines and potential imprisonment.
  • Verification Processes: Multi-layered verification measures, such as biometric checks or notarized consent forms, must be in place to prevent unlawful deletion attempts.
  1. Anti-Coercion Measures:
  • Employers, government entities, or other organizations are prohibited from coercing or pressuring individuals into using the kill switch for any reason that benefits the coercing entity.
  • Whistleblower protections must be strengthened to support individuals who report unauthorized use or coercion related to this law.
  1. Safeguarding Privacy vs. Public Interest:
  • National Security Exception: Requests can be denied or delayed only if they pose an immediate, verifiable national security threat. Denials must be approved by a federal judge with full justification.
  • Law Enforcement Protections: In active criminal investigations, data controllers may temporarily halt deletion if required by a valid court order, with the data subject notified of the hold and its reason.
  1. Corporate Transparency and Accountability:
  • Companies must publicly disclose the number and nature of deletion requests annually.
  • Third-party audits are mandatory to ensure compliance with deletion protocols and prevent unauthorized deletions.

Section 5: Penalties for Non-Compliance

  1. Fines and Legal Action:
  • Corporate Violations: Companies failing to comply with lawful deletion requests will face fines up to $10 million or 5% of their global turnover, whichever is higher.
  • Personal Violations: Individuals who fraudulently initiate a kill switch request for someone else will face fines up to $250,000 and potential prison sentences of up to 5 years.
  1. Civil Remedies:
  • Data subjects have the right to sue entities that fail to comply with deletion requests or unlawfully deny deletion.
  • Victims of unauthorized deletion can seek damages from perpetrators, including compensation for any personal, professional, or financial harm suffered.

Section 6: Implementation and Monitoring

  1. Federal Agency Oversight: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will oversee implementation and enforce compliance.
  2. Advisory Board Creation:
  • A special advisory board, including digital privacy experts, civil rights advocates, and technologists, will guide the development of best practices, security measures, and technological advancements related to the kill switch.
  • The board will propose amendments, if needed, to enhance protections and address new threats or loopholes.

Section 7: Amendments and Future-proofing

  1. Periodic Review:
  • The law will be reviewed every three years by an independent commission to ensure it remains effective against emerging technologies and tactics used by corporations or governments.
  1. Rapid Response Protocols:
  • In cases of widespread abuse or technical loopholes, emergency protocols allow the advisory board to make temporary adjustments, pending approval by Congress.

Section 8: Enhanced Safeguards Against Criminal Misuse

  1. Exemption for Active Criminal Investigations:
  • Data controllers can temporarily delay or restrict deletion requests from individuals under active criminal investigation for serious crimes, such as homicide, human trafficking, child exploitation, and terrorism.
  • A formal request must be made by law enforcement, supported by a court order specifying the basis for the delay.
  • The data subject must be notified of the delay unless such notification poses a clear risk to public safety or jeopardizes an ongoing investigation, as determined by a judge.
  1. Mandatory Court Review:
  • Individuals convicted or facing trial for crimes like murder, trafficking, or child exploitation cannot permanently delete their data until legal proceedings have concluded.
  • A federal court will assess whether any remaining data is critical for law enforcement or public safety before authorizing full deletion.

Section 9: Specialized Data Access and Preservation Mechanisms

  1. Data Archiving for Legal Proceedings:
  • Before any data is permanently erased, a copy may be securely archived if it is deemed crucial evidence in legal proceedings related to violent crimes or crimes against minors.
  • The archived data is accessible only through a valid court order and is secured in encrypted databases managed by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
  1. Digital Evidence Preservation Orders:
  • Law enforcement agencies can request digital evidence preservation orders to prevent deletion when pursuing cases involving severe crimes like human trafficking, child pornography, or terrorism.
  • These preservation orders must be time-bound, reviewed quarterly, and supported by strong evidence that the data in question is essential for prosecution.
  1. Federal Oversight for Access to Archived Data:
  • Only authorized federal or state investigators, with judicial approval, can access archived data. This process is overseen by a joint board of judges, prosecutors, and privacy advocates to maintain balance between investigation needs and privacy rights.

Section 10: Strengthening Citizen Protections Against Corporate and Government Abuses

  1. Prohibition of Mass Deletion Requests by Government Entities:
  • Federal, state, or local governments are prohibited from using the kill switch to erase data en masse, unless an individual has made an explicit and verified request.
  • Any unauthorized attempt by government officials to delete data using this law is punishable by significant fines, disqualification from office, and criminal charges for abuse of power.
  1. Enhanced Whistleblower Protections:
  • Whistleblowers exposing government or corporate abuse of the deletion mechanism will be entitled to anonymity, legal protection, and financial support for legal defense.
  • The law explicitly prohibits retaliation against individuals or employees who report unlawful use or coercion related to the kill switch.

Section 11: Prevention of Corporate Misuse and Manipulation

  1. Strict Data Deletion Audits:
  • Companies must undergo annual audits to verify compliance with this law. Independent third-party auditors will ensure companies do not manipulate the process to unlawfully delete or preserve data.
  • Audit results must be publicly available to maintain transparency and accountability.
  1. Increased Penalties for Corporate Misconduct:
  • If companies are found to have abused the deletion process to hide misconduct or facilitate illegal activities, they will face increased fines, suspension of operations, or mandatory restructuring to ensure compliance.
  1. Safeguard Against Coerced Deletion:
  • Corporations cannot demand that employees or consumers use the kill switch to erase potentially incriminating data. Violations result in severe financial penalties and potential criminal prosecution.

Section 12: Special Procedures for Child and Trafficking Victims

  1. Enhanced Protections for Victims of Trafficking and Abuse:
  • Victims of human trafficking or child abuse may request expedited deletion of personal data to prevent further exploitation, harassment, or tracking.
  • In these cases, data controllers must prioritize victim safety while coordinating with law enforcement to ensure that evidence is preserved for prosecution against perpetrators.
  1. Confidential Deletion Requests for Vulnerable Groups:
  • Confidential deletion pathways are established for vulnerable groups, such as domestic violence survivors, who may be at risk if their digital presence is not fully erased.
  • Law enforcement is permitted to archive relevant data under strict oversight to ensure it cannot be misused while preserving critical evidence for prosecuting perpetrators.

Section 13: Real-time Monitoring for Loophole Exploitation

  1. Continuous Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism:
  • An independent digital privacy watchdog, comprising privacy experts, legal scholars, and civil rights advocates, will be tasked with continuously monitoring for potential loopholes and abuses of the kill switch law.
  • If any loophole is detected, a rapid-response protocol will be triggered to prevent exploitation while legislative amendments are proposed to close the gap.
  1. Emergency Protections for High-Risk Individuals:
  • Individuals flagged as high-risk, including those targeted by stalkers, traffickers, or other abusers, will receive priority processing for deletion requests, along with government support to safeguard their digital anonymity.
  1. Transparency in Government Deletion Requests:
  • Government deletion requests related to public officials, military personnel, or law enforcement must be publicly documented and justified to prevent cover-ups or unlawful erasure of accountability-related information.

Section 14: Citizen Participation and Legislative Feedback

  1. Public Comment and Feedback Mechanism:
  • U.S. citizens will have the opportunity to submit feedback, complaints, or suggestions to a special online portal dedicated to the kill switch law.
  • This portal will allow citizens to report suspected misuse, coercion, or loophole exploitation, with assurances of confidentiality and protection against retaliation.
  1. Regular Town Halls and Public Hearings:
  • Federal and state governments will be required to hold periodic town halls and public hearings to update citizens on the law’s effectiveness, gather feedback, and discuss potential improvements.
  • The hearings will allow digital privacy experts, victims’ advocates, and citizens to propose changes or new protections that address evolving digital privacy challenges.

Section 15: Pre-Deletion Risk Assessment Mechanism (PDRAM)

Overview

The Pre-Deletion Risk Assessment Mechanism (PDRAM) aims to evaluate whether a deletion request has characteristics that suggest potential use for concealing criminal activity, while still prioritizing the protection of civil liberties and privacy for U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

Subsection A: Criteria for Risk-Based Evaluation

  1. Automatic Risk Flagging System:
  • An AI-driven system will be used to automatically flag deletion requests that meet certain criteria indicative of suspicious behavior, such as:
    • Sudden and complete deletion across multiple platforms in a short period.
    • Recent activity patterns (e.g., rapid increase in communications, encrypted messaging, dark web interactions).
    • Anonymous or third-party account ownership for online payments or transactions.
    • Data encryption or privacy-enhancing measures used inconsistently or with recent spikes in use.
  1. Human Oversight and Review:
  • All flagged requests must be reviewed by a team of privacy experts, law enforcement officials, and legal professionals to ensure the accuracy of the risk evaluation.
  • Reviews are subject to strict confidentiality rules, and reviewers cannot access the content of private messages, conversations, or personal files without a valid warrant or court order.
  1. Transparency in Flagging Criteria:
  • The specific criteria for triggering a risk-based review will be transparent and subject to regular public and judicial review to ensure that they do not disproportionately target certain groups or violate privacy rights.
  • Citizens will have access to an explanation of why their request was flagged, with a right to appeal the decision or provide additional information to resolve potential concerns.

Subsection B: Layered Review Process

  1. Primary Assessment by AI System:
  • All deletion requests will pass through an AI-driven risk assessment tool, which evaluates the request based on established patterns of deletion behavior associated with criminal concealment.
  • The AI tool will only focus on metadata and behavioral patterns, not the content of the data itself, to protect privacy while assessing risk.
  1. Secondary Human Review:
  • If the AI system flags a request as potentially risky, a specialized review board will conduct a human assessment. This board will include digital privacy experts, cybersecurity professionals, and law enforcement agents with restricted access and authority.
  • The review board must adhere to legal and ethical standards, including probable cause requirements for accessing specific data related to the flagged deletion request.
  1. Right to Appeal and Protect Civil Liberties:
  • If a request is flagged, the data subject will be notified with a clear explanation and given the opportunity to appeal the decision.
  • Appeals will be handled promptly by an independent privacy board to prevent undue delays in lawful deletion requests.
  • If no substantial evidence of criminal concealment is found, the deletion must proceed without further interference.

Subsection C: Enhanced Privacy Protections During Risk Assessment

  1. Secure Review Channels:
  • All reviews will be conducted in secure, encrypted environments to prevent unauthorized access to data or metadata.
  • Reviewers will only see anonymized metadata and behavioral patterns unless a court order authorizes deeper access.
  1. Strict Access Controls:
  • Only a small, highly vetted team of authorized personnel can access flagged cases, with access logs and tracking to prevent unauthorized or unlawful data access.
  • Access violations by review personnel are subject to severe penalties, including termination and potential criminal charges.
  1. Civil Rights Oversight:
  • A civil rights board comprising privacy advocates, civil liberties organizations, and legal experts will regularly audit the risk assessment process to ensure it does not disproportionately target specific populations or infringe on constitutional rights.
  • The board can recommend changes to criteria or protocols to Congress based on findings, ensuring continued protection of privacy and digital rights.

Subsection D: Measures to Prevent Unlawful Use of the Pre-Deletion Risk Assessment

  1. Explicit Prohibitions on Overreach:
  • The PDRAM cannot be used to deny lawful deletion requests indefinitely unless criminal proceedings or valid court orders warrant it.
  • Any misuse of the risk assessment tool by government entities, law enforcement, or corporations for surveillance, discrimination, or harassment will be punishable by law.
  1. Mandatory Audits of Flagged Requests:
  • An independent auditing body will conduct regular audits of flagged deletion requests to ensure the system is not being used to target political dissidents, whistleblowers, journalists, or activists.
  • Audits will assess whether the flagging criteria are being applied fairly and without bias, with results published publicly to maintain transparency.
  1. Whistleblower Protections for Reporting Misuse:
  • Individuals who report misuse or overreach related to the pre-deletion risk assessment mechanism will be granted full legal protection against retaliation, reinforcing transparency and accountability.

Subsection E: Targeted Measures for Crime Prevention

  1. Provisions for Immediate Hold on Deletion for High-Risk Cases:
  • In cases where there is substantial evidence suggesting imminent or ongoing criminal activity, law enforcement can request a temporary hold on deletion, subject to judicial approval within 48 hours.
  • The hold will be strictly time-limited and requires clear, documented evidence of criminal risk to prevent arbitrary delays.
  1. Cooperation with Other Jurisdictions in Serious Cases:
  • The mechanism allows collaboration with international law enforcement bodies to ensure that deletion requests from individuals involved in transnational crimes (e.g., human trafficking or child exploitation) are subject to review.
  • The collaboration must comply with international human rights standards and U.S. constitutional protections.

Section 16: Targeted Message and Communication Review Mechanism (TMCRM)

Overview

The Targeted Message and Communication Review Mechanism (TMCRM) will establish guidelines for examining communications of deletion requestors flagged as high-risk by the Pre-Deletion Risk Assessment Mechanism (PDRAM), focusing on uncovering potential evidence of criminal intent or activity. It will ensure thorough checks against all levels of criminal activity while preserving civil liberties for law-abiding citizens.

Subsection A: Criteria for Message Review Authorization

  1. Court-Ordered Review Only:
  • Access to the content of private messages, communications, or metadata must be authorized exclusively by a court order based on:
    • Probable cause that the deletion requestor is attempting to conceal criminal activity.
    • Evidence supporting suspicion of involvement in serious crimes, including but not limited to:
      • Homicide (e.g., serial killers, hitmen).
      • Human trafficking (e.g., traffickers, child traffickers).
      • Child exploitation (e.g., child pornographers).
      • Drug trafficking (e.g., drug dealers, cartels).
      • White-collar crimes (e.g., financial fraud, embezzlement, insider trading).
      • Terrorism-related activities (e.g., planning or funding terrorist attacks).
      • Cybercrimes (e.g., hacking, data breaches, identity theft).
  1. Criteria for Suspecting Message Relevance:
  • Message reviews must be narrowly tailored to communications that demonstrate potential links to criminal networks, coordination of illegal activities, or attempts to obstruct justice through deletion.
  • Indicators that trigger message review requests may include:
    • Messages using coded language or encryption in suspicious contexts.
    • Communications with known criminal entities or organizations.
    • Evidence of coordinating illicit transactions, trafficking, or other unlawful activities.

Subsection B: Layered Review Process for Communication Access

  1. Two-Step Approval for Message Access:
  • Access to flagged messages will require approval through a two-step judicial process:
    • Initial Probable Cause Review: A preliminary review by a judge based on evidence provided by law enforcement or the Pre-Deletion Risk Assessment Mechanism.
    • Final Authorization by a Senior Judge: A senior judge must confirm that message access is necessary, lawful, and consistent with privacy rights, with an emphasis on maintaining focus on criminal detection.
  1. Independent Legal Oversight:
  • An independent legal oversight board, comprising privacy experts, civil rights attorneys, and judges, will regularly audit the message review process to ensure compliance with constitutional rights and to prevent abuses.
  • The board has the authority to halt ongoing message reviews if there is evidence of misuse, overreach, or lack of probable cause.

Subsection C: Protecting Privacy During Message Review

  1. Anonymized Review Process:
  • Initial reviews will utilize anonymized metadata to evaluate communication patterns without revealing the message content.
  • Full message content will only be accessible if metadata analysis provides a strong indication of criminal activity.
  1. Limited Scope of Message Analysis:
  • Message reviews must be narrowly limited to communications related to suspected criminal activities.
  • Any messages unrelated to the alleged criminal conduct must be disregarded, and the data subject’s broader privacy must be preserved.
  1. Encrypted Data Handling:
  • The review of encrypted messages must comply with strict decryption protocols that limit access to law enforcement officials with explicit authorization and technical capabilities to handle sensitive information securely.

Subsection D: Special Safeguards for Protecting Innocent Individuals

  1. Civil Liberties Protections:
  • If message reviews find no evidence of criminal intent or activity, the data subject will be promptly informed, and the data deletion request will proceed without further delay.
  • All reviewed communications will be permanently erased if found unrelated to criminal activity, with records of the review destroyed to prevent future misuse.
  1. Right to Challenge Message Access:
  • Individuals whose messages are flagged for review will have the right to challenge the review order, ensuring judicial transparency and accountability.
  • Appeals will be handled swiftly to prevent indefinite delays in lawful deletion requests.

Subsection E: Comprehensive Criminal Network Checks

  1. Interagency Coordination for Criminal Detection:
  • Message reviews for deletion requestors suspected of being involved in multi-layered criminal networks (e.g., human trafficking rings, drug cartels) will involve coordination between law enforcement agencies to provide a comprehensive view of potential criminal ties.
  • Law enforcement agencies involved in the review must adhere to protocols that prioritize evidence preservation while respecting legal rights and privacy.
  1. Sector-Specific Review Protocols:
  • Special protocols will be developed for message reviews in sectors or regions where specific types of criminal activity are prevalent, including:
    • Financial hubs for detecting white-collar crime communication.
    • Border areas for tracking human trafficking or drug trafficking communications.
    • Online forums and social media where child exploitation or terrorism-related messages are commonly exchanged.
  • These protocols will be subject to oversight and regular updates to ensure compliance with legal and privacy standards.

Subsection F: Targeted Measures to Prevent Broader Abuse

  1. Limiting Message Review Scope:
  • Law enforcement is strictly prohibited from using the message review mechanism as a means of mass surveillance or broad data collection.
  • Violations of this provision by government entities or law enforcement will result in severe penalties, including disqualification from office, criminal charges, and financial restitution to affected individuals.
  1. Enhanced Whistleblower Protections for Review Misuse:
  • Whistleblowers who expose misuse of message reviews (e.g., unjustified surveillance, racial profiling, targeting of journalists or activists) will receive full legal protection, including anonymity and support for legal defense.
  1. Regular Audits and Public Reporting:
  • An independent audit board will conduct quarterly audits of the message review process to detect and prevent potential overreach or violations of rights.
  • Regular public reports will summarize review activities and outcomes, ensuring transparency without compromising ongoing investigations.

The Online/Social Media Presence Removal Act establishes a robust framework to protect individual privacy and ensure control over personal data, while incorporating measures to prevent criminals from exploiting the law. It is designed to balance digital rights with public safety, incorporating protections against government and corporate overreach. By providing a clear process, strong penalties, and ongoing oversight, the Act seeks to empower citizens while preserving justice and transparency.

1 Like
2

I am a victim of cyberstalking. I would like to see cyberstalking legislation making it a felony. After three years in court, the perpetrator plead to a misdemeanor charge and served 4 months of probation.