Why Licensing AI Agents Misses the Point — And Why FOIA Might Be the Better Model But It Needs To Evolve To Protect Our Individual Privacy

In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, one of the hottest debates isn’t just what AI agents can do — it’s how we regulate them. With growing capabilities in reasoning, decision-making, and autonomous action, AI agents are increasingly being compared to professionals like doctors, engineers, or lawyers, prompting proposals for a licensure model. But here’s the problem: licensing AI agents the way we license people misunderstands their nature — and risks creating more inequality than protection.

Instead of trying to fit AI into outdated regulatory boxes, we should take a page from a very different playbook — the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA, built to promote transparency and democratic access to information, offers a far more appropriate and empowering framework for AI systems. It shifts the focus away from centralized control and toward open access, accountability, and individual agency. And in an age where AI agents are often extensions of our own intentions and tasks, that matters more than ever.

What Are AI Agents, Really?

AI agents are not just chatbots or voice assistants. At their core, they are autonomous systems designed to perceive, reason, and act on behalf of a user to achieve specific goals. Think of them as digital co-pilots — helping you schedule meetings, analyze complex data, conduct research, or even negotiate contracts. Some agents are built into larger systems; others are personalized tools built to act as extensions of an individual’s intellect, memory, or creativity.

Their capabilities are expanding rapidly:

• Autonomous reasoning to break down tasks and find novel solutions

• Web-based action to gather, filter, and summarize real-time information

• Tool use (e.g., calendars, databases, apps) to accomplish user objectives

• Multi-agent coordination to manage workflows and collaborate with other systems

As AI agents become more capable and more aligned with user intent, they increasingly function like informational emissaries, navigating vast digital landscapes to retrieve, analyze, and act on data.

Why Licensing AI Agents Is the Wrong Move

On paper, licensing sounds like a safe bet: ensure only “approved” AI agents can operate, require developers to meet certain standards, maybe even assign them IDs. But in practice, licensing AI would do more harm than good:

1. Centralizes Power: Licensure creates gatekeepers — usually governments or large corporations — who decide who gets to build and use AI. That tilts power away from individuals and small developers and toward entrenched interests.

2. Kills Innovation: Requiring licensing for every agent or update slows down the pace of experimentation and innovation, which are the lifeblood of open-source and user-driven AI communities.

3. Undermines User Autonomy: AI agents should serve you. Forcing them to meet someone else’s standards of operation—particularly opaque regulatory ones—strips you of control and flexibility.

4. Exacerbates Inequality: Licensing regimes are expensive to navigate, often locking out marginalized groups, hobbyists, and smaller startups, leaving AI power in the hands of the wealthy and well-connected.

FOIA: A Better Blueprint for AI Governance

Instead of controlling who gets to use or build AI, what if we focused on the data and information  AI agents can access, and how that access is governed?

That’s where the Freedom of Information Act offers a compelling model. FOIA was designed to ensure that anyone — regardless of status or affiliation — could access government records. It promotes transparency, equity, and accountability. Applied to AI agents, FOIA-style principles could create a more ethical and inclusive AI future by:

Promoting Equal Access to Information

AI agents depend on data. Ensuring they have equal and unfettered access to public datasets, knowledge repositories, and APIs — without corporate throttling or paywalls — would empower individuals and communities, not just institutions.

Centering the Individual’s Intent

Like FOIA puts the requester in the driver’s seat, AI systems should be structured to serve the user’s mission, not just corporate or institutional priorities. The AI doesn’t need a license; it needs clear pathways to information and a deep alignment with your goals.

Ensuring Privacy and Confidentiality

FOIA includes protections for personal privacy, trade secrets, and sensitive national data. Similarly, AI systems can and should be designed to access only what’s necessary — and to safeguard your data and privacy as they operate on your behalf.

Embedding Transparency and Accountability

Just as FOIA makes it possible to challenge secrecy, AI agents should be built with explainability and auditability — so you know what they accessed, how they acted, and why.

Evolving FOIA into a Freedom of Digital Information Act (FDIA)

Of course, FOIA as it stands is limited — it only applies to government-held records, often requires long processing times, and wasn’t built for real-time, automated access. That’s why we need to evolve its core principles into something more fitting for the digital age: a Freedom of Digital Information Act. FDIA would ensure that AI agents — acting on behalf of individuals — can access essential, non-sensitive public data across both governmental and non-governmental sources, without discrimination or friction. It would establish legal frameworks for open APIs, interoperable data formats, transparent algorithms, and real-time auditability — all while protecting privacy and respecting clear consent boundaries. The future of responsible AI isn’t built on locking things down. It’s built on opening the right things up.

Reclaiming Control Over Personal and Public Data

At the heart of a healthy AI ecosystem is the principle that individuals should have complete control over what they consider to be their own non-sensitive public data — whether it resides in government records, educational institutions, health platforms, financial services, social systems, or wherever this data is derived, generated and/or stored. This control must extend across both public and private sectors, ensuring equal access without discrimination or friction. But more importantly, individuals should be able to intentionally grant AI agents access to their personal datasets — from calendars and biometric data to location history and media libraries — with granular consent, transparency, and revocability. In this model, AI agents don’t surveil; they serve. They become trusted extensions of one’s digital self, empowered not by corporate access privileges but by your informed permission and clear intent. Licensure alone isn’t enough of a safeguard to protect our data and our privacy while truly empowering Ai agents to function at their highest possible capacity. In essence, only Ai agents will be able to truly safeguard us from Ai agents.

Reframing the Future of AI

We don’t need to build bureaucratic cages around AI agents. We need to build systems that empower people — especially everyday users — to use AI responsibly, creatively, and securely. That starts with transparent, open access to the information needed to power these systems, not license stamps from centralized authorities.

In the same way FOIA ensures government power is accountable to the people, our AI systems should be accountable to their users, open to scrutiny, and built on the idea that information is a public good — not a private commodity that’s governed by outdated licensing bodies, yet, at the same time, be able to protect the privacy and grant control of our personal data to each individual.

These are unprecedented times and this requires much more thought and attention from each of us.

Copyright © 2025 Jameel Gordon - All Rights Reserved.