AI Agents Can Request.
Humans Decide.
For healthcare, AI infrastructure, and financial services teams assessing governance requirements.
What the CAM Protocol Is and How It Works
An enterprise API that governs requests for sensitive data and actions. Named humans decide whether your system proceeds.
Request
An AI agent or person requests sensitive data or an action.
Approvers notified
Approval links go only to named human approvers, never to the requester.
Veto, then threshold
Any single denial vetoes, regardless of approvals. Otherwise, at least M of N must approve.
Signed call
After the veto window, CAM sends one signed call to your system. CAM does not store the released data.
Recorded
Every state transition is recorded in a SHA-256 hash-chained audit log.
Where CAM Applies
CAM began with privacy-first location verification. Today, its enterprise API supports different regulated workflows.
AI agents can request sensitive data access or actions; named humans decide whether the customer's system proceeds
An AI agent may request sensitive data access or an action without a human review step.
Named human approvers review requests for sensitive data or actions.
Cross-Industry Use Cases
Examples of requests across regulated workflows.
Quantify Your Governance Gap
Estimate illustrative exposure from the type and number of records at risk.
How to use
Choose the data type and enter the number of records at risk.
Illustrative cost if these records were breached
Releases of these records through a CAM-governed path require a human quorum. CAM does not prevent every breach path.
Average cost per breach (IBM 2026)
- Global
- $4.99M
- United States
- $11.5M
- Healthcare
- $6.64M
- Financial services
- $6.29M
- Technology
- $5.50M
Source: IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026. Per-record costs are by data type; IBM does not publish them by industry. Per-record costs vary with breach size and are not exact predictions.
API Data Transparency
What the CAM API processes, and what it explicitly never touches.
What CAM Processes
- • Release-request metadata (type, actor, timestamp)
- • Approver group configurations and thresholds
- • Approval and denial events per request
- • Tamper-evident, SHA-256 hash-chained decision log
- • Configured veto-window parameters
- • Agent identity tokens (scoped, not stored persistently)
What CAM Never Touches
- • The governed data payload itself, such as patient or financial records
- • Persistent location history or behavioral profiles
- • AI model weights, training data, or outputs
- • Third-party tracking or advertising data
- • Biometric identifiers
- • Data sold or shared with any third party for profiling
CAM Design Features for Customer Review
Examples of design features customers may assess against their own requirements. CAM does not confer certification or compliance status.
| Principle | Regulations | CAM Mechanism | Design Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data handling | GDPR, CPRA, HIPAA | Signed call to customer system | Customers assess fit with their own data-handling requirements. |
| Request scope | GDPR, CPRA, HIPAA | Request-scoped authorization | Each request is associated with a defined release and its configured approval policy. |
| Human approval | NIST ZTA, HIPAA | Named human approvers | Customers define who reviews each request. |
| Time-bounded release | SOC 2, ISO 27001, NIST | Configured veto window and signed call | The customer system handles approved releases and actions. |
| Human oversight records | EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF | Human approval and denial decisions | CAM records each decision in a tamper-evident, SHA-256 hash-chained audit log. |
| Audit history | HIPAA, SOC 2, PCI DSS | Tamper-evident, SHA-256 hash-chained log | The log records decisions and is designed to make later alteration detectable. |
Review CAM's Governed Data Release Workflow
Priority access for healthcare, financial services, and AI infrastructure teams.