Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't you basically revealing yourself anyway because you need to pay them?
AWS has my name and my credit card number. But they have never asked for a photocopy of my passport, my history of international travel, which nationalities I have and so on. Something tells me that for the goal of this law to be achieved, all those details would need to enter the database.
This proposed rule looks to me like it basically requires providers to come up with their own verification plans, which may then differ from provider to provider, so as to be "flexible and minimally burdensome to their business operations".
[note for the following: I am not a lawyer. The following is not legal advice. Do not fold, spindle or multilate. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.]
The real danger, I think, with things like this is, there's an executive order that was issued, but it further specified a rulemaking process be conducted to determine the actual regulations that define compliance. The link in the title is to the proposed rule. There's nothing that says any amount of prior public input will necessarily influence the details of the final rule, or that rule can't change in the future through another rulemaking process, and if it does the only way to challenge it is either to sue the agency on the grounds that it exceeded its discretion (e.g. by making rules that require unconstitutional things) or that the enabling executive order is itself unconstitutional -- but these kinds of federal cases have a pretty high bar for what's called "standing" (the legal grounds to bring a particular lawsuit): you pretty much have to suffer concrete harm or be in obvious and imminent danger of suffering it to a grievous degree. (This is one reason you hear about "test cases" -- often somebody will agree to be the goat who is denied something, fined, or even arrested and convicted of a crime, so that standing to sue to overturn the law can be established.) Other times, if a lot of potential defendants already have standing, a particularly sympathetic defendant will be selected for the actual challenge. The US federal courts are also deferential to "agency discretion" by default, as a matter of doctrine.
What happens all too often with these things is, the initial rulemaking is pretty reasonable, and the public outrage (if there was any) dissipates. Then three years (or however long) on, the next rulemaking imposes onerous restrictions and strict criteria, and people suddenly (relatively speaking) wake up and find they're now in violation of federal regulations that they were in compliance with last week. (This is one reason public-interest groups are so critical -- they have the motivation and sustained attention to comb the Federal Register for announcements about upcoming rounds of rulemaking on various topics.)