> But if they want to play this game, an interesting way to bait a Supreme Court case might be to request a CCPA delete for the NSAs “commercial” data.

Can state law compel a federal agency to do anything?

> Can state law compel a federal agency to do anything?

Within the jurisdiction of a state, probably. States rights should have precedent over federal except in cases that involve interstate activity. This is being tested in Texas right now with various firearm laws that are meant for items made in and staying within Texas.

The Texas situation as I understand it is the state refusing to enforce federal law, which makes sense as the federal government has their own enforcement agencies. That seems a bit different from the state compelling the federal government to do anything.

It's not just the NSA buying this data right? So is it illegal when say a marketing agency buys the data? If not why should it become illegal for the government?

It sure should be illegal all around.

The second piece about comparing the government to a business isn't valid. There exist many laws and rules that apply only to the government.

Not that I agree with the distinction. I think companies larger than the US government at formation should probably have rules to keep them good for humanity.

Indeed. Many laws and regulations around government agencies (not US specific, as I’m in the EU) specify what the agency is allowed to do, rather than what it isn’t. This is much easier to enforce, although it does require more regular review of regulations (that specify the details) to keep with the time.

Because the government can put you in jail and the marketing agency can't. (I think I head this simplified response on the Risky Business podcast)

Realistically, scraping people for their data like this should just not be allowed at all. People are more important than corporations.

But in America, “corporations are people, my friend!”

Corporate personhood predates the formation of the United States and is not unique to the states.

The phrase I’m familiar with is Monopoly on Violence.

Because the marketing agency can't have you targeted in a drone stike.

Why not? Historically, corporations have had armed private forces that they've used to kill people.

Although you may have miss the tamer recent version where Ebay sent "a bloody pig mask, a funeral wreath, and a book entitled “Grief Diaries: Surviving Loss of a Spouse", practiced installing a GPS tracker and then travelled 3000 miles to install one, "The Defendants also posted the Steiner’s address on Craigslist and other websites, inviting strangers to the Steiners’ home for sex parties, and advertising yard sales".

The story has a happy ending though as "Defendant Wenig departed eBay with a $57 million severance package.".

> https://www.techdirt.com/2021/07/29/exec-that-tried-to-send-...

> https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.236...

That eBay story is wild, and does make you wonder how deep the rot must be in that company. Also, why on Earth does eBay need a "global intelligence center" and a "global security team"? Do they have a completely separate line of business that I'm not aware of?

At least one person went to prison, so there's that.

there is truth in fiction:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicate_(series)

https://www.ea.com/games/syndicate

Any sufficiently powerful corporation is indistinguishable from a government. There aren't many corporations who currently exercise their money to get such power, but it's happened before and can certainly happen again.

I suspect you have worked neither in government or industry. Things look different outside academia.

As it turns out, a bloody pig mask isn't a drone and planting a GPS tracker isn't the equivalent of killing or maiming everyone at a wedding and the people that did this were subject to criminal penalties.

This is in contrast to militaries who are assumed to operate as legitimate extensions of foreign policy.

For the same reason that the Constitutional protections exist to restrict the government, specifically.

> an interesting way to bait a Supreme Court case might be to request a CCPA delete for the NSAs “commercial” data.

Good luck with that. You cannot delete something which "doesn't exists". /s

Only a whistleblower could make this happen.