[njovin]

If you're a California resident, under the CCPA you can submit a request for Thomson Reuters to both provide you with and then delete any information they have collected about you.

The state's even setup a nice portal to automate these requests across 600+ data brokers.

https://privacy.ca.gov/drop/

[sizzle]

What’s the outcome if you submit a DROP request, less targeted spam phone calls/junk mail?

[njovin]

Doubtful, the ones I still receive come from people faking caller IDs so these are not good actors and can simply continue abusing the system.

[sizzle]

So what does this accomplish? I’m just trying to understand if it’s worth it before sending over PII to register

[goodluckchuck]

Since they are working for the Federal government here, doesn’t the supremacy clause trump state law and allow them to deny / retain that data?

[Grombobulous]

Is there a federal law with supremacy over the state law? My layperson’s understanding is that there would need to be something in existing federal law that forces retention. Not just some executive order, government contract, or executive policy.

A company could defy state law but they wouldn’t be protected from state level civil and criminal charges. There’s not much of a mechanism for the federal government to do anything about that.

[ktm5j]

This may be an unpopular opinion, but is this really the best way to respond here? Won't this just give them the opportunity to claim that California is doing this specifically to hide fraud? $125 mil is a drop in the bucket compared to ICE's budget, if they want to spend it like this why not just let them? Thomson Reuters has an excellent track record of being impartial/non-partisan.. maybe we could finally get past the nonsense election rigging claims. Just my 2c

[cosmicgadget]

California passes a law to protect consumers from data brokers amidst the destruction of the CFPB.

Californians individually make use of these protections.

Magas: "That just confirms voter fraud!"

At this point it is simply best to ignore what they are saying or would say.

[ktm5j]

I assumed this was specifically in response to the Reuters deal, so my comment was off-base.

[colpabar]

nice zinger, but they can still vote, and ignoring them does not seem to be working.

[cosmicgadget]

Zinger? I was just rephrasing the parent comment, highlighting how this has nothing to do with the reason DROP exists.

They are welcome to continue voting however they like, I'm not really looking to change any minds.

[saghm]

The type of people who have been worked up about supposed voter fraud have rejected all existing evidence, so I don't know why you'd expect this go do any differently. Let's not forget that ICE has already admitted to lying directly to courts about the justification for their actions[1]; there's absolutely no reason to enable them in digging for more info. At absolute best, they're in a wild goose chase based on our speculation, but more plausibly they'll either lie about the results or try to use it for entirely unrelated purposes.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/mar/26/ice-lawyers-...

[ktm5j]

Well presumably they might take this evidence seriously, since this time they're the ones who hired someone to do the research. Which is why I feel (maybe overly) optimistic that this might finally settle the issue.

[saghm]

Recent history would indicate that this will not work out the way you're describing: https://www.propublica.org/article/maricopa-county-arizona-e...

[njovin]

This is a core misconception about how the 2020 election results have been investigated.

Trump has hired multiple qualified firms to find fraud in the 2020 election and thus far none of the reputable ones have found any.

> they might take this evidence seriously

Whether the cause is global warming, vaccines, election fraud, the effect of gender rights on society, or any one of the military actions being taken by this admin - the only time evidence matters is when it aligns with their previously -held biases and can be yielded as a weapon.

The rest of the time (read: almost all of the time), it doesn't and is swept under the rug or called fake, without any counter-evidence to back that claim up either.