4 ms·

I can't think of a valid reason why one would object to having a camera over the box, unless they intend to tamper with it. I mean, I can understand objections

by smsm42 6y ago

I can't think of a valid reason why one would object to having a camera over the box, unless they intend to tamper with it. I mean, I can understand objections to installing cameras where there might be privacy or ballot secrecy issues. But the box doesn't have privacy and it won't reveal anyone's ballot's content - so why the objection?

lvs 6y ago
It's the federal agency itself that you're accusing of impropriety here.
- smsm42 6y ago
  Of course, it has been never the case that federal agents behaved improperly. In fact, once a person is hired by a federal government, they become incapable of committing a crime or even an impropriety. That's why no courts has ever convicted anyone working for a federal agency in anything inappropriate.
  - JPKab 6y ago
    Exactly. It's not like we have recent history of federal employees arresting the founder of the silk road and then concocting a conspiracy to steal hundreds of millions in Bitcoin from him for their own personal gain while hiding it from their agency, and then having employers so incompetent that they didn't realize this until an external watchdog discovered it..... Having worked in the federal government in the past I can assure you that the best rule of thumb to operate under is you can count on incompetence and you certainly can't count on the opposite.
  - lvs 6y ago
    What are you on about? If the NLRB wanted to take action against this company for union busting, they have statutory tools at their disposal. What you're proposing is completely tinfoiled.
    - smsm42 6y ago
      Describing "having a webcam to ensure nobody tampers with the ballots" as "union busting" is extremely disingenuous, bordering on lying. And by "bordering" I mean I'm feeling very charitable today.
      - lvs 6y ago
        Um, I think you put words in my mouth and, in doing so, entirely missed what I was saying.
SolarNet 6y ago
Because it will cost the taxpayer more?
- smsm42 6y ago
  The price of one webcam? I think somewhere in our multi-trillion-dollar budget there's a place for a webcam. But I am sure if that'd be the problem Amazon would gladly cover the price of the cam.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - whatisthiseven 6y ago
    This is overly dismissive. A security camera must be agreed on, it's quality chosen, it's recording backed up, maybe someone watches it live and needs to be paid, they need somewhere to sit and monitors. All of these things are decision points that can be used to delay any vote. No one here is necessarily trustworthy, but the nlrb is a supposedly neutral organization and presumably has it's own security. Why add more? If you assume malicious actors will compromise one security layer why not all of them? You have to choose some cut off for security over cost and time. I don't think Amazon is arguing in good faith.
    - smsm42 6y ago
      > but the nlrb is a supposedly neutral organization You must be kidding me. NLRB has known pro-union bias, which becomes especially acute under Democratic administration (it was a bit different under Trump but that has passed). https://www.hrdefenseblog.com/2021/02/non-union-employers-beware-the-nlrb-pendulum-is-pushed-pro-union/ https://www.hrdefenseblog.com/2021/02/non-union-employers-be... https://www.nexsenpruet.com/insights/national-pro-union-policy-shift-has-begun https://www.nexsenpruet.com/insights/national-pro-union-poli... https://www.politicususa.com/2021/01/20/joe-biden-just-fired-trumps-anti-union-nlrb-lawyer.html https://www.politicususa.com/2021/01/20/joe-biden-just-fired... https://www.labordaysblog.com/2021/03/are-unions-primed-for-a-comeback/ https://www.labordaysblog.com/2021/03/are-unions-primed-for-... > You have to choose some cut off for security over cost and time Nobody asked for 2000 National Guard troops and Fort Knox security on it. What was asked for is one puny webcam. A school kid wouldn't have trouble setting it up. If anything isn't acting in good faith is pretending this is about costs.
dillondoyle 6y ago
Because it adds yet another layer of Amazon is watching you... They've done everything they can to intimidate these employees. To be fair though, this sounds like it's more of a storage box for NLRB to count incoming mail ballots. But that's still an unnecessary step one has to ask why. Does amazon really think some government agency or a union will break in watergate style or tamper with votes on something this nationally important? And the ballots themselves might be identifiable? I'm not sure if the envelopes have return addresses or there are names/signatures on the ballots themselves. There are already observers watching for each side - maybe an HD camera can see and record PII whereas a human can't?
dbuder 6y ago
Because they have a massive amount of data and compute and could and would compile a list of who voted for what, or will attempt to.

by smsm42 6y ago

lvs 6y ago

It's the federal agency itself that you're accusing of impropriety here.

smsm42 6y ago
Of course, it has been never the case that federal agents behaved improperly. In fact, once a person is hired by a federal government, they become incapable of committing a crime or even an impropriety. That's why no courts has ever convicted anyone working for a federal agency in anything inappropriate.
- JPKab 6y ago
  Exactly. It's not like we have recent history of federal employees arresting the founder of the silk road and then concocting a conspiracy to steal hundreds of millions in Bitcoin from him for their own personal gain while hiding it from their agency, and then having employers so incompetent that they didn't realize this until an external watchdog discovered it..... Having worked in the federal government in the past I can assure you that the best rule of thumb to operate under is you can count on incompetence and you certainly can't count on the opposite.
- lvs 6y ago
  What are you on about? If the NLRB wanted to take action against this company for union busting, they have statutory tools at their disposal. What you're proposing is completely tinfoiled.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    Describing "having a webcam to ensure nobody tampers with the ballots" as "union busting" is extremely disingenuous, bordering on lying. And by "bordering" I mean I'm feeling very charitable today.
    - lvs 6y ago
      Um, I think you put words in my mouth and, in doing so, entirely missed what I was saying.

SolarNet 6y ago

Because it will cost the taxpayer more?

smsm42 6y ago
The price of one webcam? I think somewhere in our multi-trillion-dollar budget there's a place for a webcam. But I am sure if that'd be the problem Amazon would gladly cover the price of the cam.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- whatisthiseven 6y ago
  This is overly dismissive. A security camera must be agreed on, it's quality chosen, it's recording backed up, maybe someone watches it live and needs to be paid, they need somewhere to sit and monitors. All of these things are decision points that can be used to delay any vote. No one here is necessarily trustworthy, but the nlrb is a supposedly neutral organization and presumably has it's own security. Why add more? If you assume malicious actors will compromise one security layer why not all of them? You have to choose some cut off for security over cost and time. I don't think Amazon is arguing in good faith.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    > but the nlrb is a supposedly neutral organization You must be kidding me. NLRB has known pro-union bias, which becomes especially acute under Democratic administration (it was a bit different under Trump but that has passed). https://www.hrdefenseblog.com/2021/02/non-union-employers-beware-the-nlrb-pendulum-is-pushed-pro-union/ https://www.hrdefenseblog.com/2021/02/non-union-employers-be... https://www.nexsenpruet.com/insights/national-pro-union-policy-shift-has-begun https://www.nexsenpruet.com/insights/national-pro-union-poli... https://www.politicususa.com/2021/01/20/joe-biden-just-fired-trumps-anti-union-nlrb-lawyer.html https://www.politicususa.com/2021/01/20/joe-biden-just-fired... https://www.labordaysblog.com/2021/03/are-unions-primed-for-a-comeback/ https://www.labordaysblog.com/2021/03/are-unions-primed-for-... > You have to choose some cut off for security over cost and time Nobody asked for 2000 National Guard troops and Fort Knox security on it. What was asked for is one puny webcam. A school kid wouldn't have trouble setting it up. If anything isn't acting in good faith is pretending this is about costs.

dillondoyle 6y ago

Because it adds yet another layer of Amazon is watching you... They've done everything they can to intimidate these employees. To be fair though, this sounds like it's more of a storage box for NLRB to count incoming mail ballots. But that's still an unnecessary step one has to ask why. Does amazon really think some government agency or a union will break in watergate style or tamper with votes on something this nationally important? And the ballots themselves might be identifiable? I'm not sure if the envelopes have return addresses or there are names/signatures on the ballots themselves. There are already observers watching for each side - maybe an HD camera can see and record PII whereas a human can't?

dbuder 6y ago

Because they have a massive amount of data and compute and could and would compile a list of who voted for what, or will attempt to.