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?
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.
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-be... https://www.nexsenpruet.com/insights/national-pro-union-poli... https://www.politicususa.com/2021/01/20/joe-biden-just-fired... 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.
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.