[etchalon]

... I'm sorry. Are you not aware ballots are anonymous? Is that not a thing you knew?

Did you think our ballots tell the government who we were and how we voted?

Just, setting aside the rest of the idiocy of your defense here, that's ... a shocking thing to think as an adult in America.

[Manuel_D]

Yes, ballots are anonymous. But how would Flock cameras somehow de-anonymize votes? I had assumed you were referring to tracking people driving to polling stations to discover who voted - not how they voted. Because how on earth would automated license plate readers somehow de-anonymize individual ballots? Please do explain what you meant by that.

And do explain the "idiocy" of the rest of my comment. Do you actually dispute anything I wrote? Do you think that law enforcement weren't monitoring groups like the Proud Boys, Nation of Islam, militia organizations, etc. before Flock came around?

[Ancapistani]

Well, in my precinct I'd estimate there are ~20 people at the polls to vote at any given time. Given the timestamp of a ballot, there are maybe 50 people it could have possibly been.

That's more than enough information to correlate voting behavior after a couple of election cycles with a high degree of confidence.

Oh, and ballots aren't just for one race generally. By looking at what races that ballot voted in and a list of people present, there's a very good chance you'd be able to narrow it down to an individual in a single visit.

[Manuel_D]

In my state, we have to sign our name on the envelope. If the government was corrupt and they wanted to identify how people voted, they could just look at the signature. No Flock required.

Of all the things to complain about Flock, the notion that it can somehow de-anonymize ballots is probably one of the most nonsensical I've heard.