Election Deniers Want AI Cameras to Monitor Ballot Boxes

Controversial surveillance plan targets ballot dropboxes: A group of election deniers is proposing to install AI-powered cameras to monitor ballot dropboxes in key swing states, raising concerns about voter intimidation and the spread of misinformation.

The initiative’s key players and their claims: True the Vote, an organization led by Catherine Engelbrecht and Gregg Phillips, is spearheading this contentious project, which they claim will prevent voter fraud in the 2024 election.

• The group was previously responsible for the widely debunked conspiracy film “2000 Mules,” which alleged widespread ballot harvesting in the 2020 election.
• Engelbrecht asserts that the organization is collaborating with “three influential sheriffs” in Wisconsin, although WIRED found no evidence to support this claim.
• True the Vote’s plan involves donating AI-driven cameras to local law enforcement and creating a “dropbox surveillance reality show” by livestreaming footage 24/7.

Targeting swing states and potential legal implications: The initiative focuses on Wisconsin, a crucial battleground state that narrowly voted for Biden in 2020, raising questions about the legality and practicality of such surveillance measures.

• While livestreaming dropboxes is not explicitly prohibited by Wisconsin law, interfering with voting could result in criminal charges.
• The legality of permanently installing cameras near dropboxes remains questionable, and it’s unclear whether sheriffs would have jurisdiction over these locations.
• Local election officials have expressed concerns about potential voter intimidation and the impact on legitimate voting practices, such as family members dropping off multiple ballots where legally permitted.

Technological aspects and implementation challenges: The proposed use of AI-driven cameras for continuous monitoring presents both technical and logistical hurdles.

• The specifics of the AI technology to be employed remain unclear, raising questions about its capabilities and potential biases.
• Continuous livestreaming and remote monitoring of dropboxes would require significant infrastructure and resources, potentially making implementation challenging.
• The practicality of maintaining such a surveillance system throughout the election period is questionable, given the potential for technical glitches and the need for constant monitoring.

Potential impact on voter behavior and election integrity: The proposed surveillance plan could have far-reaching consequences for voter participation and public trust in the electoral process.

• The presence of cameras and continuous monitoring may deter some voters from using dropboxes, potentially impacting voter turnout and accessibility.
• There are concerns that the livestreamed footage could be misused to spread misinformation or make false claims about voter fraud.
• Election officials worry that such surveillance could undermine public confidence in the voting process, even when no irregularities are present.

Reactions from election officials and experts: The proposed plan has been met with skepticism and concern from those responsible for administering elections and ensuring their integrity.

• Local election officials have expressed doubts about the feasibility of the plan and its potential to cause more harm than good.
• Experts in election security and voter rights have raised alarms about the potential for voter intimidation and the creation of a chilling effect on participation.
• There are calls for clear guidelines and regulations regarding the use of surveillance technology in election processes to protect voter privacy and prevent intimidation.

Broader implications for future elections: This initiative reflects a growing trend of employing technology in election monitoring, raising important questions about the balance between security and voter rights.

• The proposal highlights the ongoing tensions between efforts to prevent voter fraud and concerns about voter suppression and intimidation.
• It underscores the need for clear, evidence-based policies regarding election monitoring that protect both the integrity of the vote and the rights of voters.
• The controversy surrounding this plan may spark broader discussions about the role of technology in elections and the potential for its misuse in spreading misinformation or undermining public trust.