When this campaign began, I said that weve got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12.
Does Hillary Clinton think the federal minimum wage should be $12 an hour or $15? This question produced one of the more heated back-and-forths in an April 14 Democratic presidential debate between Clinton and opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders  starting when Clinton asserted that she has continuously supported the Fight for $15 advocacy campaign. I have supported the Fight for $15, Clinton said. I am proud to have the endorsement of most of the unions that have led the Fight for $15. To Sanders, that was news. I am sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you supported raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour, Sanders said. When this campaign began, I said that weve got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12. An extended back-and-forth followed. Were putting Sanders claim on the Truth-O-Meter. Hes right that Clintons official position is to raise the national minimum wage to $12 as a floor. However, she has also shown support for the Fight for $15 campaign that pushes for higher minimums in individual states and cities. Heres whatClintons website sayson that point: Hillary believes we are long overdue in raising the minimum wage. She has supported raising the federal minimum wage to $12, and believes that we should go further than the federal minimum through state and local efforts, and workers organizing and bargaining for higher wages, such as the Fight for $15 and recent efforts in Los Angeles and New York to raise their minimum wage to $15. In June 2015, early on in her campaign, Clinton spoke with a gathering ofFight for $15members via phone and told them she supported their campaign. All of you should not have to march in the streets to get a living wage, but thank you for marching in the streets to get that living wage, she said,according to theWashington Post. A few days later, Clinton delivered acampaign kickoff speechin which she called for raising the minimum wage, but she did not specify a number. Her support for the $12 minimum wage proposal seems to have emerged around July 2015, when she praised legislation proposed by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., arguing that it would be more politically feasible. Lets not just do it for the sake of having a higher number out there, she said, according to theNew York Times. But lets get behind a proposal that actually has a chance of succeeding. By November,Clinton had started to say plainly that she prefers a $12 federal minimum wage. In the same month, though,she tweetedwith the hashtag #FightFor15. What about Sanders? Hes right that he has advocated specifically for a $15 minimum wage since his campaign began. Let us be honest and acknowledge that millions of Americans are now working for totally inadequate wages,  he said as part of hisMay 2015 announcement. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised. The minimum wage must become a living wage, which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years. A couple months earlier, in March 2015,he put forward an amendmentto eventually raise the minimum wage to $15. He also put forth legislation inJuly 2015. Our ruling Sanders said, When this campaign began, I said that weve got to end the starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it to $12. Since the start of his campaign, Sanders has advocated for a $15 minimum wage. Since early on in her campaign, Clinton has supported the Fight for $15s efforts in individual cities and states. But her official position is that she prefers a $12 federal minimum wage as a floor, allowing cities and states to go further. Sanders has a point that he is calling for a federal minimum wage that would be $3 more an hour than what Clinton says she favors. However, he misses the nuance that Clinton is also supportive of local efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15. We rate his claim Mostly True.
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court "severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions," as described by Amy Howe at SCOTUS Blog: described By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution's equal protection clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities. [...] Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student "must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual  not on the basis of race," Roberts wrote. [...] Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined the Roberts opinion. Clarence Thomas' concurrence with the majority opinion led several media outlets to rehash an assertion that, at least for a period of time in the 1980s when he was chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Thomas's views on affirmative action programs were ambivalent  if not opportunist. This claim has been in recirculation since the Supreme Court announced that they had added cases challenging affirmative action to their docket: media outlets This claim recirculation  (@tonywolfness/Twitter) That claim appears to have first been raised following Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court  in a July 14, 1991 New York Times article titled "On Thomas's Climb, Ambivalence About Issue of Affirmative Action." That article cited a line from a January 1983 speech given by Thomas to employees of the EEOC: article In a 1983 speech to staff members at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which he then headed, he said that affirmative action laws were of "paramount importance" to him. "But for them, God only knows where I would be today," he said. "These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second 17 years." Though repeated in this way by several media outlets both during Thomas' Supreme Court nomination process in the 1990s and again in 2023, this is an incorrect paraphrase of Thomas's statements. Thomas's full remarks were published as a law article in the Journal of Labor Law in April 1983. repeated published When read with the full context of this speech, it is clear that the "them" used in the phrase "but for them" referred not to affirmative action laws in particular, but to equal employment opportunity laws  as articulated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964  more generally. The speech, broadly, was a defense of the EEOC's work during the Reagan administration, which faced criticism over a massive reduction in discrimination claims pursued under its leadership. faced criticism Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act  a landmark bill signed during the Lyndon Johnson Administration  prohibits discrimination by employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The EEOC, which first began operations in 1965, was created as part of the 1964 Act as the agency tasked with investigating and enforcing Title VII violations. Title VII in 1965 Over the years, the EEOC has expanded to investigate and enforce violations of other Federal anti-discrimination laws including those against discrimination against pregnant women, age discrimination, and disability discrimination. By the end of the Carter administration, the EEOC had expanded considerably under chairwoman Eleanor Norton's tenure, as described in a March 1981 report: report Thanks in part to Ms Norton's streamlined methods, which enabled EEOC to process 50,000 cases per year during her tenure, she views the equal-employment field as "very stable now. We have had 10 years of extraordinary and deep court cases to build the law." "Even if they disbanded EEOC tomorrow," she said, "and there is no way they could, there would still be thousands of court cases presented each year based on precedent." Norton, here, was referencing an unpublished report commissioned by the Reagan transition team that was extremely critical of the EEOC, as reported by The Washington Post in January 1981: reported A Reagan administration advisory panel has urged that equal employment opportunity law and procedures to be changed so that much more evidence would be required to find a business guilty of discrimination and no business could be forced to adopt an "affirmative action" plan against its will. The advisory unit attacked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for having created a new racism in America in which every individual is judged by race." The group was led by J.A. Parker, a black and head of the Lincoln Institute, a conservative think tank that deals with black issues. Its unpublished report was sent to the then-president-elect last month. Following Reagan's inauguration, the chairmanship of the EEOC office was vacant until early 1982, when Thomas was tapped to lead the EEOC. Democrats, at the time, were skeptical of Thomas' commitment to alleviating discrimination. These concerns were not helped by a massive decline in cases pursued under Thomas, or by the massive reduction in the EEOC budget under Reagan, as reported in a 1983 article: was tapped skeptical 1983 article In Fiscal Year 1982, there was upwards of 70 percent fewer cases filed in court than in 1981 on behalf of grieved workers. EEOC employees report that, because of a lack of staff and resources, cases often receive perfunctory investigation and in many instances, charges have been dismissed or "no caused" because they would prove too difficult or time-consuming to process. The speech in question, delivered to employees of the EEOC, was a response to these criticisms and an attempt to clarify to his staff what Thomas felt the role of the EEOC should  and should not  be. In his remarks, Thomas cited "the changing nature of discrimination," and heralded inroads his EEOC had made in fighting age and gender discrimination: speech It should not be surprising that many of our most prominent cases involve allegations of age and sex discrimination, many resulting from reductions in force and forced retirement. This does not mean that charges of race, national origin, or religious discrimination are not filed with the EEOC and that the EEOC does not bring suit in such cases. It only means that there is now a special public and judicial sensitivity to cases involving age and women. Importantly, the speech is explicitly critical of the discourse surrounding affirmative action, and the policies Thomas advocated represented, at best, a muted skepticism toward the concepts' then-present use: represented No one in his right mind seriously questions the legal and moral bankruptcy of discrimination. The same unanimity of opinion does not exist for affirmative action. Affirmative action has been and will continue to be a subject of hot debate because mere mention of the term divides interest groups into two warring camps: one hotly in favor and one hotly opposed. [...] In their haste to condemn each other, the camps lose sight of the nature and purpose of equal employment opportunity laws. [...] This divisive debate results in general confusion and misunderstanding about affirmative action which, in turn, tends to undermine the effectiveness and legitimacy of the enforcement of civil rights laws. As the lead agency in the enforcement of federal equal employment opportunity laws, the EEOC cannot stand by and allow confusion about affirmative action to undermine our enforcement efforts. We must attempt to bring out and clarify the issues obscured by this debate. [...] Much of the heated debate and public confusion over affirmative action, in fact, stems from the confusion between flexible goals and inflexible quotas, and the use of these two distinct terms interchangeably. Thomas, in his speech, expressed the view that "too much posturing" had taken place over the debate about affirmative action, but he also affirmed that affirmative action programs had been "critical to minorities and women in this society." The section of the speech paraphrased to claim that Thomas was once amenable to affirmative action followed the above remarks: followed It is my view that too much posturing has taken place on issues such as affirmative action, which are critical to minorities and women in this society. The problems which we face in the area of equal employment opportunity must be solved. For the most part, they must be solved by applying legal principles of paramount importance to me. But for them, God only knows where I would be today. [...] These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second. The reference to the "first 17 years" of his life is an allusion to statements Thomas made in the opening of this speech, when Thomas referenced "the fact that the Chairman of the EEOC spent 17 years of his life (one-half) under strict segregation." This connection, along with the broader context of the speech, makes it clear that "these laws" are those contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. opening The 1964 Civil Rights Act ended segregation when Thomas was a few months shy of 17. It also created the "equal employment opportunity laws" at issue under Title VII that provide the EEOC the audience of his speech  with its legal authority. At the end of his speech, during this second allusion to the end of segregation, Thomas warned against the improper use of those laws, even when used with good intention: shy of 17 I abhor any effort to twist, bend, or distort them [legal principles] for any reasons, whether such distortions are said to help or hurt minorities or women. No one should be permitted to turn these laws on their heads just because they have good intentions. These laws and their proper application are all that stand between the first 17 years of my life and the second. In sum, Thomas did not present anything more than a muted acknowledgement of the EEOC's role in some forms of affirmative action, and the laws or principles he was referring to in remarks that have since gone viral did not concern affirmative action specifically, but the principles contained within the 1964 Civil Rights Act more broadly. 1964 Civil Rights Act That Thomas, who recently ruled against the use of racial quotas in college admissions, would have described affirmative action as "critical to minorities and women in this society" has been painted as an example of Thomas' hypocrisy on affirmative action. The portion of the speech often cited to make this point is mischaracterized, even if that point has validity. Specifically, the 1991 reporting in The New York Times reported, as its primary scoop, that Yale Law School had a 10 percent minority goal the year in which Thomas applied to and was accepted into the program: 1991 reporting Judge Clarence Thomas, who came to prominence as a fierce black critic of racial preference programs, was admitted to Yale Law School under an explicit affirmative action plan with the goal of having blacks and other minority members make up about 10 percent of the entering class, university officials said. Under the program, which was adopted in 1971, the year Judge Thomas applied, blacks and some Hispanic applicants were evaluated differently from whites, the officials said. Nonetheless, they were not admitted unless they met standards devised to predict they could succeed at the highly competitive school. [...] "We did adopt an affirmative action program and it was pretty clearly stated," said Prof. Abraham S. Goldstein, who was dean of the Law School from 1970 to 1975. Thomas has also acknowledged this part of his history, as reported in 1980 by The Washington Post. "The worst experience of his life," he reportedly explained at the time, "was attending college and law school with whites who believed he was there only because of racial quotas for the admission of blacks." as reported Frank Washington, a Yale friend interviewed by Newsweek in 1991, said that Thomas had, in private, "recognized that affirmative action helped to get him into law school, but on the basis of economic deprivation rather than race." interviewed While there are separate arguments to be made of the notion that Thomas' views on affirmative action are hypocritical due to his personal benefit from such programs, removing context from a speech to make it sound like that alleged hypocrisy was more overtly stated is misleading. Because the laws and principles Thomas was referring to were those contained in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and not any specific affirmative action legislation, the claim is False. Bella, Timothy. "The Time Clarence Thomas Said Affirmative Action Was 'Critical' for Society." Washington Post, 1 July 2023. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/06/30/clarence-thomas-affirmative-action/. "Black Conservatives, Center Stage." Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/12/16/black-conservatives-center-stage/c5b44552-ad84-4a40-9b3c-3e88fdfa3589/. Accessed 5 July 2023. Clarence Thomas in 1983: "God Only Knows Where" I Would Be If Not for Affirmative Action - Alternet.Org. https://www.alternet.org/clarence-thomas-1983-affirmative-action/. Accessed 5 July 2023. Current Litigation Trends and Goals at the EEOC - ProQuest. https://www.proquest.com/openview/1a991116c071ffe6a6547f7505c13f63/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1816463. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Eagleton Backs EEOC Nominee With Reluctance." Newspapers.Com, 1 Apr. 1982, https://www.newspapers.com/article/st-louis-post-dispatch-eagleton-backs-e/127670235/. "Federal Agency Reformer Leaves with No Misgivings." Newspapers.Com, 10 Mar. 1981, https://www.newspapers.com/article/arizona-republic-federal-agency-reformer/127564899/. "New EEOC Nomination." Newspapers.Com, 1 Mar. 1982, https://www.newspapers.com/article/athol-daily-news-new-eeoc-nomination/127670013/. "Regan Undermines EEOC Enforcement." Newspapers.Com, 5 Feb. 1983, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-atlanta-voice-regan-undermines-eeoc/127667015/. Rich, Spencer. "Reagan Panel, Citing 'New Racism,' Urges Easing of EEOC Rules." Washington Post, 30 Jan. 1981. www.washingtonpost.com, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1981/01/30/reagan-panel-citing-new-racism-urges-easing-of-eeoc-rules/dfd79721-7bbc-4ef0-91a3-ee5425904abe/. "Supreme Court Strikes down Affirmative Action Programs in College Admissions." SCOTUSblog, 29 June 2023, https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-affirmative-action-programs-in-college-admissions/. "Timeline of Important EEOC Events." US EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/timeline-important-eeoc-events. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." US EEOC, https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964. Accessed 5 July 2023. In August 2020, some users of Gmail, the Google email service, reported receiving a message with the subject line, "Notice of Class Action Settlement re Google Plus  Your Rights May Be Affected." The email claimed that users of the now-defunct Google Plus social network, which was owned and operated by Google, may be eligible for a cash payment from a 2018 lawsuit settlement. The email directed them to a website that outlined options for receiving the payment. The lawsuit was reportedly the result of a data breach that exposed the private information of hundreds of thousands of Google Plus users.  website Snopes readers and many online users speculated it was a scam, given that the email began with the words, You are not being sued. scam Despite the apprehension of users, we learned that this email did indeed come from Google, referred to a real settlement, and that users could indeed receive a cash payment.    The email said:  You are not being sued. This notice affects your rights. Please read it carefully. On June 10, 2020, the Honorable Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, granted preliminary approval of this class action Settlement and directed the litigants to provide this notice about the Settlement. You have received this notice because Googles records indicate that you may be a Settlement Class Member, and you may be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Please visit www.GooglePlusDataLitigation.com for more information. The Final Approval Hearing on the adequacy, reasonableness, and fairness of the Settlement will be held at 9:00 am on November 19, 2020 [...] You are not required to attend the Final Approval Hearing, but you are welcome to do so at your own expense. In a statement to the business magazine Fast Company, and in a tweet, Google confirmed that the email and its contents were real. Responding to a Twitter user who asked if the email was a scam, Gmails verified account directed the person to the aforementioned website: Fast Company tweet   Snopes reached out to Google for confirmation, and we will update this post if we receive more information. The situation that led to Gmail users receiving the email began in 2018 with a lawsuit resulting from a privacy blunder. Earlier that year, Google discovered that software bugs exposed data of up to 500,000 users of Google Plus since 2015. Google later claimed that the data included names, email addresses, age, gender, and occupation. The breach allowed third-party developers to potentially access this information, though the company claimed it found no evidence that anyone misused or stole the data. The technology giant plugged the data leak in March 2018, but did not publicize it. After a Wall Street Journal report exposed the leak in October 2018, a number of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Google on behalf of users reportedly affected by the exposure of their personal data. Google Plus was shuttered by early 2019.  privacy blunder potentially access Wall Street Journal lawsuit In August 2020, some Gmail users received the email from the email address google-noreply@google.com, alerting them about the June of 2020 lawsuit settlement, which required that Google pay $7.5 million in payments to claimants and other associated fees. Claimants were defined in the email as, all persons within the United States who (a) had a consumer Google+ account for any period of time between January 1, 2015 and April 2, 2019, and (2) had their non-public Profile Information exposed as a result of the software bugs Google announced. The website GooglePlusDataLitigation.com also offered options for claimants, which ranged from submitting a claim by Oct. 8, 2020, opting out of the settlement, filing an objection to the settlement, or doing nothing. The claim form requires users to fill out their name and contact information and confirm they used Google Plus within the stipulated period of time mentioned above. GooglePlusDataLitigation.com claim form As it turned out, the actual amount of cash one could receive wasnt too much. Claimants could get the tidy sum of up to $5 or $12  depending on the number of people who filed valid claims  but would have to waive their right to future litigation against Google in relation to this case. According to the email: If sufficient funds remain after calculation of the aggregate initial maximum distribution of US$5.00 per Claimant, the allocation shall be recalculated on a pro rata basis up to a maximum distribution of up to US$12.00 per Claimant. For clarity, the maximum Settlement Payment to be made to any single Claimant shall not exceed US$12.00. In summary, based on confirmation from Google on multiple platforms about the veracity of the email, and the process of receiving funds from the settlement, we rate this claim as True. Google Plus Profile Litigation. "Case No. 5:18-CV-06164-EJD (VKD)
United States District Court Northern District of California."
 Accessed 6 August 2020. MacMillan, Douglas and Robert McMillan. "Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public."
 The Wall Street Journal. 8 October 2018. Newman, Jared. "Google Admits to Potential Google+ Data Leak After Getting Caught."
 Fast Company. 8 October 2020. Newman, Lily Hay. "Google's Privacy Whiplash Shows Big Tech's Inherent Contradictions."
 Wired. 8 October 2018. Zara, Christopher. "Whats Up With That Google Plus Lawsuit Settlement Email? Its Real, But its Also Weird."
 Fast Company. 5 August 2020. In a spirited and unscripted debate with the House GOP, President Barack Obama said Republicans were wrong to portray him as running up large deficits. Speaking at a retreat for House Republicans in Baltimore on Jan. 29, 2010, Obama was particularly critical of a question from Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. Hensarling asked Obama, You are soon to submit a new budget, Mr. President. Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy? The fact of the matter is, Obama replied, is that when we came into office, the deficit was $1.3 trillion -- $1.3 trillion. So when you say that suddenly I've got a monthly deficit that's higher than the annual deficit left by Republicans, that's factually just not true, and you know it's not true. And what is true is that we came in already with a $1.3 trillion deficit before I had passed any law. What is true is, we came in with $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade. We checked Hensarling's claim in a separate item. Here, we'll look at Obama's claim that he came into office with a $1.3 trillion deficit and $8 trillion worth of debt over the next decade. On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was projected to be $1.2 trillion. The 10-year projection was estimated to be about $3.1 trillion. So Obama's number was very close on the 2009 deficit -- he said $1.3 trillion -- but substantially different from the 10-year projection -- he said $8 trillion. There are two reasons why he differs from the CBO. On the difference between the $1.2 trillion and the $1.3 trillion, the Obama administration credited a small portion of spending on its watch to policies of the previous administration. The reason for this is that the federal government runs on a fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, so Bush and Obama technically split responsibility for 2009 spending. The large difference on the 10-year projection has to do with Bush administration tax cuts. The CBO creates its estimates based on current law, which means the CBO assumes that the Bush tax cuts will end in 2010 and everyone will start paying higher taxes in 2011 and going forward. The Obama administration, on the other hand, assumed in its baseline that those tax cuts would be renewed. Economists we spoke with -- Josh Gordon, policy director for the Concord Coalition, and Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst of the conservative Heritage Foundation -- both said they believe the White House approach is more realistic because it assumes current policy will continue. So the CBO's estimate is $5 trillion lower than the White House numbers, though economists don't quibble with the White House methodology. It does highlight, however, that when it comes to budget projections, people can have differences of opinion about what to include. In any budget projection there is room for interpretation, but it seems reasonable to assume for a baseline that the Bush tax cuts will continue. Obama's numbers are fairly solid, so we rate his statement Mostly True. In April 2023, a bit of footwear-based movie trivia reemerged on Reddit: that the 2006 movie "Idiocracy" had everyone in the movie wearing crocs because the costume designer had a limited budget and because they were too ugly to ever become popular in real life: on Reddit  This trivia is true. The story behind crocs in "Idiocracy" has been repeated by director and co-writer Mike Judge on multiple occasions. In October 2016, Judge explained their origin in an interview with Fast Company magazine: an interview The wardrobe had to be something that's not around now. It had to be created for a lot of extras, and so you know our wardrobe person was looking for ways to make the budget work. And Crocs were not out in the world yet. They were just a small startup at the time. We shot in 2004, so no one was wearing Crocs. And she showed me these things, and I thought, 'Oh those are great, just stupid plastic shoes.' And I said to her, 'But you actually bought these, you can order these. What if by the time the movie comes out, these things are everywhere, and it doesn't look like we're set in the future?' And she said, 'Oh no, that's never going to happen. And sure enough, by the time it comes out two years later, everyone is wearing Crocs. So it already started coming true even faster than we made the movie, really. The 2006 film "tells the story of an unexceptional man who finds himself put in deep-freeze and thawed out 500 years too late, in a future where the dumbest people alive have taken over the world  and he's suddenly the smartest man alive, if only by default." In June 2022, Judge told the same story on the Joe Rogan podcast: tells the story same story The wardrobe woman had a limited budget. [...] So we shot it in 2004. She goes, she tells me, okay, there's a startup. And it was Crocs. But they weren't out in the world yet [and] she goes, look at these horrible plastic shoes with holes. She said we could really save a lot of money. Just put everyone in these things. I said, well, but what if by the time the movie comes out [...] these become popular and people are wearing them? She said, oh, these are never going to become popular [...], these things are horrible. [...] Then it took two years for the movie to come out. By then people are going like, oh, that's pretty funny that you put everyone in Crocs. Crocs has=d been around on a limited scalesince 2002, but they gained mainstream success and popularity around 2006. Idiocracy finished filming in 2004, but Fox Studios sat on it for two years before releasing it in 2006. since 2002 around 2006 two years Because the story about Crocs in the movie Idiocracy came from the movies' writer and director, and has been told many times consistently, the claim is True. Crocs: A Long-Term Trend or Short-Term Fad? - Aug. 9, 2006. https://money.cnn.com/2006/08/09/smbusiness/crocs/index.htm. Accessed 14 Sept. 2023. "Funky Crocs Gain Toehold Among Fans of Comfort." Omaha World-Herald, 13 Nov. 2003, p. 39. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/article/omaha-world-herald-funky-crocs-gain-toeh/131810738/. "Joe Rogan Experience #1835 - Mike Judge." Ogjre, https://ogjre.com. Accessed 14 Sept. 2023. "Mike Judge On The 10th Anniversary Of 'Idiocracy' And Predicting The (Near) Future." Fast Company, Oct. 2016, https://www.fastcompany.com/3064328/mike-judge-on-the-10th-anniversary-of-idiocracy-and-predicting-the-near-future. "Was_Idiocracy_treated_idiotically_Contd." Austin American-Statesman, 1 Sept. 2006, p. 51. newspapers.com, https://www.newspapers.com/article/austin-american-statesman-wasidiocracy/30934775/. As U.S. President Donald Trump faced impeachment following the deadly Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021, a video of a Texas pastor circulated widely online alleging that anonymous sources told him Trump would soon declare "martial law"  the temporary military takeover of civil functions such as policing and courts. faced deadly Capitol Rev. Wade McKinney, who leads a ministry in rural eastern Texas, used Facebook Live to stream himself talking in a vehicle for roughly 22 minutes on Jan. 9, and that video spread rapidly on YouTube and other platforms in the following days. In the footage, which Snopes obtained via McKinney's Facebook page before it was permanently removed, he said: other platforms I have got a lot of contacts the lord has helped me build over the last few years, and those contacts are people who have given me intelligence and given me information that has to do with our nation and it's future, so I could use it for Bible prophecy teaching. [...] We are looking imminently  and when I say imminently, I'm talking about the next two or three days  we're looking at a martial law being declared. This is coming straight from my contacts in D.C., ya'll. We are going to see martial law declared. What level, what degree of martial law? Whatever they have to do to bring things under a corrective mode. So, basically, what I'm trying to tell you is, you need to be prepared for there to be a martial law declaration. McKinney also claimed Trump's opponents in government "are going to be brought down" in some "house cleaning" and that the rest of America needed to prepare for that event. He urged viewers to secure cash, food, and supplies, such as fuel tanks for vehicles and bullets for gun owners, and develop communication plans should cell service supposedly stop. supposedly stop "It's the president's last effort," McKinney said of the alleged event, while making several other baseless claims regarding military efforts, the 2020 presidential election, and the Capitol insurrection. "We are in a battle for everything that God intended for this country." 2020 presidential election the Capitol insurrection   In short, the pastor alleged that Trump was preparing to invoke martial law and use military force to arrest his political opponents before Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20. use military force First, to investigate those claims, Snopes reached out to McKinney to learn more about his alleged sources in Washington, D.C., and unidentified military bases  people he did not name but said told him about the president's purported plans. The pastor did not respond to us. We will update this report when, or if, he returns our message. It is common practice for reputable news organizations to report information from credible people who requested anonymity out of fear of repercussions for speaking publicly and that journalists have cross-referenced with other sources. McKinney did not explain why, or under what circumstances, his alleged sources asked not to be named, nor did he outline any efforts to investigate their truthfulness. Now, let us explain the nature of the pastor's allegations. No federal statute nor the Constitution defines martial law. However, other executive authorities  such as those provided in the Insurrection Act  give presidents the power to deploy the military or the National Guard in U.S. cities, whether due to terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or other safety issues. Over the course of history, presidents have relied on martial law to order military forces to take the place of civilian governments, like in Hawaii during World War II. Insurrection Act like in Hawaii during World War II The Brennan Center for Justice said of martial law: said It describes a power that, in an emergency, allows the military to push aside civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. Laws are enforced by soldiers rather than local police. Policy decisions are made by military officers rather than elected officials. People accused of crimes are brought before military tribunals rather than ordinary civilian courts. In short, the military is in charge. [...] To some observers, a deployment of troops under the Insurrection Act might look and feel very much like martial law. Given the degree of confusion over the term, some within the media or the government itself might even call it martial law. Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act before or after he encouraged his supporters to try to block a ceremonial vote to affirm Biden's presidency and an angry mob broke into the Capitol on Jan. 6. Insurrection Act encouraged Additionally, he had not declared martial law as of this writing, and no credible evidence showed that he was preparing to do so. If, like McKinney alleged, people within the White House or Department of Defense wanted Americans to know that Trump was preparing to make the declaration, history shows they would not turn to one pastor living in rural Texas to spread the important announcement. Instead, they would use official communication methods, such as a news conference or public statement, to broadcast it widely. Also, Americans should rely on emergency management departments for trusted information on when, and how, they must prepare for natural or human-caused emergencies. None supported McKinney's recommendations to stock up on food and supplies prior to Biden's inauguration. Nonetheless, thousands of National Guard members were patrolling Washington, D.C., in the days between the Jan. 6 insurrection and Biden's swearing-in ceremony, and the FBI warned law enforcement agencies nationwide of armed protests at all 50 state capitols. warned But all of those efforts by military forces and law enforcement agencies were unrelated to martial law and the Insurrection Act, and they were not a scheme by Trump to arrest his political opponents during the final days of his term. Rather, they were strategies to try to preserve government properties and safety in the event of more election violence. In sum, since no evidence existed to support McKinney's assertion that credible sources said Trump was preparing to invoke martial law, we rate this claim Claim:  New York City pedestrians ignored a freezing, homeless child for two hours.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, February 2015] You'll never guess who finally helped this homeless child freezing on the NYC streets. WOW  Origins:  On 23 February 2015, a video titled "The Freezing Homeless Child! (Social Experiment)" was published to YouTube by OckTV. The clip rapidly spread on blogs and social networks under clickbaiting titles such as "The homeless child was freezing to death while no one approached him. I never thought this guy would be the only one!" Within days, the video had been shared millions of times. While the footage tugged at many heartstrings, its creators were somewhat upfront about its staged nature. Dubbing the video a "social experiment," its publishers admitted that the child was neither legitimately homeless nor freezing in a manner that was anything more than incidental and deliberate. They claimed the "social experiment" (a term often used to excuse a number of unpleasant or deceitful  behaviors through the premise of illustrating a point) was designed to prove that the citizens of New York City would not be moved by the child's hypothetical plight, even in unusually cold weather.  Several aspects of the story were shaky, implausible, or simply far too scripted. First, the viral video producers claimed that the child was exposed for two full hours in what appeared to be a busy area of midtown Manhattan in broad daylight, wearing only a thin t-shirt and shivering violently. However, the New York Police Department aggressively monitors the streets of the city for at-risk homeless individuals. Such measures are stepped up in adverse weather conditions, and the scenario beggars belief when mitigating factors are examined: a minor child, lacking a jacket in extreme cold, left alone on the street in Manhattan's busiest district. monitors A webpage for NYC.gov explains the precautions undertaken by the city in such circumstances: The Department of Homeless Services (DHS) continues to use its Cold Weather Emergency Procedure, called Code Blue, to protect unsheltered homeless people, who are more at risk for exposure deaths during the cold winter months. During Code Blue conditions DHS doubles its outreach efforts. Community members that identify someone on the street they believe needs assistance should call 311 and ask for the Mobile Outreach Response Team; in any emergency community members should call 911. The Department of Homeless Services will send an outreach team to the location to assess the individual's condition and take appropriate action. The second shaky factor was the other content published by OrkTv prior to their "freezing, homeless child stunt": All were clearly manufactured for maximum social media interest, and their focus was neither charitable nor honest. (The words "prank" and "social experiment" appeared frequently in connection with that work.) In the same vein, the video's conclusion involved a fellow homeless person stepping up to help where no one else would. (The man was then purportedly awarded $500 for his convenient-to-the-narrative compassion.) The third factor was that the video was tied to an IndieGogo page purportedly created to raise funds to provide clothing for New York City's homeless population. That page was operated by OckTV and lacked any specific detail about how the funds raised would be managed, accounted for, or meaningfully used to assist homeless individuals in New York. And while the campaign could have been on the up-and-up, it was slated to close on 27 March 2015, well past the brunt of winter's unpleasantness in the city. No explanation was given on the page regarding whether the funds collected would be held until the next winter rolled around or repurposed to otherwise assist homeless people at the conclusion of the campaign. So while the video depicted a child on the streets of New York City in what looked to be very cold weather, little else about it was honest or straightforward. There are a number of legitimate, vetted charities in New York City dedicated to assisting vulnerable and needy people, and those moved by the video's staged events would do better to donate to one of them.  charities Last updated:  27 February 2015 Since at least 2008, a troubling image of a turtle with a drastically deformed shell has been circulating online, with multiple web sites employing it to illustrate posts about the dangers of plastic pollution in the oceans. The image shows a brown-colored turtle with a shell constricted in the middle, giving her a figure-eight shape: circulating  This image captures a snapping turtle named Mae West who currently resides at the STAR Eco Station in Los Angeles, California, where she is in good health. A representative from the station, which operates a wildlife rescue and environmental science museum, told us Mae West was rescuednearly two decades ago after she was discovered with a plastic milk jug ring around her midsection, although though it was unclear exactly how long the ring had been in place: In 2000, she was discovered in Louisiana with a plastic milk jug ring around the width of her shell. In addition to having an extremely narrow midsection, she was also found to be carrying several eggs at the time. The handler in Louisiana decided that she was no longer able to care for her and arranged to haveMaeplaced at the Eco Station. Some of the blogsposting this image in early 2017 incorrectly claimed the turtle had been caught in a rubber band from an early age, causing her to grow abnormally. Mae West was brought to her current home after being cared for by an anti-pollution non-profit called The 5 Gyers Institute, also based in Los Angeles. The image shown above was used in a 2009 Earth Day report by Oprah Winfrey discussing the effects of plastic pollution on marine life: used Sadly, the type of deformity afflicting Mae West isn't unique. Another famous turtle is living with a similar human-caused deformity: Peanut, a red-eared slider turtle who was rescued and nursed to health after being discovered entrapped in a plastic six-pack ring, has often been misidentified as Mae West (and vice-versa) in photographs. Peanut Peanut was found in Missouri in 1993 and taken to a zoo, where the plastic ring was removed from his midsection. The turtle (who was for years mistakenly believed to be female) is currently under the care of the Missouri Department of Conservation. Photographs provided by the department show he does indeed resemble a peanut:   Despite his deformation, Peanut has also managed to live a long and healthy life and is now believed to be a senior terrapin at 32 or 33 years old, said Dan Zarlenga, spokesman for the Missouri Department of Conservation. Had he not been found and cared for by humans, Peanut probably would not have survived for long in the wild. Eriksen, Marcus."Meet the Famous Turtle With a Serious Plastic Problem."
Planet Experts.6 July 2015. Missouri Department of Conservation."The Story of Peanut the Turtle." Monks, Kieron. "The Plastic Plague: Can Our Oceans Be Saved From Environmental Ruin?
CNN.2 September 2016. Moore, Charles."Choking the Oceans With Plastic."
The New York Times.25 August 2015. Claim:  Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013.   I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us.   We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old.   My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively.  We have been with the same two companies for those years.  We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us.  We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us.  On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama.  When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement.  Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband.  So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us.  This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month.  I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this.  Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly.  I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc.  I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month  how in the world could this help the economy too?  [Rest of article here.] here Origins:  The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And  he's mad  at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well  at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size.  For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount.   As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting  you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them  or if they already have coverage  their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off"  in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news.  Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us.  We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us.  I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov.  We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us.  We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers.  So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan.  The cost of the plan is $459.19.  We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month.  I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to.  What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been.  She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate."  So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids.  She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated:  4 January 2014    Oliver, Mike.   "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies."   AL.com.  2 December 2013.    Walsh, Alex.   "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You."   AL.com.  31 December 2013. In December 2016, rumors flew about Donald Trump's personal beliefs and connections as he continued to announce picks for his incoming administration. One such rumor was a meme with a quote that purported to be from the President-elect, painting him as a flat-earther: flat-earther   mocked up Speaking to reporters in Baltimore on Monday, following the 138th conference for the National Guard Association of the United States, the Republican Partys presidential nominee revealed that he is a member of a growing population known generally as flat earth truthers. I fly a lot, and I mean a lot. No one flies more than me. Listen, I own a jet. I own a 757, beautiful plane, its the best plane! If the world were round, believe me, I would know! The comments came in response to a question from AP reporter, Charles Darr, regarding the future role of the National Guard, as private companies proliferate space travel. Mr. Trump, if elected, are you willing to increase taxes in order to meet the growing budget demands of the National Guard, as existential threats from our enemies grow along with the advancement of space travel technology? Darr asked. The presidential hopeful replied that such a future is nonsense, adding that the round earth people, and you know who they are, these people have an agenda. CNN.com.de (like many pages of its ilk) is not affiliated with the legitimate news organization CNN. The site uses a web address similar to CNN.com's in order to trick readers into believe that they are reading genuine news items. However, this web site does not publish factual stories. publish While there is no disclaimer on the web site that specifically states its content is fictional, it does provide several hints that its stories are hoaxes. For instance, the provided contact number of (785) 273-0325 does not lead to CNN's, but that of the Westboro Baptist Church.  (785) 273-0325 One of the more whimsical messaging options offered by Snapchat  a social media app for mobile devices introduced in 2011  is the ability to personalize selfies in real time and share them instantly with other users, a feature that has at once contributed to the app's immense popularity (Snapchat boasts an estimated 166 million users daily) and raised privacy concerns among some of its customers.  Snapchat's rotating toolbox of image filters, called Lenses, enables users to manipulate photos and videos to humorous effect, as seen in these examples shared publicly on Instagram by celebrity Snapchatter Chrissy Teigen:   Cute and innocent though it may appear, the feature has become the target of conspiracy theorists claiming that Snapchat's corporate owner, Snap Inc., uses it to collect facial recognition data which it allegedly stores and shares with law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and CIA. We've found examples of such rumors dating back to Fall 2015 (soon after the Lenses feature was officially rolled out): you guys are all swooning over the snapchat filters... And The FBI is getting the most extensive facial recognition library ever  TEENWOLF (@TEENWOLFREMIX) October 3, 2015 October 3, 2015  It wasn't until April of the following year that the rumors reached takeoff speed, however, thanks largely to a tweet composed by hip hop artist, songwriter, and unabashed flat-earth theorist B.o.B to his roughly two million followers: tweet flat-earth when you realize all the snap chat filters are really building a facial recognition database ?  B.o.B (@bobatl) April 16, 2016 April 16, 2016 In May 2016, with civil cases already pending against Facebook and Google alleging unauthorized use of facial recognition technology, a class action lawsuit was filed by two Snapchat users in Illinois complaining that the app violated their rights under the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to obtain adequate permission before gathering and storing their "biometric identifiers and biometric information". lawsuit BIPA The company flatly denied it: denied Contrary to the claims of this frivolous lawsuit, we are very careful not to collect, store, or obtain any biometric information or identifiers about our community. The class action suit was eventually dismissed in favor of arbitration in September 2016, but as of this writing the case remains unresolved. Crucial to Snapchat's defense is their position, as stated in the Privacy Center of the company's web site, that the app relies on object recognition, not facial recognition, to make Lenses work: arbitration stated Have you ever wondered how Lenses make your eyes well up with tears or rainbows come out your mouth? Some of the magic behind Lenses is object recognition. Object recognition is an algorithm designed to understand the general nature of things that appear in an image. It lets us know that a nose is a nose or an eye is an eye. But object recognition isnt the same as facial recognition. While Lenses can recognize faces in general, they can't recognize a specific face. If it's true that Lenses can't recognize (i.e., identify) specific faces, then the claim that the app produces anything qualifying as a "biometric identifier" under Illinois law is seriously in doubt. (The district judge in Illinois overseeing the Google facial recognition case previously defined "biometric identifier" as "a set of biology-based measurements ... used to identify a person.) case As to the wider claim that Snapchat is building a "facial recognition database," the distinction between object and facial recognition, at minimum, places a burden of proof on those trumpeting the claim to show that the app is capable of identifying specific faces in the first place. If this explanation (provided by the web site Vox) of how the software works is accurate, Snapchat doesn't need to be able to identify specific faces to accomplish the task. It has to recognize a face as a face, and identify the parts of a face as the nose, eyes, ears, chin, etc., but it doesn't have to recognize who the face belongs to: this Moreover, Snapchat's Privacy Policy states that the company neither collects nor permanently stores user-created content (meaning photos and videos) let alone preserves such items in a database: states Snapchat lets you capture what its like to live in the moment. On our end, that means that we automatically delete the content of your Snaps (the photo and video messages that you send your friends) from our servers after we detect that a Snap has been opened by all recipients or has expired. And although the policy further acknowledges that Snap Inc. may share users' personal information "to comply with any valid legal process, governmental request, or applicable law, rule, or regulation" (and transparency reports show that the company has indeed complied with such requests in the past), they can't grant the FBI (or any other agency) access to a "facial recognition database" that doesn't exist. reports Some rumors die hard, however. An updated variant that cropped up in early 2017 brought two new claims to the mix: one, that the FBI literally created Snapchat's image filtering software (and alleged facial recognition database); and two, that there is a smoking gun to prove it  namely U.S. patent #9396354:   granted According to an analysis by Sophos' Naked Security blogger Alison Booth, the patent proposes using facial recognition software to identify individual subjects in photos, whereupon the latter would be modified and/or their distribution restricted in accordance with the subjects' pre-established privacy settings. analysis There is a catch. Implementation of the process would, of course, require amassing a facial recognition database. "For facial recognition to work," writes Booth, "Snapchat would need to store images of all users that sign up to the feature  as a reference image to compare photos against." So, there it is  a "facial recognition database" of the sort conspiracy theorists have been going on about since 2015, except that Snapchat has not, to date, implemented such a feature (a fact we were able to confirm with the company), nor is there evidence that the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) was involved in creating it, nor does the patent itself mention sharing facial recognition data with government entities. Despite finding no legitimate basis for the claim that Snapchat is currently engaged in collecting, storing, or sharing facial recognition data on its users, we do not wish to downplay the increasing prevalence of facial recognition technology in both commercial and government applications, nor the privacy issues this raises. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) articulated some of these issues in a statement announcing the release of a 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the privacy implications of the technology: report The newly released report raises serious concerns about how companies are collecting, using, and storing our most sensitive personal information. I believe that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, which is why it's important that, at the very least, the tech industry adopts strong, industry-wide standards for facial recognition technology. But what we really need are federal standards that address facial recognition privacy by enhancing our consumer privacy framework. The tech industry has yet to address these concerns to the satisfaction of consumer privacy watchdogs, however, nor has Congress made progress toward establishing the federal standards Franken called for. Thus far, issue has been dealt with primarily in the court system via cases such as the aforementioned BIPA class action lawsuits against Facebook and Google. watchdogs lawsuits One of the ironies of the false alarms about Snapchat's alleged sharing of facial recognition data with the FBI is that the agency already maintains a biometric data network comprising the facial images of more than 117 million Americans (about half the U.S. adult population, and growing), mostly drawn from state DMV databases and other non-criminal sources. A 2016 report by the Georgetown Law Center for Privacy and Technology warned that the technology is both error-prone, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and almost totally unregulated. already report disproportionate In testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing chaired by Sen. Franken in 2012, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Jennifer Lynch urged Congress to act sooner rather than later to protect the biometric privacy of all Americans: testimony Face recognition and its accompanying privacy concerns are not going away. Given this, it is imperative that government act now to limit unnecessary biometrics collection; instill proper protections on data collection, transfer, and search; ensure accountability; mandate independent oversight; require appropriate legal process before government collection; and define clear rules for data sharing at all levels. This is important to preserve the democratic and constitutional values that are bedrock to American society. Booth, Alison.  "Snapchat Turns Facial Recognition Technology on Its Head."
 Naked Security.  20 July 2016. Danley-Greiner, Kristin.  "Snapchat Defends Procedures After Facial Recognition Class Action."
 Legal Newsline.  2 September 2016. Garvie, Clare et al.  "The Perpetual Line-up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America."
 Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology.  18 October 2016. Graham, Meg.  "Illinois Biometrics Lawsuits May Help Define Rules for Facebook, Google."
 Chicago Tribune.  13 January 2017. Korte, Amy.  "Federal Court in Illinois Rules Biometric Privacy Lawsuit Against Google Can Proceed."
 Illinois Policy.  8 March 2017. Maass, Dave.  "Memo to the DOJ: Facial Recognition's Threat to Privacy Is Worse than Anyone Thought."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 October 2016. Mathies, Daven.  "The Incredible Underlying Technology of Snapchat's Selfie Lenses."
 Digital Trends.  1 July 2016. Nelson, Steven.  "Half of U.S. Adults Are in Police Facial Recognition Networks."
 US News & World Report.  18 October 2016. Roberts, Jeff John.  "Tech Industry's Facial Recognition Plan Bashed by Privacy Groups."
 Fortune.  16 June 2016. Thielman, Sam.  "FBI Using Vast Public Photo Data and Iffy Facial Recognition Tech to Find Criminals."
 The Guardian.  15 June 2016. Trujillo, Mario.  "Facial Recognition Quietly Taking Hold."
 The Hill.  1 August 2015. Welinder, Yana.  "EFF Urges Congress to Protect Privacy in Face Recognition."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 July 2012. Yakowicz, Will.  "Snapchat Sued Under Illinois Biometric Information Usage Law."
  Inc.  18 July 2016. Electronic Frontier Foundation.  "Testimony of Jennifer Lynch to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law."
 18 July 2012. Google.  "Patent: Apparatus and Method for Automated Privacy Protection in Distributed Images - US 9396354 B1."
  19 July 2016. Government Accounting Office.  "Facial Recognition Technology: Commercial Uses, Privacy Issues, and Applicable Federal Law."
 20 June 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken: New Report on Facial Recognition Technology Highlights Lack of Privacy Standards."
 30 July 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken Releases Extensive Report Detailing Concerns with FBI Facial Recognition Program."
 15 June 2016.