Is Disney's Goofy Character Actually a Cow?
Classic Disney cartoons have proved to be a consistent source of conspiracy theories, rumors, and urban legends. For instance, we've previously investigated claims that Winnie the Pooh was actually a girl (false), that the Seven Dwarfs were modeled on cocaine addiction (False) and that a topless woman could briefly be spotted in VHS copies of "The Rescuers" (True). urban legends false False True In January 2019, we encountered yet another Disney rumor: This time, the internet asked, is the Goofy cartoon character actually a cow rather than an (anthropomorphic) dog? Although this dog vs. cow debate wasn't entirely new in 2019, that time around it was supposedly supported by an "investigative article" published in 2012 by the website Reel Rundown. While that article did contain some factual information regarding the history of the Goofy character, which is likely the reason why some people have accepted it as a truthful account of Goofy's supposed sordid past, it is peppered with exaggerations, speculation, outright fabrications, and was clearly written with humorous intentions. Reel Rundown Reel Rundown presented their argument as if they were uncovering a vast Disney conspiracy theory aimed at covering up Goofy's unsavory bovine heritage. In the introductory section, entitled "Goofy Is Not a Dog -- The Cover Up," the author argued that Goofy was actually a foreign-born cow and that Disney was forced to conceal this fact due to the political climate in the 1930s: Goofy has always been thought of as a "dog with human features" according to Disney's Mouselinks. However what the Disney establishment isn't telling you is the goofy is really a cow. To be specific an Aberdeen-Angus Cattle. A fact that Disney would love to cover-up considering that Goofy's national origin is anything but American. In 1939 with American nationalism at an historic high, Goofy's true heritage could have created a huge scandal for Disney. A Scandal that would have finished Goofies [sic] career just as it was starting to take-off." The next section, "Goofy's Heritage Revealed," was even more outlandish. Reel Rundown imagined Goofy as a living, breathing, physical animal who was born "Dipalwa Dawala" to Egyptian immigrants in Scotland and was "discovered by Disney talent scouts during a livestock sale." During the "Dark Years" section of the article, the website upped the absurdity and claimed that Goofy's son died from Mad Cow disease. For those who took the time to read the article, it should have been obvious that it was a work of humorous fiction. However, it seems that some readers stopped at the headline and were left convinced that Goofy was actually a cow, not a dog:   Although this article was clearly written in jest, some of its curious claims have been spread in support of the "Goofy is a cow" argument. We'll dispel some of this misinformation to stop malicious propagation of rumors about this beloved Disney dog. Disney dog Was Goofy "born" to Egyptian immigrants in Scotland and named "Dipalwa Dawala?" First off, Goofy wasn't "born" anywhere: He was created by Disney animators Art Babbitt and Frank Webb in the 1930s. Goofy was introduced as a side character named "Dippy Dawg" in the cartoon short Mickey's Revue (1932) but underwent some revisions over the next few years. While Goofy has gone by a number of names during his Disney career (including Super Goof, Dippy Dawg, George G. Geef, Goofus D. Dawg, and Goofy Goof), we were unable to find any credible source listing the character as "Dipalwa Dawala." Art Babbitt introduced In fact, the only search results we could find for this term all point back to this Reel Rundown article. In other words, Goofy has never been named "Dipalw Dawala." Does Goofy's old love interest, Clarabelle the Cow, prove that Goofy is also a cow? Reel Rundown ended their humorous work of fiction with an "evidence" section claiming that Disney's history of creating same species couples (Mickey and Minnie, Donald and Daisy, etc.) pointed to Goofy's being a cow since he once had a love interest named Clarabele Cow: Goofy's love interest in the Mickey Mouse clubhouse is Clarabelle the Cow. The on-screen chemistry is obvious. Disney often couples characters with the opposite sex of the same species. Mickey and Mini, Donald and Daisey [sic] both follow this pattern. So why would the writers at Disney have Goofy and Clarabelle coupled up? While it's true that Goofy and Clarabelle Cow were once an item, this is not proof that they were the same species of animal. Clarabelle was the sometimes girlfriend of Horace Horsecollar, who was a horse and not a cow, and the Disney universe includes multiple examples of inter-species couples: Ben Ali Gator, for instance, woos Hyacinth Hippo in Fantasia; Jessica Rabbit (a cartoon human) has a rabbit husband in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Miss Piggy and Kermit the Frog have an ongoing (if one-sided) relationship in the Muppet canon. Outside the Disney universe, Bimbo, a cartoon dog, was the occasional love interest of Betty Boop (a human female), and of course, Tillie Tiger once planted a kiss on Elmer Elephant:   The Reel Rundown article was clearly a jape. However, it made us curious about Goofy's actual origins and whether the character was originally intended to represent a dog. In Art Babbitt's character analysis of Goofy from 1934 (available via the website of animator Michael Sporn), Goofy is described as a "composite of an everlasting optimist, a gullible Good Samaritan, a half-wit, a shiftless, good-natured coloured boy and a hick." In his description of how Goofy should be drawn, Babbit mentioned two real-world creatures, neither of which was a cow: website It is true that there is a vague similarity in the construction of the Goof's head and Pluto's. The use of the eyes, mouth and ears are entirely different. One is dog, the other human. The Goof's head can be thought of in terms of a caricature of a person with a pointed domelarge, dreamy eyes, buck teeth and weak chin, a large mouth, a thick lower lip, a fat tongue and a bulbous nose that grows larger on its way out and turns up. His eyes should remain partly closed to help give him a stupid, sloppy appearance, as though he were constantly straining to remain awake, but of course they can open wide for expressions or accents. He blinks quite a bit. His ears for the most part are just trailing appendages and are not used in the same way as Pluto's ears except for rare expressions. His brow is heavy and breaks the circle that outlines his skull. A description of the character from Disney.go.com also compares Goofy to Pluto but notes that Goofy was created as more of a human character: "Goofy was created as a human character, as opposed to Pluto, who was a pet, so he walked upright and had a speaking voice." Disney.go.com When we reached out to Disney for comment, a spokesperson told us that both The Disney Animation Research Library and the Walt Disney Archives agreed that Goofy was indeed an anthropomorphic dog. Erin Glover, Director of Publicity and Communications at Disney Animation, told us: The Disney Animation Research Library and the Walt Disney Archives agree that this question was best answered by Disney Legend Dave Smith: "Goofy was originally created as a human character with dog-like characteristics, thus why he walks upright, wears clothes, talks and has animal features that resemble a dog." The Disney Domain.  "The History of Goofy."   13 April 2016. Disney.go.com.  "Characters: Goofy."   Archived 1 August 2003. Fischer, Tony.  "Is Goofy a Dog?"   Reel Rundown.  9 January 2019.
In her new book,Going Rogue, Sarah Palin said President Barack Obama's support for a cap and trade plan was misguided. The president has already admitted that the policy he seeks will cause our electricity bills to 'skyrocket.' Sadly, those hit hardest will be those who are already struggling to make ends meet, she wrote. Here, we're looking at Obama's comments on electricity bills. First, though, here's a quick summary of cap and trade for those who aren't famliar with it: To slow climate change, the government would set a cap on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. To comply, companies such as electric utilities must either upgrade to cleaner technologies or buy credits  also known as allowances  to continue polluting. Companies can buy and sell the credits as necessary to conduct their business. We were familiar with Obama's original quote from his campaign for president. It came from a videotaped interview he did with theSan Francisco Chronicleeditorial board very early in the campaign in January 2008.Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, Obama told theChronicle. Coal-powered plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.Obama also said the biggest challenge would be making sure voters understand why such a plan is necessary. The problem is, can you get the American people to say this is really important, Obama said. Obama was talking in general about cap and trade, but there is now a specific bill making its way through Congress, written by Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, Democrats from California and Massachusetts, respectively. Their goal is to lower carbon pollution by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. Under their plan, most pollution permits initially would be given out for free. But eventually, companies would have to buy those permits from the government. The latest version of the bill includes a number of measures to offset higher utility bills for consumers. Revenue from the permits would be passed to consumers through rebates or expanded efficiency programs, and an additional 15 percent of the revenue would go directly to low-income consumers. Legislators have opted to give 85 percent of the polluting permits away for free instead of putting them up for sale, as Obama pledged to do on the campaign trail. In theory, this approach should reduce costs to consumers. So how much would rates go up for consumers? It's hard to say. There has been much debate about the costs, and it's been difficult to come up with a reliable number because the bills have been changing as they move through the House and the Senate. Republicans have cited numbers as high as $3,000 per year, a claim that when it was combined with a falsehood on health care, earned ourPants on Firerating. Recent estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency are much lower  between $80 and $340 a year, depending on income. So the climate debate has changed substantially since Obama sat down with theChroniclenearly two years ago.Despite those potential cost cuts, there's still little disagreement that consumers will pay for cap-and-trade, whether it's $3,100 a year or $340. Because that hasn't changed since Obama first said that utility rates would necessarily skyrocket, and because Palin got Obama's words right, we give Palin a True. As U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepared to take office in December 2016, multiple news reports addressed the potential conflicts of interest he would face as he transitioned from a businessman to chief executive. Many critics urged Trump to divest himself of his businesses and cited former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's sale of his peanut farm as an exemplary model of how to head off such potential conflicts: conflicts of interest         In May 2020, after an appeals court ruled that a lawsuit could proceed alleging that Trump had violated the constitution by receiving foreign money through his hotels, comparisons between Carter and Trump once again gained traction on social media: court ruled that a lawsuit social media   While Carter did place his businesses into a blind trust before he was elected president in 1977, he didn't actually sell his peanut farm until he left office in 1981.  On Jan. 5, 1977, Carter released a plan detailing how his assets would be handled when he assumed office. Carter listed eight actions that he would take to avoid conflicts of interest, including transferring Carter's Warehouse, Carter Farms, and all funds related to those business ventures into a trust: released listed The transition group has studied existing laws and regulations bearing on conflicts of interest and the regulation of ethics of officials in the executive branch of government. The existing law is extremely strong in prohibiting outside earned income. Governor Carter heavily approves of that law and its policy ... In order to prevent possible financial conflicts of interest while President, Governor Jimmy Carter is taking the following actions: 1. All common stock is being sold, consisting of 100 shares of Rich's, Inc. and 956 shares of Advanced Investors. A small net loss on this stock is likely. 2. Jimmy Carter's interest in (a) Carter's Warehouse and Carter Farms, Inc., and any funds related to them (b) all property except the private home and personal items, and (c) his father's estate will be transferred to a trust. Income or principal from the trust will be available to Jimmy Carter but only as distributions of cash. Carter's business suffered significantly while he served as president, but it wasn't until he left office in 1981 that the decision was made to sell the family farm: suffered While he serves as president, Jimmy Carter placed the family farm supply business into the protection of a blind trust before he left for Washington, D.C. in 1977. This trust allowed for a law firm in Atlanta to take full administration of the farm supply business during his years in the White House. The Carters felt that relinquishing the business to someone elses care would separate them from these affairs and avoid the possibility of their financial holdings resembling any conflict of interest while President Carter was in office. Their personal counsel, Charles Kirbo of the Atlanta law firm, was their financial trustee. Following the election loss in 1981, the Carters were informed by Charles Kirbo that because of three years of drought and several changes in warehouse management, they were over $1 million in debt. As they struggled to recover from the unexpected financial blow, the solution to their problem became evident. The Carters sold the family business and also began writing books, which helped them recover financially. In regards to a meme's claim that Carter was still building houses at the age of 92, that is, for the most part, true. Carter has been building houses with Habitat for Humanity since 1984. At the age of 92, he was still actively participating in the construction of new homes. The above-displayed meme is a few years old, however, as Carter is 95 years old at the time of this writing in May 2020.  If the text of this meme was altered to give Carter's current age, it would still be true. In October 2019, shortly after suffering a fall at his home that required stitches, Carter was back on the construction site. A Habitat for Humanitys Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project has also been announced in the Dominican Republic for November 2020, but it's unclear if Carter will travel to the country to take part in the construction: back on the construction site announced Since beginning their work with Habitat for Humanity in 1984, President and Mrs. Carter have helped to build, renovate and repair 4,390 homes in 14 countries alongside more than 104,000 volunteers through their annual work project. Since its founding in 1976, Habitat has served more than 22 million people around the world. We are honored to host the 2020 Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project in the Dominican Republic, said Cesarina Fabin, national director of Habitat for Humanity Dominican Republic. President and Mrs. Carter are shining examples of service. We are so grateful to their commitment to building a world where everyone has a safe and decent place to live. In summary, Carter placed his peanut farm into a blind trust when he took office in 1977. It wasn't until he left office four years later that the farm was sold. With that in mind, we rate this claim "Mixture." Gerstein, Josh.  "Appeals court Greenlights Emoluments Suit Against Trump."
  Politico.  14 May 2020. Folley, Aris.  "Jimmy Carter Back to Building Homes for Habitat for Humanity One Day After Fall."
  The Hill.  7 October 2019. The New York Times.  "Texts of Carter Statement on Conflicts of Interest and Ethics; Appointees Guidelines."
  5 January 1977. Buchanan, Larry.  "The Array of Conflicts of Interest Facing the Trump Presidency."
  The New York Times.  14 December 2016. Claim:  If John Kerry were elected President, the Secret Service would have to protect him and every property he owns for the rest of his life. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions.  It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property. The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas & electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all there is that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us. Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about. Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long as they own those properties. It comes with being President once you are elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot.  These salaries and agents protect all their real estate property with Secret Service Agents and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life. Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including Holidays. Wow, what does that cost? Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerry's do not buy any more properties afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals, days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent. Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President! Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it. The more I think about paying for Kerry's properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot. How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto. Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe him now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve Him and his wife! IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY APPALLED, THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION Origins:   The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets  right. John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate,  a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple.  The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President.  That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation.  Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents.  homes It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life.  Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997.  President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office.  protection In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly.  The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion  the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket.  The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States. budget For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. article Last updated:  2 October 2004    Sources:   Burger, Timothy and Kenneth Bazinet.  "Hil and Bill Buy 3M Home, Sweet Home in Capital."   [New York] Daily News.  30 December 2000  (p. 6).     DeFrank, Thomas.  "1st Family's N.Y. Bunker."    Fuchs, Marek.  "First Family's Arrival Changes the Focus of Secret Service Office."   The New York Times.  29 October 2000  (Weekend Calendar; p. 5).     Grove, Lloyd.  "The Reliable Source."   The Washington Post.  12 January 2001  (p. C3). For months, President Donald Trump has been touting the benefits of the tax law he signed in December. But in early June, he began expanding his argument beyond lower tax bills to lower energy bills. On June 7, Trumptweeted, $3 billion payoff: 101 utilities cut rates, credit GOP tax cuts. The tweet linked to aWashington Examiner articlethat in turn citedresearch by Americans for Tax Reform, a group supportive of the tax cut. $3 billion payoff: 101 utilities cut rates, credit GOP tax cutshttps://t.co/x1a1OJuRgd This isnt the first time the White House has relied on Americans for Tax Reform for evidence of real-world impacts from passage of the tax bill. Previously, we looked at Trumps statement that since we passed tax cuts, over 3 million workers have gotten tax cut bonuses  many of them thousands and thousands of dollars. That talking point,gleaned from the groups research, ratedMostly True. The energy rate-cut list  which is a sub-list of the broader one we checked previously  attracted the White Houses attention not long after it hit its 100th item. For the utilities on the group's list that provided an estimate of savings per customer, most said rate-payers would save about $1 to $4 on their bill per month. Americans for Tax Reform cited a large number of company news releases and news articles, so we dont quarrel with the number (which had already grown to 102 a day later). That said, we will provide some additional information that helps put the list in fuller context. It shouldnt be surprising to see a lot of investor-owned utilities lowering rates after the corporate tax reduction. And it also shouldnt be surprising that the companies specifically cited the tax changes as the reason for the rate cut. In most cases, experts said, utilities would have been required to do so by their regulators. The tax law has an impact on privately owned utilities  often called investor-owned utilities, or IOUs for short  but not on public utilities. Investor-owned utilities pay corporate taxes, so the tax laws lowering of the top corporate rate from 35 percent to 21 percent should save this type of utility a substantial amount of money. By contrast, publicly held utilities do not pay corporate taxes, so they are unaffected by this provision of the tax bill. Public utilitiesincluderural electric cooperatives, municipally owned utilities, and federal or state power authorities. Among electricity utilities, about two-thirds of Americans are served by investor-owned utilities, while about a third receive their power from public utilities. For water utilities, a few of which appear on the group's list, public utilities are dominant. So while 101 utilities cutting their rates may seem like a large number, your ability to benefit from a rate cut depends on which utilities happen to serve your area. Its also worth pointing out that many of these rate cuts were preordained by existing energy regulations. Utilities are natural monopolies, and because of that, theyve been regulated for well over 100 years, said Manny Teodoro, a political scientist at Texas A&M University who has studied energy issues. Its a recognition that a pure monopoly will result in a lack of competition and abusive pricing. For that reason, under longstanding regulations, utilities need to go back to energy regulatory bodies whenever they seek to modify their rates, in order to provide reasons for the change. And if a utility happens to benefit from a tax change, theres a good chance it will be required under existing regulations to lower their rates to account for that. Rates are set by public utility commissions through rate-making processes that would clearly identify the reasons for the rate change, up or down, said Billy Pizer, a Duke University public policy professor who studies energy. This doesnt undercut the larger point of the tally, but it does suggest that the rate cuts required two elements to materialize  the tax cut, which Trump touted, and the longstanding regulations that require companies to share the tax gains with ratepayers rather than just with shareholders. And the latter is an aspect Trump didnt get into. Trump tweeted, 101 utilities cut rates, credit GOP tax cuts. The list comes from a organization that strongly supported the tax bill. The tally of rate cuts is well-documented, and the group acknowledges that it is not comprehensive. That said, its worth noting that public utility customers will not see the same types of rate cuts cited in the list, which is about one-third of Americans. Trumps tweet seeks full credit for the tax law, while glossing over the role of energy regulations that mandate that utility savings be passed along to customers. We rate the statement Mostly True. In mid-October 2018, singer-songwriter Michael Bubl defused speculation generated by a newspaper interview that he would be bringing his career to a close. Bubl took a two-year hiatus from recording in the wake of his firstborn son Noah's October 2016 cancer diagnosis.  During an interview published in the Daily Mail's weekend magazine on 13 October 2018 that touched on the end of that hiatus, Bubl explained his reasons for recording his forthcoming new album in the wake of his son's battle with cancer -- and seemingly announced his retirement from the music world in a story hyperbolically headlined ""Michael Bubl QUITS Music Following Heartache Over Son Noah's 'Life-Changing' Cancer Battle as He Reveals He Is Done with Fame in Final Interview": published "One, because I felt a debt of gratitude, deeper than I can explain, to the millions of people all over the world who prayed for us and showed us compassion. That gave me faith in humanity.  "Two, because I love music and feel I can continue the legacy of my idols. And three, because if the world was ending -- not just my own personal hell but watching the political turmoil in America and watching Europe break up -- theres never a better time for music." Then suddenly he stops. "This is my last interview," he says quite solemnly. "I'm retiring from the business. I've made the perfect record and now I can leave at the very top." But a few days later a spokesperson for Bubl told NBC's Today Show that "He is NOT retiring. Definitely not." told Perhaps Bubl's comments about having given his "last interview" and "retiring from the business" were meant to be tongue-in-cheek in a way that was misunderstood or didn't come across in print, as Today suggested: Given Bubl's sense of humor, we detect a little sarcasm in his self-praise and retirement talk. At least that's the theory TODAY's Savannah Guthrie is subscribing to. "You know, he's a pretty funny guy," she said when the topic came up on the show. "Maybe he just saying (his new album) is so good, I retire!" The Canadian singer and songwriter himself also dismissed the Mail's report during a subsequent interview: dismissed After stepping back into the spotlight following a 2-year hiatus, it seemed like a strange time for Bubl to announce his departure. Fortunately, his rep calmed fans' fears, telling E! News in a statement that plans of his retirement are "not true at all." As further reassurance, the 43-year-old father of three put the speculation to rest in a new interview with SiriusXM's Fantasy Sports Radio. "Just consider the source -- that's all I say to people," he told co-hosts Mike Dempsey and Bob Harris. "My buddies wrote me. I said, 'Look at who said it.' C'mon, are you kidding me? I need the money. I'm not going anywhere." Bubl's new album, Love, is scheduled to be released on 16 November 2018.  Storey, Katie.  "Michael Bubl QUITS Music Following Heartache Over Son Noah's 'Life-Changing' Cancer Battle as He Reveals He Is Done with Fame in Final Interview."
  Daily Mail.  13 October 2018. Hines, Ree.  "Michael Bubl Is 'Definitely Not' Retiring Following Son's Cancer Battle."
  The Today Show.  15 October 2018. Hautman, Nicholas.  "Michael Buble Laughs Off Retirement Rumors: 'I Need the Money.'"
  US Magazine.   16 October 2018. Schnurr, Samantha.  "Michael Bubl Laughs Off Retirement Rumors: 'Consider the Source.'"
  E! News.   16 October 2018. Amid national debates about income inequality and tax cuts for the ultra-rich, one talking point is frequently highlighted in online memes and by political figures such as Bernie Sanders is that online retailing giant Amazon.com, despite taking in $5.6 billion in profit in 2017, paid no federal corporate income taxes for that year: Bernie Sanders   (With respect to the claim about Amazon employees on welfare, see our fact check on that topic here.) here In regards to U.S. federal income taxes, the claim that Amazon paid none in 2017 is almost certainly factual. While Amazons tax filings are not public, their SEC filing for the year 2017 illustrates that the company used the tax code expertly (and legally) to their advantage, so well that the company anticipated a $137 million tax refund from the federal government (numbers are in millions of dollars): SEC filing   Amazon did pay taxes to individual U.S. states ($211 million) and to international jurisdictions ($724 million), but their federal income tax burden was (less than) zero. The filings indicate that two factors provided the lion share of Amazons reduced federal tax liability: $220 million worth of tax credits, and $917 million in tax-deductible executive pay derived from the sale of stocks:   The third negative item in the SEC filing, $789 million in reduced tax burden as a result of the 2017 Tax Act, will be applied to future tax years, according to a report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. report SEC filings do not require a company to list the specific credits they utilize, but there are several avenues Amazon would likely have pursued. Annette Nellen, a professor and director of the Master of Science in Taxation program at San Jose University, said that Amazons write-offs likely include credits for research and development, domestic production, and equipment depreciation. And according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute, Amazon receives myriad tax incentives from state and local governments as well: said report The expansion of Amazons physical distribution network has coincided with a strategic business plan of negotiating millions in tax abatements, credits, exemptions, and infrastructure assistance from state and local governments in the name of regional economic development. By the end of 2016, Amazon had likely received over $1 billion in state and local subsidies for its facilities, which would include not only fulfillment centers but sortation centers that only sort packages, mailing centers, and other facilities. Publicly-traded corporations can list the stock options they grant to employees as a business cost in their accounting, and if an option-receiving employee makes over $1 million a year in salary, the profits from the sale of those stocks can be then counted as a federal income tax deduction for the corporation (primarily due to a Clinton-era compromise over how to cap executive pay). Stock options allow an employee to purchase stock in their employers company at a set price, regardless of its current market value: list Options give executives and investors the right to buy shares of a company at a later date and at specific prices. For example, if a chief executive joins a media company when its stock is trading at $55 a share, but years later, the share price has skyrocketed to $100, that chief executive can still buy the shares at $55, pocketing the massive difference. In the cases of their highest paid employees, Amazon and other companies are able to deduct the massive difference employees make when they sell that stock at a profit. According to the Center for Tax Justice, because companies typically low-ball the estimated values, they usually end up with much bigger tax write-offs than the amounts they deduct as a 'cost' in computing the profits they report to shareholders. The $917 million in stock-based compensation listed in Amazon's SEC filing likely stems from their top employees' cashing in on their stock options for a large profit. deduct While it is impossible to know the exact amount of money Amazon did or did not pay to the federal government in 2017, their own accounting suggests that they expected their federal corporate income tax burden to be negative that year.  U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  Amazon.com Inc. Form 10-K"
  2 February 2018.
 Gardner, Mathew.  "Amazon Inc. Paid Zero in Federal Taxes in 2017, Gets $789 Million Windfall from New Tax Law."
  Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.  13 February 2018.
 Tobias, Manuela.  "Bernie Sanders Says Amazon Paid No Federal Income Tax in 2017. He's Right."
  Politifact.  3 May 2018. 
 Jones, Janell and Ben Zipperer.  "Unfulfilled Promises."
  Economic Policy Institute.  1 February 2018. 
 Gunjan, Banerji.  "Potential Loser in Tax Overhaul: Executive Stock Options."
  The Wall Street Journal.  19 December 2017.
 Citizens for Tax Justice.  Fortune 500 Corporations Used Stock Option Loophole to Avoid $64.6 Billion in Taxes Over the Past Five Years."
  9 June 2016. Claim:  Photograph shows golfer Tiger Woods' new yacht. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Not many people know that Tiger Woods owns a yacht. Ever since the golfer Greg Norman got his big yacht, people around the world have marvelled at how big it is. Well, Tiger Woods earned a lot more money playing golf than Greg Norman, and he invested it in all the right places so he too could have a yacht.  Recently, Tiger withdrew some of his money and bought a yacht. He had it decked out to his specifications, with all the things he wanted on a yacht. He secretly did all of this until the yacht was ready to set sail.  A photographer on assignment to photograph sea turtles in the ocean happened upon the yacht during its initial shakedown cruise, and got the very first photo of Tiger Woods' yacht. This is Tiger's new yacht.    Origins:   The above-displayed picture of golfer "Tiger Woods' new yacht" is easily dismissable not just as a fake, but as a two-step manipulation: First the photograph of the aircraft carrier was layered with a lawn, golf hole, and clubhouse, then someone expanded on the joke by adding the golfer figure and the name "Tiger" across the bow:  The interesting aspect lies not in the analysis of the image, but in why so many readers considered it plausible enough to forward to us for verification. Certainly one element at work here is that Tiger Woods' golfing prowess (in combination with his youth and good looks) has made him not only one of the most recognizable celebrities in the U.S. (and many other parts of the world), but also one of the highest-earning sports figures of his  time.  (In 2006, Forbes listed Tiger at #5 on its "Top 100 Celebrities" power rankings, estimating his income from tournament winnings and endorsements at $90 million.)   Forbes The linkster also enhanced his reputation for big spending and extravagance in 2006 when he shelled out a reported $38 million to purchase a 10-acre waterfront estate in Jupiter Island, Florida.  (Perhaps not coincidentally, it was right around then that photographs of an opulent Hawaiian beachfront rental estate began circulating via e-mail mistakenly identified as pictures of "Tiger Woods' house.") estate photographs Finally, many people who inquired about this image probably recalled Woods' name being associated with a big, expensive yacht, as Tiger plunked down a reported $20 million in 2004 to purchase a 155-foot craft.  (Several news outlets also reported the somewhat amusing coincidence that Woods, who named his yacht Privacy, filed a privacy-rights lawsuit against the yacht's builders, claiming they used his name and image in promotional materials without authorization. The suit was settled in Woods' favor for a reported $1.6 million.) 155-foot lawsuit So, although we can say that Tiger Woods does not own a floating golf course the size of an aircraft carrier, we might just have to qualify that statement with the word "yet" ... Last updated:   24 April 2007    Sources:   Samples, Eve.  "Woods Pays Record $38M for Jupiter Island Property."   The Palm Beach Post.  26 January 2006.    Agence France-Presse.  "Tiger Woods Buys $40 Million Estate."   International Herald Tribune.  10 January 2006.    Associated Press.  "'Privacy' for Tiger: Woods Settles Yacht Suit."   MSNBC.com.  8 May 2006. A photograph supposedly showing the gravestone of a woman named Kate McCormick, who passed away in the 1870s from a fatally botched abortion, has been circulating online for several years. In May 2019, the Facebook page "American News X" revived interest in the image: American News X   This is a genuine photograph of a tombstone marking the grave of a woman who passed away in the 1870s after claiming she took abortion-inducing drugs, and we were able to corroborate many of the details of the inscription via contemporaneous news reports. Our one caveat with this Facebook post is the stated date for when the tombstone was erected. While McCormick passed away in the 1870s, it wasn't until more than a century after her death, in 1997, that an anonymous donor placed the pictured gravestone on her final resting place. gravestone The Story of Kate Simpson (AKA Kate McCormick) McCormick's story can be gleaned from various articles published by newspapers in Tennessee in 1876 concerning an inquiry into her death, the death of her child, and the doctor who was charged with (and ultimately acquitted of) providing her with abortion-inducing drugs. While these reports contained a fair amount of detail such as eyewitness testimonies, a few facts of the case are still a bit unclear. We have done our best to piece together the events that led to McCormick's death, the trial of the man who reportedly killed her, and the circumstances of her burial below. Katie's story starts in Humboldt, Tenn., where she was seduced and impregnated by a shoemaker named George Burgess. After becoming pregnant, Burgess sent McCormick to Memphis to have the child with the promise that he would soon follow to marry her. But Burgess never followed. In late January 1876, a stillborn child was discovered at what news accounts referred to as "Mrs. Widrig's boarding house." Police arrived and found that the child's mother, Kate Simpson (alias Kate McCormick), was also deathly ill. She passed away the following day: Katie McCormick Page 1 Wed, Feb 2, 1876  Page 3  Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee)  Newspapers.com Katie McCormick Page 1 Wed, Feb 2, 1876  Page 3  Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee)  Newspapers.com The Trial of Dr. D.S. Johnson Dr. D.S. Johnson was arrested and indicted on three charges related to the death of McCormick and her child. The Memphis Public Ledger described the charges against Johnson in a 9 February 1876 article, stating that the doctor was indicted for administrating "large quantities of deadly, dangerous, unwholesome, deleterious and penicious pills, herbs, drugs, potions, teas, liquids powders and mixtures" with the intent of causing an abortion, for causing said abortion, and for "feloniously, willfully, deliberately, premeditated and with malice aforethought kill[ing] and murder[ing] the said Kate McCormick." Public Ledger A number of witnesses who were with McCormick in her final days provided testimony to authorities. Widrig, the woman who ran the boarding house where the bodies were discovered, told authorities that McCormick had paid Dr. Johnson $25 to terminate her pregnancy. A woman named Mollie Brown provided similar testimony: testimony Mrs. Widrig was sworn and stated that the girl came to her house some time before Christmas, but only stayed one night that she came back three weeks ago, and on Saturday night, or, rather, Sunday morning, she was delivered of a dead child; that Dr. Johnson had been attending her; that her suspicions were aroused and she asked Katie to tell her the whole truth; on Sunday Dr. Frayser had been sent to see Katie by Chief Athy and told her that the girl would die; this she told to Katie, who seemed much affected and made a confession; she said: "Mrs. Widrig, I think my time is short," and then she added: "Dr. Johnson gave the medicine to destroy my child; tell Dr. Johnson that I promised not to deceive him or tell any person but the time has come when I can keep the secret no longer; I paid Dr. Johnson twenty-five dollars for the medicine; he gave me the medicine some three weeks ago, and said if it did not do its work in six days it would be a failure; I took the medicine from Dr. Johnson to kill my child and paid him twenty-five dollars for it." Mollie Brown sworn: Katie told me last night that Dr. Johnson sent her medicine by express; she said to me she was satisfied she was going to die, and that Dr. Johnson was the cause of it.  Wed, Feb 2, 1876  Page 3  Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee)  Newspapers.com  Wed, Feb 2, 1876  Page 3  Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee)  Newspapers.com Dr. Johnson's version of events differed. Johnson, as well as two other doctors who visited McCormick before her death, testified that McCormick had been treated only for diarrhea: Dr. Marable testified as follows: On Sunday morning was called by Dr. Johnson to make a call; he told me about the case, and said he had prescribed for diarrhea; the treatment was correct as stated by Dr. Johnson; he said that he had discovered that she had a baby last night, but that she was in danger of dying from the afterbirth; I attended to her immediately, and gave her the necessary remedies to stop the flooding, and the remedies resulted successfully; the girl appeared very weak; Dr. Johnson and I went to see Chief Athy at once with reference to the dead child, and at my instigation Dr. Johnson called upon coroner Spelman to hold an inquest on the dead infant, which inquest was held on Sunday; I advised Dr. Johnson as to the necessary treatment to place the girl under with a view to her recovery; the girl had diarrhea and I prescribed with Dr. Johnson for its treatment; the girl was nervous and troubled in mind; she said she was out of money and had no friends; trouble of mind and excitement very often cause abortions or miscarriages, and the greatest trouble physicians have in such cases is to keep the patients quiet; I think flooding and mental anxiety was the cause of her death. Johnson testified as follows: Three weeks ago I first saw the deceased; she came to my office and told her story, and wanted to hide her disgrace; I advised her not to commit abortion as it was against the law; I called to see her at Mrs. Widrig's boardinghouse and prescribed for diarrhea; on Sunday morning I called and found that she had a miscarriage; I then called on Dr. Marable; the prescription given her by me was ascitate of lead and morphine; the girl seemed troubled and said she would sooner die than live; she said this both before and after the abortion had taken place. Johnson was eventually acquitted of the charges against him. acquitted The Burial of Kate McCormick The story of McCormick did not end with her death. While McCormick's mother traveled to Memphis after learning of her daughter's death, she left the city without making arrangements for burial. Similarly, Burgess, the man who reportedly impregnated McCormick, didn't undertake a visit to view the body. A particularly depressing passage published by the Public Ledger on 4 February 1876 (which contains some racial language common to the era) noted that McCormick's body was stored in a "pauper's coffin" in a stable that served as a morgue for the impoverished in Shelby County:  Fri, Feb 4, 1876  Page 3  Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee)  Newspapers.com  Fri, Feb 4, 1876  Page 3  Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee)  Newspapers.com The reporter who found McCormick's body sought to remedy the situation by obtaining the help of a Capt. George W. Miller of the Cut Off Saloon. Miller agreed to finance a proper burial, and McCormick's body was taken to Elmwood Cemetery:  Fri, Feb 4, 1876  Page 3  Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee)  Newspapers.com  Fri, Feb 4, 1876  Page 3  Public Ledger (Memphis, Tennessee)  Newspapers.com McCormick was interred at Elmwood Cemetery sometime in 1876, but the gravestone shown above was not originally present at her final resting place. This tombstone was erected in 1997 and was paid for by an anonymous person who was apparently moved by McCormick's sad tale. 1997 The inscription on the stone reads: "Kate McCormick Seduced and pregnant by her father's friend, unwed, she died from abortion, her only choice. Abandoned in life and death by family. With but a single rose from her mother. Buried only through the kindness of unknown benefactors. Died Feb. 1875 age 21. Victim of an unforgiving society, Have mercy on us." FindAGrave.Com.  "Kate Simpson McCormick."
  Retrieved 20 May 2019. Dead Memphis Talking..  "Abortion or What? The Sad Story of Scandal and Shame of Katie McCormick, 1876."
  4 February 2015. [Memphis] Public Ledger.  "Where the Dead Body of Katie McCormic Lay in State for Twenty-Four Hours."
  4 February 1876. [Memphis] Public Ledger.  "Abortion or What? Dr. D.S. Johnson Arrested on the Charge of Producing an Abortion, Resulting in the Death of the Mother and Child."
  2 February 1876. Memphis Daily Appeal.  "A Lesson of Lust: The Victom of a Seducer Becomes in Turn the Victim of an Abortionist, And Goes Down to an Early Grave."
  3 February 1876. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Inauguration Day, Kamala Harris made history several times over. In being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021, the outgoing California senator became the first Black person, first woman, and first person of South Asian heritage to be elevated to the vice presidency.  Inauguration Day The historic nature of her achievement was placed in stark context in a viral meme that showed Harris, whose parents immigrated to the United States from India and Jamaica, respectively, juxtaposed with a long list of official portraits of white men. (Charles Curtis, who served with Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933, had some Native American heritage and was therefore the first person of color to hold the office of vice president). Charles Curtis The meme also highlighted several purported landmarks in the slow progress of women's rights and racial desegregation in the United States, as follows: Dont understand why its a big deal that Kamala Harris is VP? Until Red box? She would have been enslaved. Until Blue box? She couldnt vote. Until Yellow box? She had to attend a segregated school. Until Green one? She couldnt have her own bank account.   The following screenshot shows a selection of instances of the meme on Facebook and demonstrates its popularity on social media in January 2021: popularity   The vice presidents highlighted in various colors were as follows (along with the dates of their tenure as vice president): Red: Andrew Johnson, March 4 to April 15,1865 Andrew Johnson Blue: Calvin Coolidge, March 4, 1921, to Aug. 3, 1923 Calvin Coolidge Yellow: Richard Nixon, Jan. 20, 1953, to Jan. 20, 1961 Richard Nixon Green: Spiro Agnew, Jan. 20, 1969, to Oct. 10, 1973 Spiro Agnew The claims made in the meme were therefore that: until Johnson's tenure as vice president (in 1865), Harris would have been enslaved due to her racial heritage; until Coolidge's tenure as vice president (1921 to 1923), she would have been denied the right to vote due to her gender; until Nixon's tenure as vice president (1953 to 1961), she would have been forced to attend a segregated school due to her racial heritage; and until Agnew's tenure as vice president (1969 to 1973), she would have been denied the right to her own bank account, due to her status as a married woman.  On the whole, the claims contained a high degree of historical accuracy, though in some cases they over-simplified certain discriminatory practices and made some relatively minor errors in identifying the vice president in office during certain major reforms. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The following is our assessment of each of those claims.   The creator of the meme appears to have chosen the year 1865, and therefore the tenure of Johnson, because that is the year in which the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was passed. The text of the amendment reads as follows:  text Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress passed the amendment in January 1865, while Johnson was vice president-elect to President-elect Abraham Lincoln, but it was not ratified by the states until December 1865, by which time Johnson had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, leaving the vice presidency vacant for the duration of his presidency. So the sequence of events is a bit muddled, but it is certainly reasonable to place the 13th Amendment, and the abolition of slavery, during the Johnson era.  Until the passing of the 13th Amendment, Black people in the United States lacked legal protection against enslavement. That doesn't mean that all Black people before 1865 were slaves, but the vast majority were. Based on figures included in the 1860 U.S. Census (page 14), some 89% of Black people in the country at that time were slaves. page 14 Slavery was far more prevalent in the southern states, but on average, a Black woman in the U.S. shortly before the 13th Amendment had close to a 90% likelihood of being enslaved. From a human rights perspective, Black people had no legal or constitutional protection from slavery, which is likely the thrust of the point made in the meme.   The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was passed by Congress in June 1919 and ratified by the states in August 1920. The text of the amendment read: text The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. On both those dates, Thomas Riley Marshall was vice president, under President Woodrow Wilson. So the meme was incorrect in stating that women could not vote until the vice presidency of Calvin Coolidge. In fact, women voted for the first time in the November 1920 election, which saw Warren Harding and his running mate Coolidge elected president and vice president, respectively.  Thomas Riley Marshall That inaccuracy does not impinge upon the truth of the broader point being made in the meme, namely that Harris, as a woman, would not have been able to vote in the United States until the early 1920s. However, the meme does miss an important additional barrier to voting rights that Harris, as a Black woman, could have faced even after the passage of the 19th Amendment.  While the 15th Amendment in principle gave Black men the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment gave all women the right to vote, states continued to discriminate against Black voters by imposing obstacles such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and "grandfather clauses"  all of which were designed to suppress Black voters. 15th Amendment obstacles It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that such practices were prohibited by federal law, although many activists argue that present-day voter-ID rules continue the legacy of electoral restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on voters of color. Voting Rights Act argue   The creator of the meme appears to have selected the vice presidency of Nixon (1953 to 1961) because that was the period during which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education. In a follow-up ruling in 1955, the court ordered school districts to arrange for the desegregation of public schools "with all deliberate speed."  declared follow-up ruling Most, though not all, schools were racially segregated in the 19th and early-20th centuries in the United States. So a Black student, such as Harris, would very likely have been forced to "attend a segregated school," as the meme claims. Brown vs. the Board of Education marked the beginning of the end of school segregation, but it did not bring about integration overnight. Over the course of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, state lawmakers and local authorities fought protracted and often bitter battles to resist the Supreme Court's clear mandate. battles So while the meme was right to point out that Black students would be very likely forced to attend segregated schools before the decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education, it's also the case that many Black students were forced to attend segregated schools for many years after the ruling, as well. What changed in 1954 was that the nation's highest court clearly declared that system of racial segregation to be unconstitutional.   The meme appears to refer to the enactment of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in the early 1970s, which made it illegal for financial services companies to discriminate against customers on the basis of anything other than their creditworthiness. The legislation stated that: stated It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction(1) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract)... However, the law wasn't enacted until October 1974, when the office of vice president was vacant. Spiro Agnew resigned in late 1973, after he was charged with bribery and tax fraud, and his replacement, Gerald Ford, ascended to the presidency in August 1974, after Nixon resigned. So the meme is again mistaken on the precise sequence of events. While Agnew was vice president, banks could (and did) legally deny credit to a woman on the basis of extraneous considerations such as her marital status, her husband's income and credit history, and so on. and did The meme also somewhat overstated the restrictions in place before 1974. Women, including married women, could open their own bank accounts before the ECOA was passed, but often faced difficulty and discrimination in doing so. It was particularly difficult for women to obtain a line of credit or a credit card, in her own name. In 1972, the National Commission on Consumer Finance published a report that found the following common discriminatory practices in lending: report What the ECOA changed in 1974, and what the meme appears to allude to, is that banks and lenders could no longer legally engage in such discriminatory practices. In late November 2023, Facebook users shared variations of a viral warning about a relatively new iPhone feature called NameDrop, also known as "Bringing Devices Together." The posts hinted that NameDrop, dubbed by Apple as "a new AirDrop experience," was dangerous, and said that users needed to take action to protect their privacy and security. Multiple U.S. police department Facebook pages also shared the warnings, which perhaps was one of the reasons that we received so many reader emails about this rumor. U.S. police department Facebook pages We reviewed multiple versions of the same warning about NameDrop on iPhone devices. One such warning read as follows: warning IMPORTANT PRIVACY UPDATE: If you have an iPhone and have done the recent iOS 17 update, they have set a new feature called NameDrop defaulted to ON. This feature allows the sharing of your contact info just by bringing your phones close together. While you do need to accept the transfer, if you would prefer to shut this off go to: Settings, General, AirDrop, Bringing Devices Together. Change to OFF. PARENTS: You may consider changing these settings after the update on your childrens phones, also, to help keep them safe as well! Despite the virality of these warnings, here's the truth: These posts are based on a misunderstanding of how the NameDrop feature works with an iPhone, just like so many other technological scares that in past years were also virally shared on Facebook. Barring the possibility of any future security holes being uncovered by users, the NameDrop feature was designed with multiple layers of protection. NameDrop is a feature that allows two users to hold their iPhone devices very close to each other in order to share a phone number or email address. This also works with an iPhone and an Apple Watch or two Apple Watches. NameDrop Basically, instead of asking a friend for their contact details or handing your device to a friend to have them input their information, NameDrop allows this exchange of basic data to happen in a much easier, yet still secure, manner. The feature was first included in the software update known as iOS 17. It released in September 2023 after being announced in June. iOS 17 announced  Apple says that, for NameDrop to work, users' devices must be "within a few centimeters" of each other to initiate the first step of the process. Also, both users must be signed into iCloud. Users can then select if they want to share their phone number or email address and must tap a "Share" button to complete the exchange of one of the two pieces of basic contact data. To be clear, no contact information is automatically shared when two devices are brought together without a user taking action. Further, NameDrop does not work unless the devices are already unlocked. Think of the following scenario: You sit down in a cozy coffee shop with your phone in your purse or on the table. Another customer is sitting several tables away. That other customer isn't going to be able to initiate the NameDrop feature on your phone because the devices are further apart than the "within a few centimeters" of proximity specified by Apple. Even if that other customer walks by and bumps into the purse or your phone on the table, if your phone is locked with a passcode or other security feature, they couldn't even begin initiating the NameDrop feature. Further, even if your phone is unlocked, you would still have to tap some buttons in order for the person to receive your contact details. In other words, there are multiple layers of security that were implemented for the NameDrop feature that are meant to protect users. The only way a person could misuse the NameDrop feature on your phone is if they take your unlocked phone away from you without your permission and initiate the sharing of contact information. However, this does not make the NameDrop feature unsafe. It simply means that you need to not allow strangers to take your unlocked phone away from you. All of the data we've detailed above led us to our rating of False, meaning that, as the authoritative tech blog Wired.com put it in the headline of their article, "No, You Dont Need to Turn Off Apples NameDrop Feature in iOS 17." article If users, including parents, still wish to turn off the NameDrop feature, simply navigate on an iPhone to "Settings," "General" and then "AirDrop." To disable NameDrop, toggle the "Bringing Devices Together" feature to off. This screenshot shows NameDrop ("Bringing Devices Together") enabled. Parents can learn more about parental controls for Apple devices on the company's website. website Apple Announces Powerful New Privacy and Security Features. Apple Newsroom, 5 June 2023, https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/06/apple-announces-powerful-new-privacy-and-security-features/. Combs, Mary-Elisabeth. Heres Everything to Know About NameDrop on iPhone. CNET, 31 Oct. 2023, https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/heres-everything-to-know-about-namedrop-on-iphone/. Hardwick, Tim. iOS 17: How to Share Contact Details With NameDrop. MacRumors, 14 Sept. 2023, https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/ios-share-contact-details-with-namedrop/. iOS 17. Apple, https://www.apple.com/ios/ios-17/. Rogers, Reece. No, You Dont Need to Turn Off Apples NameDrop Feature in iOS 17. Wired, 27 Nov. 2023,https://www.wired.com/story/apple-iphone-namedrop-ios17/. Use NameDrop on iPhone to Share Your Contact Info. Apple Support, https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/namedrop-iphone-share-contact-info-iph1b6c664b7/ios.