Does This Satellite Pic Show Diwali Celebration From Space?
In November 2021, a photograph from space supposedly showing Diwali  a "festival of lights" that is celebrated by millions of Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, and Buddhists across India  was circulated on social media.    The image on the right does not show how India looks from space during Diwali.  According to NASA, this image was created by combining a series of images over multiple years in an attempt to show population growth. NASA writes: image was created writes An image that claims to show the region lit for Diwali has been circulating on social media websites and the Internet in recent years. In fact, it does not show what it claims. That image, based on data from the Operational Linescan System flown on U.S. Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites, is a color-composite created in 2003 by NOAA scientist Chris Elvidge to highlight population growth over time. In that image, white areas show city lights that were visible prior to 1992, while blue, green, and red shades indicate city lights that became visible in 1992, 1998, and 2003 respectively. NASA adds that while Diwali is certainly a thing to behold when standing on the surface of earth, the light produced during the festival of lights isn't enough to be visible from space with normal satellite imagery.  In reality, any extra light produced during Diwali is so subtle that it is likely imperceptible when observed from space. However, infrared cameras can detect the light produced during Diwali. In 2012, NASA's Suomi NPP satellite took an infrared image of South Asia during Diwali. The NASA History Office re-shared this image in 2021 in celebration of the holiday:  Fake Image of Diwali Still Circulating | Earth | EarthSky. 6 Nov. 2018, https://earthsky.org/earth/fake-image-of-india-during-diwali-versus-the-real-thing/. NGDC/STP - Defense Meteorological Satellite Progam, Boulder. 28 Feb. 2006, https://web.archive.org/web/20060228074509/https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dmsp/interest/india.html. Seen the Viral NASA Diwali Photo Again This Year? Heres All You Need to Know about It. DNA India, 5 Nov. 2021, https://www.dnaindia.com/viral/report-seen-the-viral-nasa-diwali-photo-again-this-year-here-s-all-you-need-to-know-about-it-2918456. South Asian Night Lights. 15 Nov. 2012, https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/79682/south-asian-night-lights.
In an advertisement urging lawmakers to fund public education, the Texas Association of School Boards bullets a half dozen claims about the states public schools ranging from current student enrollment to a reminder that legislators cut education aid in 2011.One claim in the ad, whichappears onlineand also filled a page in the April 24, 2013,Austin American-Statesman, was especially familiar--and flawed.Now Texas ranks 49th in per-pupil funding among the states, the ad said when we looked.A few days earlier, werated as Mostly Truea similar claim by state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, who like the school boards group depended on preliminary spending estimates calculated by the National Education Association, the nations largest teachers union. In February 2012, the association said that Texas schools are spending $8,400 per student this year on items such as salaries for school personnel, student transportation, school books and energy. Its breakdown suggests Texas per-student expenditures trailed such spending in every state but two.Those calculations place Texas 48th among the states in per-student spending.And how might someone conclude, like the school boards association, that Texas ranks 49th? The compiled figures, shown on Summary Table K in the associations report, downloadablehere, reflect spending within each state plus schools in the District of Columbia, which has current estimated expenditures of more than $14,000 per student. Consequently, the Texas spending level falls 49th among the 50 states plus D.C. By phone, Catherine Clark, associate executive director of the school boards association, confirmed that the group relied on the NEA calculations in declaring Texas as 49th in education spending among the states. If spending in the D.C. schools figures into that conclusion, Clark said, then were wrong.Our rulingThe group said Texas ranks 49th in per-pupil funding among the states.Texas ranks 48th among the states, according to preliminary figures, and 49th only if one also considers spending in the schools in Washington, D.C., which is not a state.This claim is close to accurate, but without the D.C. clarification, it rates as Mostly True. In late 2019, concerned readers asked us about a series of widely shared Facebook posts that claimed to include photographic evidence of a new tactic being employed by sex traffickers in the state of Florida, and in the city of Tampa, in particular.  The earliest example of the post that we found was published on Nov. 19. It included three photographs that appeared to show a road at night, with a car pulled over and a person lying on his or her back in the middle of the road. The message read: read "This Shit Happened To My Lil Brother Last Night In Tampa, Sex Trafficking Is Real, These People Lay In The Middle Of The Road And Act Like Their Car Broke Down Or Play Hurt For You To Stop. When U Get Out The Car They Attack. If Yall See Anything Like This, Dont Hesitate To Run Their Ass Over. If U Scared Then Try Your Best To Go Around, But Whatever You Do, Dont Get Out Of Your Car, Lock Your Doors And Keep It Moving....!!!!!!!!!!!"   Over the course of the following days and weeks, the same or similar messages, using the same photographs, were shared hundreds of thousands of times. In some cases, the "lying in the road" method was identified as a sex trafficking ruse specific to Tampa, and in other cases specific to the state of Florida. In still other instances, no geographic marker was provided, giving many readers the impression that sex traffickers all across the United States were using the same ruse. In each case, the Facebook post claimed that the photographs were merely one illustration of a broader trend of incidents, and that the purported "lying-in-the-road" ruse was a prevalent sex trafficking tactic.  some cases Tampa Florida still other In reality, we found no evidence to support or corroborate the claim that a pattern of incidents existed, in Tampa, in Florida, or anywhere in the United States, in which sex traffickers attempted to kidnap unsuspecting motorists by tricking them into stopping their cars by lying in the middle of the road. Nor did we find any evidence that the photographs included in the November and December 2019 Facebook posts showed a specific incident of attempted sex trafficking.  A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (akin to the "state police" found in other states) told Snopes that the agency "has not heard of this tactic in Tampa or elsewhere." A spokesperson for the Tampa Police Department told Snopes much the same and emphasized that "No such incident took place in Tampa." The spokesperson added, "We have not heard of this method or tactic being used in our jurisdiction." A spokesperson for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office (the county where Tampa is located) also told Snopes: "No reports have been filed related to this incident or matching what is described in the post, so we can not confirm if it is related to human trafficking or if it is even real." Laura Palumbo, communications director for the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, told Snopes in a statement that: "Our organization is not aware of any reports of human trafficking similar to the one described in these viral social media posts ... Although it may be possible that in isolated incidents human trafficking attempts like this have occurred in the past, it is unlikely that this is a common trend." Both Theresa Prichard, associate director of the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, and Kathleen Kempe, senior director of the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay, also told Snopes they had never heard of any such sex trafficking tactic.  It's not clear what the origins of the photographs were. We put a series of questions to the Cornelius King Facebook account above where the trafficking post originated, requesting to speak to his brother, who according to the post was a firsthand witness to the alleged incident shown in the photographs. We asked whether he, his brother, or anyone else had reported the alleged incident to any law enforcement agency, the exact time and location of the incident, and we requested any evidence that might corroborate the claim that the alleged incident was connected to sex trafficking. We received no response.  It's also unclear whether the photographs were authentic or staged, perhaps as part of a stunt, prank, advertisement, or film of some kind. If they were authentic, it's not clear what the motives or state of mind were of the person shown lying in the road. The photographs themselves do not contain any elements or features whose presence indicates a connection to sex trafficking, in particular, as opposed to several other explanations. Since we have not yet discovered the origins of, and facts surrounding, the photographs, we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that they show a specific instance of attempted kidnapping or sex trafficking. However, based on the responses provided by several law enforcement agencies and relevant non-profit organizations, we can say that no broader pattern or trend of incidents exists in Tampa, or Florida, or in the United States, whereby motorists are tricked into stopping their cars by a person lying in the middle of the road, as part of a sex trafficking plot.  All of the widely shared Facebook posts cited above claimed that the photographs were an illustration of a broader trend. As a result, we are issuing a rating of In late March 2021, Facebook users shared a copypasta meme promising that Tim Hortons, a Canadian fast food chain, would give away a hamper full of "surprises that will make your heart flutter" and a $60 dollar gift card in commemoration of the company's 57th anniversary. All users had to share the post and comment on it. Here's an example of the post, with the user's name cropped out for privacy:   "Tim Hortons is going to celebrate its 57th anniversary on March 24, 2021, and In order to help our loyal customers every single person who has shared & commented before 5PM Wednesday will be sent one of these hampers containing a $60 gift-card plus surprises that will make your heart flutter!" Tim Hortons does offer occasional promotions on its official Facebook page, but those promotions don't involve prompting customers to share posts or comment on posts. Facebook page The post pictured above isn't a legitimate offer from Tim Hortons. It's a type of scam the Better Business Bureau calls "like farming." The purpose of this type of scam is as follows, according to the BBB: like farming As with many scams, like-farming has several different aims. When scammers ask you to register in order to win something or claim an offer, this is a way to steal your personal information. Other versions can be more complex. Often, the post itself is initially harmless  albeit completely fictional. But when the scammer collects enough likes and shares, they will edit the post and could add something malicious, such as a link to a website that downloads malware to your machine. Other times, once scammers reach their target number of likes, they strip the pages original content and use it to promote spammy products. They may also resell the page on the black market. These buyers can use it to spam followers or harvest the information Facebook provides. Claim:  The Obama administration is proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2010] The Transaction Tax!  WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??President Obama's finance team and Nancy Pelosi are recommending a 1% transaction tax on all financial transactions.The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa.Their plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar.See what Nancy has to say about this wonderful idea!https://tinyurl.com/24dn5udIt's only 1%! This is a 1% tax  on all transactions to or from any financial institution i.e. Banks, Credit  Unions, Mutual funds,  Brokers, etc.Any deposit you make will have a 1% tax charged.Any withdrawal you make, 1% tax.Any transfer within your account, a transfer to or from savings and checking, will have a 1% tax charged.Any ATM transaction, withdrawal or deposit, 1% tax.If your pay check or your Social Security is direct deposited, 1% tax.If you carry a check to your bank to deposit, 1% tax.If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax.If you receive any income from a bond or a dividend from stock, 1% tax.Any Real Estate Transaction, 1% tax.This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax! Remember, he is completely honest and trustworthy.Keep your eyes and ears open.   https://tinyurl.com/24dn5ud Folks, Nancy says this would be a minimal tax on the people, but 1 percent every time you pay a bill or make a deposit is not minimal. This would no doubt tax investment  transactions as well as bank account transactions.This woman is nuts!!!If you know someone in California get this to them!  While at the checkout of Wal-mart in Greeneville, TN I heard that in the future the government may be planning to place a 1% tax on people using debit cards at the check out.  I have heard discussion and seen on emails the fear that the Obama administration is going to pass a 'banking tax' that will take 1% of each deposit and 1% of every transaction out of a bank account. Summary:  The Obama administration has not proposed or recommended placing a 1% tax on all financial transactions.  The idea of the 1% transaction tax stemmed from a bill repeatedly introduced by a single congressman which had no support from any other member of Congress and no chance of passing. Origins:  Some members of Congress have what might be termed "hobby horse" issues: concepts about which they introduce legislation in Congress after Congress although their bills not only never come close to passing, but never even clear committee to be put to  votes in the first place.  The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the "Transform America Transaction Fee" and later referred to as the "Debt Free America Act"). Chaka Fattah Transform America Transaction Fee In 2004 Rep. Fattah presented a bill calling on Congress to fund a study regarding the replacement of the federal tax code with a transaction fee-basedsystem (H.R. 3759), he introduced a similar bill in 2005 (H.R. 1601), again in 2007 (H.R. 2130), and again in 2009 (H.R. 1703).  None of these bills was ever put to a vote, and only one of them had so much as a single co-sponsor. H.R. 3759 H.R. 1601 (H.R. 2130), (H.R. 1703) In 2010, Rep. Fattah moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of  a scheme to pay down the national debt and eliminate federal income tax on individuals by imposing a 1% fee on specified financial transactions: H.R. 4646 pay down One idea for raising taxes to pay down the debt is the bill introduced this February [2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction  whether paid by cash, credit card or any form of financial transfer, the only exception being transactions involving the purchase or sale of stock. Theoretically, everyone would pay one cent on the dollar for every such transaction in America every day  whether $3 million on a $300 million business acquisition, $300 on the purchase of a $30,000 car, or $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal. Specifically, the text of the bill stated that: The purpose of [the transaction fee] is to establish a fee on most transactions. Such [a] fee:  is different than a sales tax in that a sales tax is charged only on sales to the final consumer, [while] the transaction fee would apply to intermediate users as well as end users   is different than a value added tax (VAT), commonly used in European and other countries, in that a VAT is imposed only on a portion of a transaction's value (roughly the difference between an item's selling price and its cost), [while] the transaction fee would apply to the entire amount of the transaction  is intended to raise sufficient revenue to eliminate the national debt, which was $10.6 trillion in January 2009, during a period of 7 years, and to phase out the income tax on individuals. [This bill would] impose on every specified transaction a fee in an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount of such transaction. The term 'specified transaction' means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. The term 'transaction' includes retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions. Persons become liable for the fee at the moment the person exercises control over a piece of property or service, regardless of the payment method. (The bill provided for individuals earning $125,000 or less to receive a credit equal to 1% of their income against the tax, and it gave the Treasury Department discretion to exempt certain transactions on which lower-income people disproportionately relied.) Like Rep. Fattah's other Congressional efforts along these lines, his Debt Free America Act had no sponsors other than himself,  languished in committee after being introduced, had no realistic chance of being passed. Thus, although e-mailed warnings about a "1% transaction tax" do reference a once-real piece of proposed legislation, the amount of attention those warnings garnered vastly, vastly outstripped any real possibility that such legislation would actually be enacted. Moreover, some of the additional details contained with such e-mailed warnings were erroneous:  Neither "President Obama's finance team" nor Nancy Pelosi is "recommending a 1% transaction tax."  The proposal for the  Debt Free America Act was purely the effort of a single congressman, with no outside support.  Neither Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon nor Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced the Debt Free America Act, co-sponsored it, or publicly supported it.  The included link that supposedly showed Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedated the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually referred to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio.  That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (Although Rep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too languished in committee without being brought to a vote.) proposed H.R. 4191  Later versions of this item opened with the statement that "ON JANUARY 1ST 2012, THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS. WONDER WHY?"  The Social Security program did switch over to an electronic payments system as of 1 March 2013 that provided recipients with the options of receiving their benefits payments either through direct deposit to a bank account or via the reloading of a debit card, but that change had nothing to do with the Congressional bill discussed above. Rep. Fattah reintroduced his Debt Free America Act (as H.R. 1125) to the 112th Congress on 16 March 2011. Like Rep. Fattah's previous efforts along these lines, Govtrack.us tagged it with the prognosis "This bill has a 0% chance of being enacted." H.R. 1125 Govtrack.us Last updated:  22 October 2013 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. On 18 December 2016, Twitter user David Dellanave posted a message claiming that the Minnesota Vikings football team had opened up U.S. Bank Stadium to shelter the homeless on a particularly cold winter night: posted Although Dellanave is not a reporter or a spokesperson for the Minnesota Vikings, his message was picked up and reported as fact by several news outlets, including Yahoo News and CBS Sports:  Yahoo News CBS Sports The Minnesota Vikings are embracing the Christmas spirit early and helping out the community on Sunday night. According to David Dellanave, U.S. Bank Stadium will be open to the local homeless population during a night with crazy cold temperatures. The Minnesota Vikings, however, did not open U.S. Bank Stadium on 18 December 2016 to shelter the homeless. Dellanave eventually deleted his original tweet and posted follow-up messages claiming that he had posted the false information as an attempt to draw attention to a social issue: Tweet deleted. Point was to highlight a social issue and waste of taxpayer money that could help people instead of make private profits 1/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 Zero interest in retweets or followers, have never cared and never will. 2/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016  But most importantly if I thought for a second someone in need would take it seriously, wouldn't be worth the potential good. 3/3  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 I'm sorry if this obviously misguided attempt at highlighting a social issue hurt anyone. Didn't think a tweet would go so far & I regret it  David Dellanave (@ddn) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016 Finally, a point where Republicans and at least one prominent Democrat agree.LikePresident Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Austins U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul says corporate tax rates are too high.To a recentvoters guidequestion on how to combat unemployment, McCaul -- a Republican seeking another term representing the 10th Congressional District -- gave responses that included lowering Americas corporate tax rate, highest in the world at 35 percent.A decrease to 25 percent would stop driving American businesses overseas, McCaul said in the guide, produced by the Austin and Texas chapters of the League of Women Voters and theAustin American-Statesman. McCaul faces Tawana Cadien (Democrat) and Richard Priest (Libertarian) on Nov. 6.PolitiFact has recently checked corporate tax rate claims with a different figure, so we decided to compare this statement.McCaul spokesman Mike Rosen told us by email that 35 percent is the top statutory rate for U.S. corporate taxes, citing an April 5, 2012,backgrounderfrom the Council on Foreign Relations.The council, an independent, nonpartisan think-tank, said the U.S. had the highest corporate tax rate in the world by two measures: Excluding state and local taxes, the rate was 35 percent. With those sub-national taxes, the rate was 39.2 percent.Most news stories we read while researching this fact-check used the latter rate -- combining federal, state and local. Thats the yardstick used in related PolitiFact articles, and its also the statistic that made headlines when an April 1, 2012, rate cut took effect in Japan and moved the U.S. into first place. The rest of the top five are France, Belgium and Germany, according to a September 2011reportby the Washington-based Tax Foundation that gave 2012 federal-plus-state/local rates, weighted to reflect the economies sizes so that small countries would not have a disproportional effect on the average. OECD statutory corporate tax rates, 2012  Source: Tax Foundation 2011report The foundations 2011 report and most of the news articles we read for this story limited their comparisons to advanced industrialized countries -- often citing the34 membersof the global Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. We asked foundation spokesman Richard Morrison for help tracking down country-by-country rates that did not include taxes below the federal level, to make an apples-to-apples comparison with McCauls 35 percent.Morrison pointed us, via email, to anOECD web pagewith achartshowing those numbers for 2012.The U.S. rate of 35 percent is the highest on the chart, with the other OECD nations averaging 23.6 percent (figures that, unlike the statistics cited above, are not weighted to reflect size of national economies).So McCauls statement holds true for federal-level-only corporate tax rates as well as for the state/local-plus-federal rate.Butrecent PolitiFact itemshave also taken into account the rate corporations pay after deductions and exemptions, called the effective rate.In anAug. 27, 2012, Truth-O-Meter article, PolitiFact New Jersey wrote, When you factor in various tax breaks, the rate actually paid by U.S. businesses has been among the highest in the world, but not in first place, studies show.The 2011 foundationreportsummarized 13 studies of effective corporate tax rates across the world, which used different methodologies and were not limited to the OECD roster. The smallest study compared 10 countries; the largest, 183.Those studies found the U.S. effective tax rate ranging from 23 percent to 34.9 percent, which often placed it in the top five, but never No. 1.But the U.S. hit the top spot in a more recent report. Morrison told us the latest such comparison was made in September 2012 for the libertarian Cato Institute. Thatreportcalculated the U.S. effective rate at 35.6 percent and ranked it highest among OECD nations but fourth among all 90 nations it examined.How did U.S. rates get to be among the highest? Actually, other countries dropped theirs, we learned by phone from Jonathan Masters, author of the Council on Foreign Relations piece.We found succinct descriptions of the history in Time magazine and The Hill, a Washington, D.C. newspaper. An April 2, 2012, Timeblog postsays that while the U.S. rate stayed steady for two decades, the trend internationally has been towards lower corporate tax rates. The Hills Aug. 27, 2012blog postsays that in 1986, the OECD nations average corporate tax was 50 percent, but today, its 25 percent for those countries -- it has fallen in half. Meanwhile, the U.S. rate, which fell from 46 percent to 34 percent as a result of tax reform in 1986, is now stuck at 35 percent.Our rulingMcCaul said the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the world at 35 percent.The rate set by federal statute is the highest, both by itself and when considering the federal rate plus state and local taxes.However, theres much less consensus about effective corporate tax rates -- the rates corporations actually pay. Studies dont even agree on what the U.S. effective rate is, pegging it between 23 percent and 35.6 percent. Older studies put the U.S. near the top; a recent study says the U.S. is No. 1 among OECD nations.We rate McCauls statement as Mostly True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In early 2020, a number of smartphone applications (apps) were tested and launched across North America to help regions identify which users have been infected with the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, who they came into contact with, and transmission zones.  These apps are attempting to help make contact tracing easier, a form of disease control that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calls a key strategy for preventing further spread of the disease. The process involves public health staff who work with COVID-19 patients to help them recall everyone they came into contact with during the time they may have been infectious. Staff then warn exposed individuals in a rapid and sensitive manner (while protecting the identity of the patient) and provide support and information on how to mitigate the spread.  calls In May 2020, a number of Facebook posts claimed that mobile apps that are using contact tracing to research COVID-19 transmission patterns are also taking information from the user's device to "identify, track or locate" various contacts on their phones or their Facebook friends lists. Most posts refer to one of two such apps: Healthy Together or ABTraceTogether. The posts say:     These posts greatly exaggerate the extent to which apps have access to contact lists and particularly to Facebook accounts.  Healthy Together, built by Twenty Holdings, Inc., was rolled out by the state of Utah in April and May 2020, as part of an effort to help public health officials trace contacts of those infected with the disease, and to allow Utahns to track their symptoms and find the nearest testing center. The app uses GPS, location data, and Bluetooth technology to identify potential contacts. rolled out Bluetooth technology allows health officials to gather data by connecting devices to each other, while GPS data allows them to track a person's movements and their location to within 5 to 10 feet. Thus, Bluetooth determines potential person-to-person transmission of the disease while GPS tracking figures out potential transmission zones and how contagious diseases can move through populations and regions.  allows The Utah government is encouraging more people to download this application. As of May 13, more than 45,000 people had done so, at least 2% of the states population, according to CNBC. CNBC The app is opt-in and voluntary and allows users to control what data they release. They own their personal data and can delete it at any time. Location data is automatically deleted after 30 days, symptom data becomes anonymous after 30 days, and users can identify what data they would like to share, which includes Bluetooth data, location data, or contact lists. The app The FAQ on the Utah governments coronavirus resources website suggest that officials are taking precautions around user privacy as well: FAQ Will anyone have access to personally identifiable information?Public health officials and a limited number of development employees with Twenty Holdings, Inc. will have access to your name, phone number, and location data for COVID-19 tracing purposes only. What collective data would the Utah government like to share publicly in the weeks following the launch?The State of Utah values the role of limited government and recognizes that asking you to provide personal information may be uncomfortable and concerning to some. However, you can be assured that your personal data will be used only for the purpose of fighting COVID-19. Utah will investigate GPS and location data to help understand transmission zones, with the goal of informing policy makers so they can make swift and smart decisions in the coming weeks or months. Healthy Together's privacy policy also states users may provide the following, among other details:  privacy policy We may receive: Registration and Profile Information. We may receive information from you when you register to use Healthy Together. That information may include, among other things, your full name, phone numbers, and device identifiers.Contact List. If you choose to share your mobile device contacts or address book with Healthy Together, we will store your contacts or address book information, including the phone numbers and names of your contacts, to enable you to invite your contacts to Healthy Together and help facilitate your user experience. Healthy Together responded to Snopes' questions about these rumors: Only if a user opts-in to share their phones contact list, can they then invite friends on their contact list to use the app. Sending this invitation will prompt their contact to join Healthy Together, but this invitation to join the app is also opt-in. Sending an invitation to a friend does not mean Healthy Together will track or automatically collect data. If someone chooses to download the app by accepting their friends invitation, they too have to opt-in to share any data permissions. The app is not connected to Facebook and Healthy Together users cannot invite their Facebook friends to use the app. Healthy Together is not tracing anyone who is not a user of the app, and is not tracing anyone who does not opt in to the Bluetooth or location data permissions. Healthy Together is completely opt-in, users own their data, and can delete it at any time. Thus the app's ability to access your contact list is in the user's control and is available only to invite friends to download the app. The app does not appear to have the ability to access your Facebook friends list. Furthermore, the app can only track and identify people who have downloaded it, so those people without the app cannot be tracked.  The app ABTraceTogether requires even less information from the user. The other app at the center of the Facebook/phone contacts rumor mill has been downloaded in the Canadian province of Alberta 100,000 times as of May 5. This voluntary app also does not connect to your phone contact list or Facebook friends list but collects only the following information: 100,000 following information During the app set up, the only personal data we collect is your mobile number, so Alberta Health Services can contact you quickly if you were in close proximity to a COVID-19 case. With your consent, the ABTraceTogether app exchanges Bluetooth proximity data with nearby phones running the same app. This data is anonymized and encrypted, and does not reveal your identity or the other persons identity. In order to measure distance, information about your phone model and the signal strength recorded is also shared, since different phone models transmit at a different power. This data is stored only on your phone, and is not shared with Alberta Health Services. Should Alberta Health Services need the data for contact tracing, they will ask you directly to share it with them and enable an upload of your contact tracing logs. Contact tracers, health officials who are trying to track down people exposed to the virus, may ask users about their locations in verbal interviews. The app's privacy policy states: Contact tracers privacy policy The information you provide will be collected by Alberta Health and Alberta Health Services for the purpose of conducting contact-tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic response to manage the public health emergency under the Public Health Act. [...] ABTraceTogether enables you to exchange non-identifying information with other users via Bluetooth; other users will not have access to any of your individually identifying information. If you receive a positive diagnosis for COVID-19, Alberta Health or Alberta Health Services will send you a code to enter into the Application. Your information will then be accessed and potentially disclosed by Alberta Health and Alberta Health Services to one another, for the purpose of facilitating contact-tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The privacy policy further points out that because tracers rely only on Bluetooth technology and not GPS, they do not collect data about users' locations; they only communicate with nearby phones through Bluetooth for a limited period.  Privacy advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are critical of apps that ask for names and phone numbers of users, arguing that will erode trust and discourage people from signing on. They argue that developers need to be as transparent as possible to ensure their app is effective. Bennett Cyphers, a Staff Technologist with EFF spoke to Snopes, arguing that ultimately these apps should only get what is absolutely necessary from the user, with "as little private information [and] strict data minimization," something they don't agree apps like Healthy Together and ABTraceTogether are doing:  critical [The government] doesnt need [this information], they want it ... Apples and Googles proposals [have] ways to do it where the user's phone is able to give push notifications to the user through anonymized data. There are ways to do contact tracing that is privacy preserving, and that the government doesn't get data at all. The only difference between [the] decentralized contact tracing approach (which Apple and Google are proposing) and the centralized approach is that in the first model [when] someone who you've contacted is sick, [you will be notified] on your phone and it will tell you what to do and which public health officials to get in touch with. The other scenario is the government calls you themselves. The government prefers the latter because it gives them more control. We don't think there is a significant difference in the outcome [pertaining to health access] for users. ...All these apps are opting to share a record of who the people interacted with. That can reveal a lot about what you do, whether you engage in political activism, criminal activity, all kinds of things not related to COVID, and the government will have access [to it] ... We wouldn't be able to tell you what the government will do [with this] but what they could do ... [and] that's the problem. Jeff Jenkins, associate professor of Information Systems at the Brigham Young University, Marriott School of Business, said this about Healthy Together in a published news interview: "Jenkins said he feels like the app gives users a reasonable amount of control over their data, even if its not totally clear how the data will be used. 'With any app, there is a tradeoff between the intended benefit  in this case, combating COVID-19  and privacy.'" interview A range of contact-tracing apps were being tested and implemented in the spring of 2020. In May, Apple and Google released their own smartphone technology to automatically notify people if they have been exposed to someone with the virus. Unlike Healthy Together, their tech relies solely on Bluetooth technology to monitor person-to-person contact. Many of these apps are achieving mixed results, and the full implications of their impact on data privacy are being closely followed by groups like EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  released In sum, little evidence exists to indicate that apps like Healthy Together and ABTraceTogether are collecting others' information from users' phone or Facebook contacts, especially without consent. As their privacy policies outline, the information they gather is for specific health-related purposes, and all the information given is with the user's consent. Healthy Together can receive your contact list if you agree to it, while ABTraceTogether only asks for your phone number. Furthermore, users have to actually install the app for their interactions to be monitored, or their location to be tracked. Individuals without the app will not be tracked this way. As such, we rate this claim a "Mixture."  Update, Dec. 2, 2020: In July 2020, Utah's state epidemiologist Dr. Angela Dunn announced that Healthy Together's major feature of using GPS and Bluetooth location tracking would be turned off, "Weve learned over the course of the last three months that location tracking isnt popular and as a result, it hasnt really been helpful to our contact tracing efforts." In November, the state's health leaders announced their intention to explore using Google and Apple technology to notify users if they had been exposed to the coronavirus. Healthy Together now serves as a symptom checker and a resource for people in the event that they get COVID-19. announced November ABTraceTogether has also face issues with its effectiveness. In November, the Alberta government revealed that its app had been used to trace only 20 cases over six months. The province also said that issues with the app could persist on devices made by Apple and the app needs further testing. Apple and Google's contact tracing software forms the backbone of the federal Canadian government's COVID Alert app, and is being used in all provinces except Alberta and British Columbia.  ABTraceTogether Alberta.ca. "ABTraceTogether FAQ." Coronavirus.utah.gov. "Healthy Together Beta App." Human Rights Watch."Mobile Location Data and Covid-19: Q&A."
 13 May 2020. Khalid, Amrita. "Utahs new Covid-19 contact tracing app will track user locations."
 Quartz. 23 April 2020. Leswing, Kif. "Utah has rejected the Apple-Google approach to tracing coronavirus, and is using an app made by a social media start-up instead.
 CNBC. 13 May 2020. Means, Sean P. and Alberty, Erin. "Utah launches an app to track people  and help trace their contacts if they get COVID-19."
 The Salt Lake Tribune.23 April 2020. Merkley, Lisi. "New app designed to track COVID-19 raises privacy concerns."
 The Daily Universe. 4 May 2020. O'Brien, Matt."Apple, Google release technology for pandemic apps."
 The Associated Press. 20 May 2020. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Contact Tracing : Part of a Multipronged Approach to Fight the COVID-19 Pandemic." Toy, Adam."Albertas contact-tracing app only works on iOS when phone is unlocked, app running in foreground."
 Global News. 4 May 2020. Weber, Jonathan and Dave, Paresh. "Factbox: The race to deploy COVID-19 contact tracing apps."
 Reuters. 14 May 2020. In June 2023, viral social media posts claimed to show Tom Cruise's eerily similar-looking stunt doubles posing in a photograph together. According to the posts, the menallegedly took his place to perform stunts duringthefilming of the latest "Mission Impossible" film. The image was fake. Not only did it show visual clues of being inauthentic  for instance, the "Tom Cruise" double in the middle appeared to be missing fingernails  we tracked down aFacebook user who took credit for makingthe image(as well as others like it) via an artificial-intelligence-powered (AI) software program. Facebook user the image Tom Cruise stunts double Tom is not even in the picture ,he took the picture pic.twitter.com/x43zVYw8KH pic.twitter.com/x43zVYw8KH  Brother G.O (@OyinTGSPE) June 9, 2023 June 9, 2023  100% AI. Look at this. Tom Cruise does his own stunts like the Burj Khalifa and that motor stunt of a cliff, so he does not use stunt double. pic.twitter.com/Wu2ZhopZ0B pic.twitter.com/Wu2ZhopZ0B  DarkKnight (@iamshinerk) June 7, 2023 June 7, 2023  When we looked closely at the three faces in the image, we noted that, while they looked eerilylike Cruise, they appeared to be images modeled off his face but with small differences in facial features. Their complexions also appearedinauthentically smooth, with wax-like skin.For comparison, we looked at2023pictures of Cruisetaken by Getty Images. 2023 pictures taken by Getty Images We also did a reverse-image search on Google and found no credible source saying the in-question image was a real photograph. reverse-image On June 3, 2023, a Facebook account for Midjourney, an AI-powered program that creates digital images based on prompts, shared the images of Cruise and his alleged "stunt doubles" in apostby Singapore-based user Ong Hui Woo. Woo wrote, "If you intend to copy and paste these photos on your website or your FB, please at least mentioned and give credit to the original creator (which is me) or Midjourney, the platform where all these images are created." post (Ong Hui Woo/Facebook) We reached out to Woo, who told us that he created the images on June 3, 2023, and posted them to the Midjourney Facebook page on the same day. Given that the in-question image has visual signs of being fake, that we did not find a reliable media outlet calling it real, and that we identified a Facebook user who took credit for its creation via an AI-image generator, we have rated this claim "Fake." We frequently fact-check AI-generated images and have many tips on how to identify them. AI-generated images many tips Evon, Dan. "Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches." Snopes, 22 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/.Accessed 9 June 2023. Ibrahim, Nur. "Facebook Chat with Ong Hui Woo." 9 June 2023. Lee, David Emery, Jessica. "4 Tips for Spotting AI-Generated Pics." Snopes, 16 Apr. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/articles/464595/artificial-intelligence-media-literacy/.Accessed 9 June 2023. "LIVE! Jimmy Kimmel Live! Airs Every Weeknight at 11:35 p.m. ET And..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/jimmy-kimmel-live-airs-every-weeknight-at-11-35-p-m-et-and-news-photo/1247561509. Accessed 9 June 2023. "Tom Cruise at the 34th Annual Producers Guild Awards Held at The..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tom-cruise-at-the-34th-annual-producers-guild-awards-held-news-photo/1247493313. Accessed 9 June 2023. "Tom Cruise Walks on the Grid Prior to the Running of the Formula 1..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tom-cruise-walks-on-the-grid-prior-to-the-running-of-the-news-photo/1253020214. Accessed 9 June 2023. Claim:  Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to "make loans to poor people." false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens. The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in. Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo. Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat. What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration. The lawyer filing the suit was none other than: Barak Hussein Obama. Origins:  This item seeks to dump much of the blame for America's current economic woes on Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to"poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back."  Although there is a (very) vague element of fact underneath this politicking, the piece quoted above is woefully wrong in all its particulars. The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money  Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank back."  The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race.  The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay).  Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories."  The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages. redlining Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter.  He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case: Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years "of counsel" to the firm.  "He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss. Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods. "I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech  it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case. "He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me." Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom.  On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank  which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees  $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165. Miner commanded the higher rate of $285 an hour. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing. His final bill on the case was 138 hours, or $23,000. Last updated:  5 September 2012    Associated Press.  "Some Cases Obama Worked on in His Career as an Attorney."   20 February 2007.