Is iPhone AirDrop Feature 'NameDrop' Dangerous, as Facebook Posts Claim?
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.
On 28 December 2014, the web site CenLamar published an article titled "House Majority Whip Steve Scalise Was Reportedly an Honored Guest at 2002 International White Supremacist Convention." According to the site, current House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, then a Louisiana state representative, was a guest speaker at an event hosted by the  European-American Unity and Rights Organization (EURO), a group headed by former Klan leader and neo-Nazi David Duke, at the Landmark Best Western Hotel in Metairie, Louisiana, in May 2002.  (EURO was a renamed version of Duke's NOFEAR group that advocated fighting for "white civil rights" for "Europeans and Americans wherever they may live.") article EURO NOFEAR The dozen years elapsed between the EURO event in 2002 and the article's publication in 2014 made it markedly difficult to investigate the article's claims. At the time of the convention, much internet-based political discussion occurred solely on message boards, many of which have long since been retired due to inactivity, abandoned, or became otherwise inaccessible for a variety of reasons. Following the article's publication, the claim was circulated and reposted on a number of left-leaning web sites. This repetition created the impression multiple sources were documenting the claim, but the information all pointed back to the same single source: Stormfront.org, a white supremacist message board with a lengthy and notorious history on the web. A 2002 post claiming Scalise attended the EURO conference held in Metairie that year became suddenly notable in late 2014. In that post, the writer stated: stated EURO's recent national convention held in the greater New Orleans area was a convergence of ideas represented by Americans from diverse geographical regions like California, Texas, New Jersey and the Carolina's. This indicates that concerns held are pervasive in every sovereign state and Republic alike, within an increasingly diminishing view of where America stands on individual liberty for whites.  In addition to plans to implement tactical strategies that were discussed, the meeting was productive locally as State Representative, Steve Scalise, discussed ways to oversee gross mismanagement of tax revenue or "slush funds" that have little or no accountability. Representative Scalise brought into sharp focus the dire circumstances pervasive in many important, under-funded needs of the community at the expense of graft within the Housing and Urban Development Fund, an apparent give-away to a selective group based on race.  There was also a call for the many women active in the movement to not only let their voice be heard, but their presence known. Recognizing the duties placed on white mothers to maintain decreasing birth rates, it was an appropriate call to arms to emphasize the unity message forming the basis of EURO. Aside from the single mention by a single user on one internet forum back in 2002, no other record of such an appearance by Scalise emerged. A newsletter of indeterminate origin appearing to be the work of David Duke, EURO's founder, listed the May 2002 event's speakers but did not mention Scalise: newsletter   On 29 December 2014 Moira Bagley Smith, a spokeswoman for Scalise, addressed the controversy by releasing a statement seemingly acknowledging Scalise's appearance at the 2002 EURO event (without actually stating that he was there), maintaining that Scalise spoke to a number of diverse groups at the time in order to publicize his political platform and that Scalise held no affiliation with or sympathy for EURO and its objectives: Throughout his career in public service, Mr. Scalise has spoken to hundreds of different groups with a broad range of viewpoints. In every case, he was building support for his policies, not the other way around. In 2002, he made himself available to anyone who wanted to hear his proposal to eliminate slush funds that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars as well as his opposition to a proposed tax increase on middle-class families. He has never been affiliated with the abhorrent group in question. The hate-fueled ignorance and intolerance that group projects is in stark contradiction to what Mr. Scalise believes and practices as a father, a husband, and a devoted Catholic. Scalise himself also seemingly confirmed that he addressed a EURO group (again without actually stating that he did) in an interview with the New Orleans Time-Picayune, asserting that he didn't remember speaking at the event: interview Q: Please walk me through how you came to appear at the white nationalist event.  A: "I don't have any records from back in 2002, but when people called and asked me to speak to groups, I went and spoke to groups. It was myself and [former state Sen.] James David Cain who were opposed to the Stelly tax plan. I was the only legislator from the New Orleans area who was opposed to the plan publicly, so I was asked to speak all around the New Orleans region. I would go and speak about how this tax plan was bad. I didn't know who all of these groups were and I detest any kind of hate group. For anyone to suggest that I was involved with a group like that is insulting and ludicrous. I was opposed to a lot of spending of spending at the state level. When people asked me to go speak, I went and spoke to any group that called." Q: You don't remember speaking at the event?  A: "I don't. I mean I've seen the blog about it. When you look at the kind of things they stand for, I detest these kinds of views. As a Catholic, I think some of the things they profess target people like me. At lot of their views run contradictory to the way I run my life. Kenny Knight, a longtime associate of David Duke who said he booked space for the 2002 EURO conference, asserted that Scalise didn't actually speak at the EURO conference itself, but rather to a contingent of people (including some EURO attendees) who had gathered earlier in the day prior to the EURO conference kick-off: asserted According to Knight, the EURO conference was slated to start in the early afternoon, roughly around 1 p.m. But his reservation at the hotel gave him access to the conference space for a few hours before the events official kickoff. At the time, Knight headed the Jefferson Heights Civic Association, which was largely comprised of elderly people who lived in his and Scalises neighborhood. Knight said he set up a morning event for his own civic association in the hotel space before the EURO conference started. Though that event was in the conference's hospitality room, it wasn't at all related to the EURO event, he said. Knight invited thenstate Rep. Scalise as well as a representative from the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office and a person from the American Red Cross to speak to the civic association at the hotel.  Knight estimates that about two-thirds to three-quarters of the people in the hospitality room at the civic association meeting were local residents who weren't there to attend the EURO event, and about one-third to one-quarter were EURO convention attendees who arrived early and filtered into the hospitality room to drink coffee and kill time. Barbara Noble, Knight's then-girlfriend who was also present at the hotel event, corroborated Knight's account. "[Scalise] was just up there for a few minutes, maybe 10, 15 at the most, and it was in the morning," she said. However, the Times-Picayune then poked holes in a number of Knight's statements, namely his claims that he was not himself a member of EURO, did not line up speakers for the 2002 EURO conference, and was not himself present at the conference: poked holes Kenny Knight [said] that he was not a member of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, but documents filed with the Louisiana secretary of state's office list him as treasurer of its predecessor, the National Organization for European American Rights, in 2000. Further, a May 16, 2002, news release on an an archived version of EURO's former website, www.whitecivilrights.com, lists Knight as "EURO Louisiana State Representative Kenny Knight." The release says Knight was expected to address the group's May 17-18, 2002, conference. When asked by telephone about the records listing him as EURO's treasurer, Knight twice hung up on a reporter. "Is that 15 years ago? I don't even remember that," he said. "I'm not communicating any more with the news media. I'm finished with y'all." EURO head David Duke himself stated in a Washington Post interview that Scalise had indeed been invited to address the EURO gathering and had accepted that invitation and was present at the conference (although Duke was not himself present at the event and therefore didn't personally witness whatever Scalise may have done there): interview Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke said that his longtime political adviser, Kenny Knight, was "friendly" with House Majority Whip Steve Scalise in 2002, and cited that relationship as the reason Scalise accepted an invitation that year to speak at a gathering of white supremacists. Duke recalled Scalise as a "nice guy" and said he was invited to the conference by two of Duke's longtime associates: Howie Farrell, who had worked on Duke's gubernatorial campaign, and Kenny Knight. "Scalise would communicate a lot with my campaign manager, Kenny Knight," Duke said. "That is why he was invited and why he would come. Kenny knew Scalise, Scalise knew Kenny. They were friendly." Duke, who spoke to the crowd remotely, recalled Knight reaching out to Scalise in the weeks before the conference to come and update attendees on state affairs, and that Scalise accepted without reservation. "Maybe that is evidence he knew what he was doing when he came to the meeting," Duke said. "Who knows? All I know is that Kenny liked him." Duke said he spoke to the conference twice, once by phone and later by video hookup. But he did not hear Scalise speak, he said, and does not know whether Scalise heard him speak. In October 2017, multiple versions of a dubious post titled "Pizza Hut is giving 3 FREE Large Pizza Coupon on their 58th Anniversary" circulated on Facebook. The link lead to suspicious domains including pizzahutfree.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, pizzahut.com-freezones.us, and massiveoffers.xyz/p/, none of which followed the proper formatting for a pizzahut.com subdomain, which is "link.pizzahut.com." Those who clicked through found a page that looked somewhat legitimate, but showed signs of being a very common survey scam. Users were first asked a series of questions: page very survey scam   The page followed a common scammer template of appropriating Pizza Hut's logo and Facebook's visual interface, but sloppily boasted that entrants had "a chance to get [a] Papa [John's] Coupon." Any interaction with the prompts (again mentioning Papa John's 58th anniversary, not Pizza Hut's) led to a screen encouraging potential victims to spread the scam further on Facebook:   Underneath the "Congratulations" interface was a series of what appeared to be comments from real Facebook users who'd successfully redeemed the purported coupon. All of the profiles featured were for individuals with jobs displayed as "MD, at the Hospital":   Pizza Hut addressed a previous flood of customer queries on their Facebook wall during a similar scam in May 2016: Facebook users continue to regularly encounter survey scams (quite often the "anniversary" version) on the social network. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau advised users how not to fall prey: anniversary article Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card. 
 Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. On Sept. 19, 2016, theWisconsin Democratic Partycalled onDonald Trumpto release his tax returns, issuinga statementthat quoted U.S. Sen.Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., as saying: The time is way past due for Donald Trump to release his tax returns, as every other major party nominee has done for the past 40 years. So, lets see if thats what every Democratic and Republican presidential nominee since 1976 has done. Wayback machine Baldwin has taken aim at Trump before, since he became the GOP nominee. In August 2016, werated Half Trueher claim that Trump has a long history of exporting jobs overseas. Trump-brand products such as his clothing have been made overseas, but those jobs were always abroad, not U.S. jobs that were moved. To back her current claim, Baldwins campaign cited editorials from theNew York Timesand theWashington Post, both of which said Trump would be the first major party candidate since 1976 -- 40 years ago -- not to release his tax returns. Also cited was an editorial from theBoston Globe, which said its been more than 40 years. But there is an exception. We checked anarchive of presidential tax returnsmaintained by the Tax Analysts, a publisher specializing in tax policy. It shows that going back to 1976, all but one major-party nominee released at least one return. Only Republican Gerald Ford, who lost to Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976, did not release returns (he released summary tax data), the archive shows. FactCheck.org also found Ford to bethe one exception. Joe Thorndike, the Tax History Project director at Tax Analysts, told us that Fords summaries were clearly not the same as tax returns. For instance, they didnt provide detailed information on things such as sources of income and charitable contributions. Moreover, its impossible to know what might be in a return unless you see the return. It's also worth noting that while some nominees have released numerous years of returns  1996 GOP nominee Bob Dole provided30 years worth others have not. In 1980, Republican Ronald Reagan released onlyone returnand in 2012, Republican Mitt Romneyreleased two. In the 2016 race,Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has released returns from 2000 through 2015. As for Trump, he has said he hasnt released his taxes because he is being audited. When he claimed he released the most extensive financial review of anybody in the history of politics. You don't learn much in a tax return, PolitiFact Nationalsrating was False. Trump did release an extensive (and legally required) document detailing his personal financial holdings. But experts say tax returns would offer valuable details on his effective tax rate, the types of taxes he paid and how much he gave to charity, as well as a more detailed picture of his assets. Our rating Baldwin says that except for Trump, every other major party nominee for the past 40 years has released their tax returns. Shes almost right. During that period, the only major-party presidential nominee who didnt release returns was Ford, the Republican nominee in 1976. It's also worth noting that many nominees have released numerous years of returns, but some have released only one or two. We rate Baldwins statement Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3b799eb7-8454-41ff-a343-3c13c44e9c78 On 10 October 2016, an meme appeared featuring a photograph of Hillary Clinton accompanied by text of a purported quote from her during from the second presidential debate the night before:   The quote was not uttered by Clinton during the any presidential debate. It does not appear in the transcript of the event, nor can Clinton be heard speaking this phrase during the broadcast.  transcript broadcast It seems to have originated with a social media user named Rocky Raczkowski, who (according to his post) was not directly quoting Clinton, but was giving his interpretation of what he thought Clinton had said in response to a question about Supreme Court justices: Rocky Raczkowski   Raczkowski's interpretation was later shared by Mike Hewitt, a politician and radio show host, who posted the message as if it were a direct quote from Clinton, while darkly hinting at a media so corrupt that they refused to cover the what she had really said: message   Of course, the reason that most media sources did not report on this quote is that it is not a quote, but a highly subjective (and inaccurate) interpretation of her words. Here's Clinton's actual response to a question about how she would select a Supreme Court justice, which is nothing like the questionable paraphrase offered by Raczkowski and shared by Hewitt: QUESTION: Good evening. Perhaps the most important aspect of this election is the Supreme Court justice. What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court justice? RADDATZ: We begin with your two minutes, Secretary Clinton. Thank you. Well, youre right. This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against. Because I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. And so I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesnt agree with that. I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we dont always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a womans right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality. Now, Donald has put forth the names of some people that he would consider. And among the ones that he has suggested are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards. I want a Supreme Court that doesnt always side with corporate interests. I want a Supreme Court that understands because youre wealthy and you can give more money to something doesnt mean you have any more rights or should have any more rights than anybody else. So I have very clear views about what I want to see to kind of change the balance on the Supreme Court. And I regret deeply that the Senate has not done its job and they have not permitted a vote on the person that President Obama, a highly qualified person, theyve not given him a vote to be able to be have the full complement of nine Supreme Court justices. I think that was a dereliction of duty. I hope that they will see their way to doing it, but if I am so fortunate enough as to be president, I will immediately move to make sure that we fill that, we have nine justices that get to work on behalf of our people. A popular meme in March 2019 questioned why Bill Clinton had "paid Paula Jones $850K to go away" yet the FBI hadn't raided his lawyer's office. The meme was an obvious reference to two completely unrelated issues separated by decades: a 1994 lawsuit involving Clinton and a search warrant executed by the FBI in April 2018 at the office of President Donald Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen.  In short, the major differences in the cases referenced by the meme  one of which involved an FBI raid on a lawyer's office and the other not  were as follows: Clinton openly paid Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit well after he became president and well after Jones had had a chance to air her allegations to the public, press, and court system, while Trump secretly used an intermediary to pay hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels just ahead of a presidential election in order to keep her allegations that she had an affair with him from reaching the public and influencing the election results against him. Nothing Clinton did in settling Jones' civil lawsuit was illegal (or even potentially illegal), but Trump's payment of hush money to Daniels through his lawyer was possibly an illegal act on the part of Trump and/or Cohen, hence the raid on the latter's office but not the office of Clinton's lawyer. On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying. lawsuit According to Jones, once she entered Clinton's hotel suite he complimented her on her physical appearance, put his hand on her leg, attempted to kiss her on the neck, asked her if she was married, and finally lowered his trousers to expose his erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it." When Jones rebuffed Clinton's advances, she said, he told her to "keep this between ourselves" and suggested that, in her words, he "could damage her in her job and even jeopardize her employment." Jones did not publicly discuss the incident until The American Spectator referenced it in a January 1994 article, apparently based on information provided by Trooper Ferguson: The American Spectator account asserts that a woman by the name of "Paula" told an unnamed trooper (obviously Defendant Ferguson), who had escorted "Paula" to Clinton's hotel room, that "she was available to be Clinton's regular girlfriend if he so desired," thus implying a consummated and satisfying sexual encounter with Clinton, as well as a willingness to continue a sexual relationship with him. These assertions are untrue. The American Spectator account also asserted that the troopers' 'official' duties included facilitating Clinton's cheating on his wife ... Since Jones ("Paula") was one of the women preyed upon by Clinton and his troopers, including by Defendant Ferguson, in the manner described above, those who read this magazine account could conclude falsely that Jones ("Paula") had a sexual relationship and affair with Clinton. Jones' reputation within her community was thus seriously damaged. Several months later, Jones filed her lawsuit against Clinton and Ferguson, seeking a total of $750,000 in compensation for damages and attorneys' fees on counts of sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The issue of whether Jones could sue a sitting president went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who upheld an appellate court decision that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society," and allowed Jones' case to proceed. However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that "the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," that "plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law," that "plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," and that "there are no genuine issues for trial in this case." dismissed When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones. appeal Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an "intimate relationship" into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment. threatened In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump. reported The following month, Cohen confirmed that $130,000 had been paid to Daniels, but he maintained that he had used his personal funds for the payment, and that "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen" and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump. denied A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been "funneled through a law firm." The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money "had nothing to do with the campaign." Rudy Giuliani contradicted In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution, one count of being a "willful cause" of an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution, the latter two stemming from the "hush money" payments made to Daniels and McDougal. Prosecutors held that the payments made by Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws because they were meant to benefit the campaign but did not come from campaign contributions and were not reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The payments therefore constituted illegal in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign that violated laws limiting such donations to $2,700 and requiring their disclosure to the FEC. Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president. legal debate revealed "Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations," former FECGeneral Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. "Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen." Washington Post All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances. federal crimes Dowd, Katie.  "Are These the Checks Donald Trump Gave Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels Payment?"   San Francisco Chronicle.  27 February 2019. Goodman, Ryan and Andy Wright.  "Mueller's Roadmap: Major Takeaways from Cohen and Manafort Filings."   Just Security.  December 8, 2018 Rupar, Aaron.  "What's illegal About Trump's Hush Payments to Women, Briefly Explained."   Vox.  12 December 2018. Kelly, Matthew.  "In-Kind Contributions Are Boring ... Until Stormy Daniels Gets Involved."   OpenSecrets.org.  3 April 2018. Lord, Debbie.  "Michael Cohen Plea Deal: How Were Campaign Finance Laws Broken?"   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  22 August 2018. Associated Press.  "A Timeline of Key Moments in Trump-Stormy Daniels Saga."   4 May 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "A Timeline of Trumpworld's Changing Story on Stormy Daniels."   Vox.  4 May 2018. Samuels, Brett.  "Timeline: Trump, Cohen, Stormy Daniels and $130,000."   The Hill.  4 May 2018. Theobald, Bill.  "Why Hush Money Michael Cohen Paid Stormy Daniels Was an Illegal Campaign Donation."   USA Today.  14 December 2018. Kirby, Jen and Andrew Prokop.  "Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to 8 Federal Crimes."   Vox.  21 August 2018. Stewart, Emily and Dylan Matthews.  "The Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels Subplot, Explained."   Vox.  27 February 2019. Chalfant, Morgan.  "Prosecutors Submit Redacted Cohen Raid Documents Under Seal, Teeing Up Public Release."   The Hill.  28 February 2019. Reuters.  "Trump Says He Did Not Know About $130,000 Payment to Stormy Daniels."   5 April 2018. Phishing bait:  Notice from the IRS indicating the recipient's electronic tax return or payment has been rejected or that the recipient has a refund coming. Examples:   [Collected via e-mail, October 2010] Subject: Your Federal Tax Payment ID 010357109 is rejected.  Urgent Report. Your Federal Tax Payment ID: 01037524 has been rejected. Return Reason Code R21 - The identification number used in the Company Identification Field is not valid. Please, check the information and refer to Code R21 to get details about your company payment in transaction contacts section: EFTPS: The Electronic Federal Tax Payment System PLEASE NOTE: Your tax payment is due regardless of EFTPS online availability. In case of an emergency, you can always make your tax payment by calling the EFTPS.  [Collected via e-mail, January 2008] After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a Stimulus Payment. Please submit the Stimulus Payment Online Form in order to process it. A Stimulus Payment can be delayed for a variety of reasons.For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To submit your Stimulus Payment form, please download the document attached to your email. Note: If filing or preparation fees were deducted from your 2007 Refund or you received a refund anticipation loan, you will be receiving a check instead of a direct deposit. Regards,Internal Revenue Servicestimulus.payment@irs.gov  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: IRS Notification - Fiscal ActivityDate: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:57:35 +0300 After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $268.32. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it. A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here Regards,Internal Revenue Service Copyright 2007, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved.  [Collected via e-mail, February 2009] Re: US Stimulus Check Information--------------------------------------------------------------------If you're one of the millions of Americans struggling in today's economy, help is available. You've been chosen for the chance to get a US Stimulus Check based on your annual income level. (Participation required. See below for details.) Refer to the chart below to determine the amount of money you can receive: --------------------------------------------------------------------$0 - $35,000........................$709 US Stimulus Check--------------------------------------------------------------------$35,000 - $70,000.................$615 US Stimulus Check--------------------------------------------------------------------$70,000+.............................$504 US Stimulus Check--------------------------------------------------------------------  Make your selection here, then follow the instructions on our website before this offer expires.  [Collected via e-mail, July 2009] Tax Refund Notification After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity, we have determined that you are eligible to receive tax refund of 488.50 GBP. You are require to submit the tax refund request using the tax refund reference below and allow up 6-9 working days in order to process it [link elided] Note : A refund can be delayed for different reasons, for example submitting invalid records or applying after deadline. we apologise for any inconveniences and thank you for your co-operation. Yours Sincerely HM Revenue & Customs  [Collected via e-mail, June 2011] Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Source Important information about your tax return We are unable to process your tax return We recived your tax return. However, we are unable to process the return as field. Our records indicate that the person identified as the primary taxpayer or spouse on the tax return did not provided all the required documents shown on the tax form. Our records are based on information received from the Social Security Administration. Based on this information, the tax account for the individual has been locked  What you need to do Print out the attached notification and list of missing documents, fill it in, add the documents and send the following information to the adress shown in the attached notification. List of required documents: 1. A copy of this letter 2. Notification letter 3. A photocopy of valid U.S. Federal or State Government issued identification. Keep this notice for your records. If you need assistance, please don'thesitate to contact us  [Collected via e-mail, January 2012] IRS notice, The analysis of the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity has indicated that you are entitled to receive a tax refund of $115.25 Please submit a request of the tax refund and a processing of the request will take 7-14 days. A tax refund can be delayed by different reasons. For instance submission of invalid records or sending after the deadline. Please find the form of your tax refund attached and fill out it and send a report. Regards,Internal Revenue Service. Origins:  Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) make good  phishing bait for a number of reasons: phishing  Notices from institutions of the federal government (especially an agency with the ominous reputation of the IRS) grab people's attention.  Unlike other phishing schemes that emulate mailings from various private financial institutions (e.g., Bank of America) and are therefore easily recognized as phony by many recipients (because they do no business with those companies), a forged IRS notice has the potential to take in a much larger pool of victims, as most adult U.S. residents have dealings with that agency.  Many people find the federal income tax filing process complicated and confusing, so the idea that they might have unclaimed refunds or payments waiting for them to claim seems plausible. An August 2007 mass phish e-mailing (reprised in January 2012) took advantage of those points, spamming millions of Internet users with phony notices that advised recipients they were eligible to receive tax refunds (of amounts such as $109.30 or $268.32) and invited them to click on a link that took them to a form  through which they could claim those refunds.  Of course, the link included in the messages didn't actually send users to the genuine IRS web site; it redirected claimants to an imposter site that instructed them to enter sensitive personal information (e.g., Social Security number and debit card number) in order to "deposit" their refunds.   Similarly, January 2009 versions redirected claimants to an imposter site with a form for them to fill out in order to claim stimulus payments, and an October 2010 version used the lure of claiming that the recipients' Electronic Federal Tax Payments (EFTPS) had been rejected due to invalid information and sent them to a phony imitation of the real EFTPS site to enter new information. The IRS never offers refunds through e-mail or sends out unsolicited e-mails to taxpayers.   When the IRS needs to contact a taxpayer, it sends notice via U.S. Mail, and every such notice includes a telephone number that the recipient can call for confirmation.  Should you need to visit the IRS web site for any reason, go there directly (by entering the www.irs.gov URL into your web browser) rather than following links in e-mail messages. The IRS says about such e-mails that: IRS The IRS does not initiate taxpayer communications through e-mail. In addition, the IRS does not request detailed personal information through e-mail or ask taxpayers for the PIN numbers, passwords or similar secret access information for their credit card, bank or other financial accounts.  Do not open any attachments to questionable e-mails, which may contain malicious code that will infect your computer. Please be advised that the IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers via e-mails. The EFTPS web site also states that: EFTPS EFTPS values your privacy and security and will never attempt to contact you via e-mail. If you ever receive an e-mail that claims to be from EFTPS or from a sender you do not recognize that mentions a payment made through EFTPS, forward the e-mail to phishing@irs.gov or call the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration at 1.800.366.4484. Last updated:  9 January 2012 Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman questioned Democrats who want to raise the federal minimum wage and offered a flurry of statistics to help make his point. Speaking Sunday on ABC'sThis Week, Portman suggested that raising the $7.25 an hour minimum wage could force employers to cut jobs. If you want to deal with income inequality, the No. 1 way to do it is to get people to work. That's what all the statistics show. About 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage. Of that group, by the way, less than .3 of 1 percent of Americans are both under poverty -- under the line of poverty and on minimum wage. So it's a lot of young people. About 50 percent of them are between 16 and 24 years old. For a lot of them, it's a part-time job. So what you don't want to do is raise the minimum wage to the point that you're actually losing jobs. That exchange includes a bunch of different statistics, but here well be checking this one: About 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage. We wont get into the question of what this means for minimum-wage policy here; for now, well just look at the numbers. To do so, we turned to a study published by Bureau of Labor Statistics -- the federal governments official chronicler of employment and wage data -- titled, Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012. It was released on Feb. 26, 2013. The study found that a little under 3.6 million workers were paid either at or below the federal minimum wage. (The study did not look at whether workers were paid higher minimum wage rates set by their state, as many states have done.) To determine the percentage,we looked at the number of Americans employed. That number ranged between about 133 million and 134 million during 2012. If you divide the two numbers, it turns out that, by the official statistics, roughly 2.6 percent of all American workers were earning the minimum wage in 2012. Thats slightly higher than Portman indicated, but his estimate was definitely in the ballpark. That said, we do see a few caveats, none of which strike us as particularly troublesome for the accuracy of his comment. Portman said 2 percent of Americans, but to be entirely accurate, he really should have said 2 percent ofworkers. To figure out the percentage of Americans earning the minimum wage, we turned to the U.S. Census Bureau, whichestimatedthat the U.S. population in 2012 was 313,914,040. That would mean that minimum-wage workers accounted for just over 1 percent of Americans. That said, dividing by the number of Americans would not be a very useful number -- it includes a lot of people who arent old enough to work or who have retired. Portman referred to people who get paid the minimum wage. Actually, the numbers he cited refer to Americans who either get paid the minimum wage or get paidless thanthe minimum wage. How can you get paid less than the minimum wage? The minimum-wage law actuallyexempts whole classes of workersfrom the $7.25 standard -- vocational education students, full-time students employed by retail or service establishments, agriculture, or institutions of higher education, and those impaired by a physical or mental disability. This is not a trivial population -- for 2012 at least, the number earning less than the minimum wage (about 2 million) actually exceeded the number who earned the minimum wage exactly (about 1.6 million). In addition, its worth noting that workers in tipped professions, such as wait staff, get a legal minimum wage thatswell below $7.25. By factoring in tips earned, the employer only has to pay workers a minimum of $2.13 an hour. One other note: The BLS offers some words of caution about its data. It counted only minimum-wage workers who are actually paid by the hour. Salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded from the BLS analysis. BLS says the number of salaried workers earning at or below the minimum wage is probably modest, but the data is sufficiently opaque that the agency warns that the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing federal minimum is undoubtedly understated. BLS also warns that this study is based on a sample, and samples are imperfect. Our ruling Portman said that about 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage. He didnt word the statement with complete accuracy; he would have been better off saying that, according to official statistics, about 2 percent of American workers get paid at or below the federal minimum wage. Still, his number is close to accurate, and his general point -- that workers who are paid the federal minimum-wage represent a small percentage of the entire working population -- is backed up by official data. We rate his claim Mostly True. On Nov. 26, Taters Gonna Tate published an article positing that the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) had arrested the mayor of Los Angeles.  article "ICE Arrests LA Mayor for Harboring Fugitives Through Sanctuary City." Weve all been wondering when this would happen and why wasnt this done from the start. But we shouldnt dwell. Justice is finally being done. Josiah Barron, the celebrated mayor of Los Angeles County, was led away from his office in handcuffs today by ICE agents and charged with harboring fugitives from the law with his decision to provide undocumented immigrants with refuge under his Sanctuary City designation. The arrest followed Barrons order to the citys police to not cooperate with ICE by reporting illegal aliens in their custody. ICE demanded the criminals be handed over but they were denied.  This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a website that describes its output as being humorous or satirical in nature, as follows: describes "Tatersgonnatate.com is a subsidiary of the Americas Last Line of Defense network of parody, satire, and tomfoolery ... Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined. Any similarities between this sites pure fantasy and actual people, places, and events are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and satirical." The fake story was widely shared in late December after America's Last Line of Defense (ALLOD) re-promoted it on Facebook on Dec. 24. Although the article bore disclaimers that labelled it "satire," many readers mistook it for serious news, as demonstrated by a series of earnest comments on the ALLOD Facebook page:   For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire and humor. why TatersGonnaTate.com. "ICE Arrests LA Mayor for Harboring Fugitives Through Sanctuary City."
 26 November 2019. In Ohio, where union workers are a major presence and the manufacturing economy is hurting, Sen. Barack Obama attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton for her position on the North American Free Trade Agreement, called NAFTA. Yesterday, Sen. Clinton also said I'm wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA, Obama said. But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president. A couple years after it passed, she said NAFTA was a 'free and fair trade agreement' and that it was 'proving its worth.' And in 2004, she said, 'I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York state and America.' The Clinton campaign says Obama is wrong, that Clinton was critical of NAFTA long before she started running for president. We looked into Clinton's past remarks on NAFTA and concluded that she has changed her tune, from once speaking favorably about it to now saying the agreement needs fixing. The agreement goes back to the 1992 presidential campaign when Bill Clinton ran against incumbent President George H.W. Bush. On Aug. 12 of that year, Bush finished negotiating NAFTA with Mexico and Canada. During the campaign, Bill Clinton said he would support NAFTA if elected, but would demand supplemental agreements to protect worker rights, the environment and sudden import surges. After Clinton won the presidency, his administration negotiated the side agreements and made NAFTA one of its top priorities. Vice President Al Gore memorably debated Ross Perot about NAFTA on CNN's Larry King Live. Congress approved the agreements, and it was hailed as a major political victory for the new president. As first lady, Hillary Clinton publicly supported her husband's position. In 1996, in a visit with unionized garment workers, she said the words Obama now quotes. I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth, said Clinton, according to an Associated Press report. Clinton wrote positively of her husband's efforts on NAFTA in her memoir Living History, published in 2003: Creating a free trade zone in North America  the largest free trade zone in the world  would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. During a 2004 teleconference on funding cuts for job training, Clinton was asked whether NAFTA should be revisited. She replied, I think that we have to enforce the trade rules that are inherent in NAFTA. I think on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America, but I also think that there are a number of areas where we're not dealt with in an upfront way in dealing with our friend to the north, Canada, which seems to be able to come up with a number of rationales for keeping New York agricultural products out of Canada, she said. Today, Clinton's campaign Web site says plainly, NAFTA was negotiated more than 14 years ago, and Hillary believes it has not lived up to its promises. At a debate hosted by CNN in November 2007, Clinton said, NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would, and that's why I call for a trade timeout. We should note that Clinton biographer Sally Bedell Smith has said that as first lady, Clinton opposed NAFTA privately but supported it publicly because it was important to her husband politically. However, this is not a point Clinton made in her own autobiography, where she wrote in favor of NAFTA. Now, there's the issue of whether Clinton changed her mind because she was running for president. Clinton surrogates say she made remarks against NAFTA as early as March 2000 when she was running for Senate in New York. We could not confirm those remarks independently. But, as we've noted, she made pro-NAFTA remarks as late as 2003 (her autobiography) and 2004 (a teleconference). We won't say Clinton was a huge cheerleader for NAFTA, but she did speak favorably of it. And now she says it needs to be fixed. Was running for president the cause of this switch, or was it a gradual change of thinking? It's hard to say; the balance of evidence does not point to a harsh pivot point. But when we balance her previous statements against her more recent statements, we find that she has changed her sentiments when she speaks about NAFTA. We rate Obama's charge True. Austins typically soft-spoken mayor recently popped a big-as-Texas boast. Theres a reason Austin is number one in Texas in startups and venture capital and patents, Steve Adler said. Adler, speaking outside City Hall, went on: Theres a reason that tech and transportation companies come to Austin to roll out their new initiatives. And thats because Austin is where good ideas become real. Claiming that Austin is anti-innovation has no basis in fact. Hear hear! Still, we wondered about the rankings Adler declared whilerevealing his plansto vote against a ballot proposition, later rejected by voters, affecting background checks of drivers for ride-hailing services. Startups Adler's office didn't immediately offer his backup. Meantime, our online search for information on startups led us to a June 2015 report from the Kansas City-based Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation stating that in the last year, the Austin metropolitan area ranked No. 1 nationally for the areas pace launching startups, which the foundation defined as firms less than one-year old employing at least one person besides the owner. Asked what last year means in the report, foundation researcher E.J. Reedy advised by phone the conclusion tied to data from 2012 and 2014. According to the foundation,which saysit focuses on improving lives through education and entrepreneurship, the nations top 10 metropolitan areas for startup activity among the 40 most-populous metropolitan areas were:Austin;Miami, Fla.;San Jose, Calif.;Los Angeles;Denver;San Francisco;New York;Houston;San Diego; andSan Antonio. Per Adlers Texas point, the Austin area had 180.8 startups per 100,000 residents, the foundation says, outpacing theDallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area(142.5 startups per 100,000 residents),Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown(136.9 startups per 100,000 residents) and the San Antonio-New Braunfels area (111.9 startups per 100,000 residents). By email, foundation spokeswoman Lacey Graverson told us the presented concentrations drew on the U.S. Census BureausBusiness Dynamics Statisticsto tally startups matched with population data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reedy agreed by phone that among the big Texas cities, the Austin area had the greatest concentration of startups. But generally, Reedy indicated, counts of startups can vary, partly because theres no single accepted definition of startups, which inherently come and go at a rapid pace. The government has official measures, Reedy added, but each one captures an aspect -- for instance new employer businesses or newly self-employed individuals. Also, Reedy said, observers differ over what merits counting. Some stress large firms that employ many, he said, others urge a fix on technology firms and others say that any count should recognize small businesses (including one-person endeavors) that grow by an employee or two a year. A foundation chart presenting Austins startup density since the late 1970s indicates the area has had peppier times--including in 2008 (201.7 startups per 100,000 residents), 2006 (214.9), 1999 (217.9) and, the charts high point, 1981 (499.5), which was up a huge measure from 1980 (31.4):        SOURCE:Web page,Startup Activity, Austin Area, 2015,Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, June 4, 2015 (viewed May 5, 2016) Venture capital Next, we turned to exploring Austins ranking for venture capital, which describes money invested in a business or project at considerable risk. A January 2016Austin American-Statesmannews story, citing a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association,  said Austin entities in 2015 were by far the states largest recipients of venture capital, with $740 million; Dallas firms placed second, fielding $214.4 million, ahead of Houston outfits, at $160 million. The Austin-connected investments added up to the largest annual dollar figure for Austin since 2001, the newspaper said, when 127 companies received $1.14 billion. By email, mayoral spokesman Jason Stanford pointed out another account of the survey results; a Silicon Hills Newsstorysaid the 99 Austin deals in 2015, mostly to develop software, were down from 114 in 2014. Also, the story said, Austins number one deal for the latest year was Civitas Learning, attracting $60 million in venture capital, followed by Aeglea Biotherapeautics with $44 million, Mirna Therapeutics with $41.8 million and SpareFoot with $30 million, the story said. Nationally in 2015, theStatesmanstory said, venture capital investments rose to $58.8 billion, up 22 percent from the year before. Silicon Valley, as usual, took in the most money, with the San Jose area receiving $27.3 billion in 1,333 deals, the story said. Patents Stanford said Adler made his claim about Austin leading Texas in patents based on a May 2010Forbes.com articleby Andy Greenberg stating that Austin and neighboring Round Rock had produced an impressive average 1.7 patents for every thousand residents over the last 12 months, the second-most per-capita of any metro area in the country, he wrote. Greenberg elaborated: Austins culture of innovation may be boosted by well-known tech credentials like the South by Southwest (SXSW) Web startup and music festival held annually in March, as well as the nearby headquarters of hardware industry giants Dell and Freescale Semiconductor. But they also have two secret weapons in the innovation race: the University of Texass Cockrell School of Engineering, and IBMs Austin research lab. IBM produces more patents than any other company in the world, and for the last seven years Austin has produced more of those patents than any other IBM office. In total the lab produced 880 patents in 2009. Thats just 30 less than all of Cisco, and 300 more than Sun Microsystems, Boeing, AT&T or Toyota. We were unable to confirm or duplicate Greenbergs Austin conclusion. To get our own sense of how Texas cities stand in patents originated, we reached out to the Dallas-basedregional officeof the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. By email, spokesman Ryan Elliott pointed outpatent counts posted by the officeindicating that in 2012-13 and from 2000 through 2013, the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area generated more patents than the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos area. However, the regions raw counts were close, according to the agency, while the Austin area was responsible for more patents than any other Texas area from 2009, 2010 and 2011 through 2013, by our reckoning. Snapshot: The Austin area was responsible for 12,387 patents from 2009 through 2013, according to the office, with the Dallas area accounting for 11,546 patents -- which we took to mean that the less populous Austin area ran well ahead of the Dallas area in patents per 1,000 residents. Our search for relevant analyses led to a2013 reportby the Brookings Institution finding that from 1980 to 2012, most U.S. patents--63 percent--had been developed by people living in just 20 metro areas home to 34 percent of the U.S. population. Reflecting the advantages of large metropolitan economies, the report said, 92 percent of U.S. patents are concentrated in just 100 metro areas, with 59 percent of the population. For patents applied for from 2007 to 2011, the metro areas with the highest number per capita are San Jose; Burlington, VT; Rochester, MN; Corvallis, OR; and Boulder, CO. The authors wrote: From 1980 to 2011, a few large metros notably changed their share of U.S patents. At the top, San Jose moved up from ninth to first, and San Francisco moved from seventh to fourth, moving ahead of Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Boston. Seattle and San Diego moved up 15 and nine places, respectively, to become seventh and eighth. Meanwhile, Austin and Raleigh moved up 41 and 55 places, respectively, to become 11th and 20th. Cleveland fell 10 slots from 13th to 23rd, while Philadelphia fell from fourth to 13th. Not only did Austin surge in total patents, it lately achieved a high ranking in per-capita patents. From 2007 through 2011, a chart in the report indicates, the Austin metro area had 1,503 patents per million residents, tops in Texas and placing the area fourth nationally among high-patent areas behind San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California (5,066 patents per million residents); Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, New York (1,829); and San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont (1,638). In Texas, the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown metro area had 379 patents per million residents and the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area had 310 per million, according to Brookings. Next, we heard back from Mark Muro of Brookings who shared a chart that he said was based on a different data source -- global PCT patents,meaningthe international patent system rather than the U.S. PTO. By that metric, the chart suggests that from 2008 through 2012, the Houston metropolitan area generated more cutting-edge technology patents per 1,000 residents (1,598) than the Austin area (1,294). An excerpt:             SOURCE:Chart ranking 100 U.S. Core Based Statistical Areas in tech patents invented per 1,000 population, 2008-2012 (received by email from Mark Muro, senior fellow and policy director, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings, May 5, 2016) Regardless of those results, Muro and a Brookings colleague, Nick Marchio, suggested we hew to the U.S. patent office counts as the best general way of assessing the mayors claim. Marchio even volunteered toadjust the patent offices raw counts for the population of each metropolitan area. Result: In 2013, the latest year of tabulated patents, the Austin area ranked No. 11 nationally with 1.55 patents per 1,000 residents, far outpacing the No. 2 Texas metro, Dallas, at 51st with 0.44 patents per 1,000 residents. Also, from 2009 through 2013, the Austin area ranked 10th nationally with 6.95 patents per 1,000 residents, far ahead of the No. 2 Texas metro, in this case the Houston area, which landed 52nd nationally with 1.81 patents per 1,000 residents. Our ruling Adler said: Austin is number one in Texas in startups, venture capital and patents. Houston has been running ahead in international technology patents, it looks to us, but Austin lately leads the state in overall patents, startups and venture capital. We rate the claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.