Every year we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance.
A reader questioned Sen. Ted Cruzs comparison of military spending to how much it costs Americans to get their taxes done. According to ablog poston txwinelover.com, Cruz toured Becker Vineyards in July 2014 before holding a roundtable with wine industry representatives during which he agreed the tax system should be simplified. Every year, Cruz elaborated, we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance. I agree with you we should move to a simple flat tax where everyone can fill out their taxes on a postcard and that we should shut down the IRS. Cruz, a Texas lawyer elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012, has since declared his candidacy for president.But hed already calledfor a flat-rate income tax and abolishing the IRS. And was he right that about the same $500 billion a year getting spent on complying with tax laws and funding the military? Both figures need explaining. Military spending Per military spending, Cruz campaign spokesman  Rick Tyler said by email that Cruz drew ona chartposted byThe Washington Postin 2012 indicating that adjusted for inflation, defense spending has exceeded $500 billion a year since 2007 or so: SOURCE:Blog post,Defense spending in the U.S., in four charts,Wonkblog,The Washington Post, Aug. 28, 2012, chart citingCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments(noted in an email from Rick Tyler, chief national spokesperson, Ted Cruz presidential campaign, May 5, 2015) ThePostrelied on the Washington, D.C.-basedCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessmentswhere by email, analyst Todd Harrison told us the militarys 2014 base budget, meaning the cost of maintaining a standing military in peacetime, totaled $496 billion. So far so good, except, Harrison advised, that figure did not reflect all military spending. Generally, he said, the base budget does not include the cost of using the military to fight a conflict, nor does it include legacy costs, such as unfunded pensions and veterans benefits, or military activities conducted outside of (the Department of Defense) such as the maintenance and upgrade of nuclear weapons. All of those things are extra, he said. If you count those other expenses, Harrison said, the U.S. spent $866 billion on the military in 2014. By email, Tyler stressed the militarys base budget doesnt include overseas contingencies. But its your rigged game, you make up any facts you want, Tyler said by email. Next, we turned to what it costs Americans to fulfill federal tax requirements. Tax compliance costs To get our arms around compliance costs, we reached out to certified public accountantConnie Weaver, a Texas A&M University professor, who guided us toJune 2011 testimonyon compliance costs by tax expert Michael Brostek of the investigative arm of Congress, the General Accountability Office. Broadly, Brostek said that complying with IRS regulations costs taxpayers time and money, at least $107 billion in 2005, the GAO estimated, with other studies estimating costs 1.5 times as large. Beyond compliance costs, Bostek noted even larger estimated economic efficiency costs, which are reductions in economic well-being caused by changes in behavior due to taxes. Previous fact checks Even before Cruz commented at the roundtable, the FactChecker atThe Washington Postawarded two Pinocchios toHouse Speaker John Boehners claim that it was costing Americans $500 billion a year to comply with federal tax demands. Cost estimates varied, thePostwrote, with the safest bet at the time being $163 billion as estimated by the IRSsTaxpayer Advocate Service, entrusted with helping taxpayers resolve problems and recommending changes.Adjusting for inflation,that cost would have been nearly $172 billion a year around the time Cruz spoke in 2014. More recently, the FactChecker weighed in again afternoticing Cruzmade his $500 billion military-tax compliance spending comparison at a May 2015 South Carolina stop. Like Boehner, Cruz drew a couple Pinocchios. Weaver told us that because Cruz didnt say what he meant by compliance costs  where hed draw the boundaries  an observer could explore three possibilities: a taxpayers basic liability as in how much he or she sends the government in taxes; the costs associated with pulling together information and submitting it to the government; or efficiency costs as in lost outputs, time taken from other productive activities or from missing out on other consumption activities. For an individual, she said, its easy to calculate compliance costs by gauging how long it takes to fill out the required forms and multiplying that by an hourly dollar figure for how the individual values their time. When you try to aggregate that nationally, she said, its very difficult. She said she wouldnt be comfortable specifying a national compliance-costs figure. But all in all, Weaver said, it looks like Cruzs figure was high. Cruz aide: Senator relied on two studies Tyler told us Cruz got his tax-compliance costs from anApril 2011 analysisby supply-side economist Arthur B. Laffer and others indicating $431.1 billion in combined annual costs incurred by taxpayers to pay federal taxes and aMay 2013 studyby researchers at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University stating the annual hidden costs of U.S. tax compliance ranged from $215 billion to $987 billion. Laffer study The Laffer-led study said researchers created a comprehensive estimate of the total administrative costs, time costs, and direct tax compliance costs created by the complex U.S. federal income tax code. The $431.1 billion in estimated annual spending, the report said, reflects money spent to comply with and administer the U.S. income tax system. * Its estimate, relying on 2010 figures, broke out to approximately $31.5 billion in direct outlays (paying a professional tax preparer or purchasing tax software), total IRS administrative costs of $12.4 billion; and nearly $378 billion for the  time value costs taxpayers must bear to pay their taxes, filling out and submitting forms. In 2011, thePosts FactChecker called the Laffer study dubious, noting it took a figure from the Internal Revenue Services Tax Advocate  that individuals and businesses spent 6.1 billion hours complying with tax filing requirements  and got to its cost estimate by multiplying it against an absurd hourly income of $68.42 on the theory that the wealthy pay most of the income taxes. Mercatus Center study The Mercatus Centers study, led byJason J. Fichtner, a senior research fellow, similarly noted the high wage costs applied in the Laffer study, stating that in the study, the average income used to monetize taxpayers time is significantly greater than the average income used in other estimates. For its part, the center suggested a range of hidden costs connected to paying taxes including time and money spent submitting tax forms, foregone economic growth, lobbying expenditures, and gaps in revenue collection though the authors said they couldnt pin a figure for lobbying by interests trying to reduce taxes paid. As far as compliance costs, what Cruz singled out, the center study estimated $67 billion to $378 billion a year in accounting costs associated with filing taxes, a range based on IRS information suggesting 60 percent of individual taxpayers and 71 percent of unincorporated business taxpayers pay someone--an accountant, lawyer or tax professional--to prepare their taxes, with 32 percent of individual taxpayers relying on software. Significantly, Fichtner told us, his paper, based on a review of relevant studies, was intended to cover far more than simple compliance costs. I chose to give a range based on the different methodologies that I found in the research literature. Its not that one method is better than anotheror right versus wrong, Fichtner said. All the measures have different assumptions for the time value of an hour of lost work/productivity as well as time spent. Heres a chart from the study summarizing a range of cost studies dating back to 2003:                  Other analyses Next, we asked the Washington, D.C.-based Tax Foundation about Cruzs figure. Spokesman Richard Borean said by email it had no analysis to confirm or refute the $500 billion figure. But he noted the Mercatus Center study and suggested we consider annual reports on tax compliance costs put out by the National Taxpayers Union, a non-partisan research and educational organizationthat saysits devoted to showing Americans how taxes, government spending and regulations affect them. The unions April 2014report, which would have been the the latest one available before Cruz spoke, noted the IRSs National Taxpayer Advocate had most recently estimated the annual paperwork burden generated by the federal personal and corporate tax system at 6.1 billion hours  the equivalent of about 3.05 million employees working 40-hour weeks year-round with two weeks off each. The group said: The value of the labor behind the 6.1 billion hours amounts to a jaw-dropping $192.6 billion, when calculated with the most recently reported average employer cost for non-federal civilian workers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics: $31.57 per hour. Add in the $31.7 billion spent on tax software and other out-of-pocket costs for individuals and the total is $224.3 billion a year. (The unionslatestlook at compliance costs, released in April 2015, said compliance with the federal income tax cost the economy $233.8 billion in productivity in 2014.) Our ruling Cruz said: Every year we spend roughly $500 billion on tax compliance. That is roughly the budget of our entire military, entirely wasted on tax compliance. This claim proved squishy at both ends. It looks like depending on how you value time, you can get to almost any total for what it costs Americans to prepare and file tax returns. However, most estimates run short of Cruzs figure. Meantime, military spending exceeded $800 billion when he spoke though the senators spokesman indicated he meant to not count spending on conflicts abroad and other items not in the militarys nearly $500 billion base budget. We rate the statement False. FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.
In November 2019, several readers began inquiring about the existence of a keto pill that had allegedly been funded through the popular NBC TV show "Shark Tank"  a program in which affluent judges decide for or against investing their personal funds in various entrepreneurial ventures pitched to them in front of the camera. Keto, in this context, is a form of dieting that proponents claim forces your body to metabolize body fat in the absence of other carbs like glucose. This post is not about the science behind such claims, but instead about the business of selling supplements with fake celebrity endorsements. For the record, no keto-based product has ever been pitched or funded on "Shark Tank." form of dieting In at least one notable instance, a product named PureFit KETO was marketed as if it had been successfully pitched on "Shark Tank." However, on June 22, 2019, the Better Business Bureau investigated the company, finding that the images appearing on PureFit KETO's website were taken from a separate 'Shark Tank' episode that does not mention PureFit KETO. Despite this, Amazon, among others, includes the "Shark Tank" claim in its product listing at the time of this reporting in late 2019. marketed finding Shark Tank" claim Claims of a "Shark Tank" approved keto pill are just one of a series of iterations of a broader scam. Among the many ways some people seek passive income from online marketing is to sell supplements via dropshipping  a practice in which the person advertising and selling a given product never actually has physical possession of the product in question. The role of the dropshipper is to move the product by directing potential customers to order directly from a supplier and thereby earning a fraction of the profits from a sale in the process. Myriad individuals in this space evidently use a variety of dubious practices to juice those sales.  dropshipping One such method is to lie about who has endorsed the product, as evidenced in claims that PureFit Keto had been funded on "Shark Tank." Similar products have also been advertised as if famous celebrities use them. For example, marketers of a product named Keto Fit claimed the supplement was endorsed by model Chrissy Teigen, providing made-up quotes from her to sell the product. Teigen publicly repudiated the practice when it was brought to her attention in January 2019:  Claims of Keto Fits celebrity endorsements dont end with Teigen. False claims about Keto Fits endorsements include alleged support from celebrities such as Demi Lovato and Jameela Jamil. In some cases, claims of support come from websites designed to look like existing media properties  the Teigen claims were made on a website pretending to be the popular site Bored Panda. In other cases, a common marketing method is the creation of fake diet pill reviews on blogs that exist solely to review that one keto product while highlighting impossible-to-miss links to order the product. Demi Lovato reviews on blogs Though these various keto products often change names  the products are frequently rebranded into similar-sounding names over time  the product generally remains the same. These products, with names like KetoFit, KetoBurn, KetoPlus, or KetoMelt, are all  if you trust these companies to accurately report their contents  made up of the same chemical: Beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB). rebranded   BHB is a ketone that the body is able under certain circumstances to burn for energy instead of glucose. Suggesting this widely available nutritional supplement is uniquely worthy to be an invention worthy of "Shark Tank," or a secret product used by the Hollywood elite is, on its face, absurd. More to the point, however, no keto diet pill has ever been discussed on the show "Shark Tank." a ketone Masood, Wajeed and Kalyan R. Uppaluri.  Ketogenic Diet.
  StatPearls.  As updated on 21 March 2019. BBB.com.  PureFit KETO.
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Amazon.com.  Purefit Keto Weight Loss Pills for Men and Women - Ketogenic Diet Supplement - Burn Fat for Energy - BHB Formula (1 Month).
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Shopify.  The Ultimate Guide to Dropshipping.
  Accessed 19 November 2019. Brar, Faith.  BHB: The Miracle Molecule of the Keto Diet?
  StatPearls.  28 September 2017. Shortly after outgoing House Speaker Paul Ryan fired House Chaplain Patrick Conroy in a closed-door meeting at the end of April 2018, a rumor that the House Speaker had nominated televangelist Joel Osteen as his replacement started to spread online: fired spread   Paul Ryan did not nominate Joel Osteen to be the new House Chaplain. This rumor originated with a satirical post on the message board Democratic Underground: post In a surprise move during the weekend, Speaker Ryan proposed that Prosperity Gospel champion, Joel Osteen, become the new chaplain for the U.S. House of Representatives. In a brief comment, the Speaker said, "America needs to become more prosperous. It needs a new approach to individual wealth. Pastor Osteen carries that message and shows us the way. Working Americans should be grateful to pay more taxes to the Federal Government. As Jesus, himself, said, 'It will be returned an hundred-fold.' Joel, my good friend, suggests that the road to a more prosperious America will come through even higher taxes on low-income citizens, who will benefit in the end, of course. I agree with the good Pastor, and will be introducing new legislation to that effect soon."    The author of this post, a user identified as "MineralMan," wrote in the comments that the "evil grin" emoticon included at the bottom of the post indicated that the text was satirical. Forum users also compared the text to articles on the Borowitz Report, a well-known satirical blog published in the New Yorker: Borowitz Report   Zanona, Melanie.  "Ryan Explains Decision to Dismiss House Chaplain."
  The Hill.  27 April 2018. Carly Fiorina is fighting back against critics, including a cyber-squatter, who accuse the Republican presidential candidate of slash-and-burn tactics in her time as CEO of computer company Hewlett-Packard. The cyber-squatter purchased the website carlyfiorina.org to highlight nearly30,000 layoffsthat occured while Fiorina led the computer giant from 1999-2005. Fiorina later was fired by HPs board. OnMeet the PressSunday, host Chuck Todd asked Fiorina why she was fired. Fiorina used the question to list her accomplishments at HP. What people fail to comment on is the fact we doubled the size of the company, took the growth rate from 2 percent to 9 percent, she said. We tripled the rate of innovation to 11 patents a day and went from lagging behind to leading in every product category. We grew jobs here in the U.S. and all over the world. You can't just leave those facts out -- they are as vital to the record as the fact that yes, indeed, I had to make tough calls during tough times. Tough times that many technology companies didn't survive at all. Given Fiorinas dismissal and other issues at HP, we were interested in that first claim -- that under her leadership, the company doubled in size. Fiorina's claim is not referring to the number of employees (you can read a good primer on that from our archiveshere). In this case, staff at Carly for America (Fiorinas political action committee) said she was referring to the revenues created by the company. By this specific measure, HP did double. In 1999, when Fiorina became CEO, HPs annual revenue was $42.4 billion, according to annualSecurities and Exchange Commission filings. With the exception of a slight dip in 2001 (at the end of the dot-com bubble), revenue increased each year -- to $86.7 billion in 2005, the year she left. Thats a little bit more than double. But that doesnt tell the entire tale. There are a few critical caveats. Where the growth came from Why such growth? Well, Fiorina spearheaded amajor $25 billion acquisitionof HPs rival, Compaq, to increase the companys share of the personal computer market. The merger was publicly controversial, in part because it tipped HPs focus toward computers (a tough market) and away from its most successful product, printers. The merger went through, and the company grew. In 2001, the year before the merger, revenue was $45.7 billion, and the Compaq revenue was about $40 billion. In 2003, after the two companies merged, revenue was $73 billion. Stephen Morrissette, a business professor at the University of Chicago, noted that the fact that so much of the revenue growth was a result of the merger casts some shade on Fiorinas claim. Most executives would likely not use the phrasing doubled the size of the company to describe their performance if the increase was all or mostly due to an acquisition, Morrissette said. Doubled revenues, but not necessarily stronger Despite the increased revenue, the HP-Compaq merger led to sluggish stock prices and missed profitability targets. The merger also led to the thousands of firings often cited by Fiorinas critics. The merger was widely seen as abustat the time, and it contributed to the HP boards decision to fire Fiorina. (HP stock valueplunged by nearly halfduring her tenure androse againafter she was fired.) HP had $42.4 billion in revenues and $3.1 billion in net earningsin 1999. When Fiorina was ousted in 2005, yes, the company reported $86.7 billion in sales. But that year HP had only$2.4 billion in earnings. Lastly, the employee head count gets a bit complicated. According to SEC filings, HP had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. That comes to a total of 148,100 workers. In 2005, just after her departure, HP's worldwide workforce reached 150,000. That includes acquiring some other companies, theLos Angeles Timesreported. Someanalystshave seen the merger more favorably in recent years, noting that it accomplished Fiorinas goal of increasing HPs share of the personal computer market even though Fiorinas execution failed. Fiorina is taking credit for something she launched and got started, Charles House, co-author ofThe HP Phenomenon,told theSan Jose Mercury Newsin2011. But I think you obviously have to give a hell of a lot of credit to (her successor) for making it successful. I'd be loath to say it would be the same with her there. Our ruling Fiorina said that while she was CEO of HP, the size of the company doubled. That's correct when discussing one specific aspect, revenues, but you could argue that's a bit of a red herring. The revenue growth was largely thanks to a controversial merger with Compaq and not organic. Moreover, the new revenue did not come with proportional increases to either profits or the number of HP jobs. Fiorinas figures are accurate, but standing alone, they dont tell the whole picture. We rate her claim Mostly True. In December 2020, an online advertisement displayed a picture of an Olive Garden Italian Restaurant sign along with text that read: "Closing Time: Here's All The Restaurant Chains Closing in 2020."   This advertisement was misleading. Olive Garden is not closing all of its restaurants. Readers who clicked the advertisement were led to a 50-page story on the website Money Pop. 50-page story While the advertisement promised a list of restaurant chains that would be closing in 2020, the headline on the actual story was different: "These Popular Restaurant Chains Are Losing Money Fast." headline The story mentioned Olive Garden, but it only mentioned that two locations had closed in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Birmingham, Alabama, in March and April, respectively. Springfield, Massachusetts Birmingham, Alabama Olive Garden did not go out of business in 2020, but that's not to say it hadn't faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. The coronavirus had led to the closure of dine-in services at thousands of different restaurants across the United States. This meant less revenue, which resulted in lost jobs. In many cases, restaurants closed. lost jobs restaurants closed On June 22, 2020, Nation's Restaurant News reported that National Restaurant Association President and CEO Tom Ben said the restaurant industry had faced "catastrophic losses." reported Darden Restaurants owns the Olive Garden brand, as well as LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. On Dec. 9, 2020, InvestorPlace.com reported that Darden had managed to survive the pandemic thus far, but it also asked: "What's next for Darden Restaurants?" reported The bull case is built on a bear case regarding other restaurants. Without government help, small operators are closing by the score. This means chains like Darden may be all thats left when people again feel safe to eat out. Darden has managed to make money at Olive Garden while closing half its tables. It reinstated the dividend and paid back its $270 million emergency loan. Once the pandemic is over, Cramer predicts, fast-casual chains like Olive Garden will be the height of fine dining. the height of fine dining. Darden is expected to report earnings Dec. 18, for the quarter ending in November. The estimate is for 72 cents per share of net income on $1.7 billion of sales. That would beat last years profit on 17% less revenue. on $1.7 billion of sales on 17% less revenue The Money Pop story also mentioned The Cheesecake Factory on its list. We previously covered that rumor as well. previously covered Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us In November 2019, we received multiple inquiries about the accuracy of claims that U.S. President Donald Trump had been fined $2 million by a New York court because he was found to have "stolen" charitable donations intended for military veterans.  For example, former Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate Qasim Rashid tweeted on several occasions in November 2019 that Trump had "stolen" $2.8 million in charitable donations from veterans, and that he had admitted as much in court: tweeted several occasions The President stole $2.8M in charity from Veterans & spent it on himself & admits to his crime in court documents. As you speak of honor & serviceWhere is your accountability of a President who trampled on both? Why are you silent Rep @RobWittman?#VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP @RobWittman #VeteransDay https://t.co/rGi9fT0AsP  Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@QasimRashid) November 11, 2019 November 11, 2019   One of Rashid's tweets was later reposted in the form of a meme by the Facebook page Act.tv. (The meme was later deleted): tweets meme   Another widely shared meme claimed, "It is a fact that draft dodger Trump stole charitable cash donations that were meant for our veterans":   These social media posts and memes grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding a November 2019 settlement agreement between the New York Attorney General, on one hand, and the Donald J. Trump Foundation, Trump himself, and his children Ivanka and Eric, on the other hand.  Trump did not "steal" charitable donations intended for veterans, nor did he admit as much in court. All the donations intended for veterans charities ended up going to veterans charities. However, Trump's 2016 presidential campaign did direct and benefit from the manner in which many of those donations were distributed to the charities.  The claims were related to a lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General's office in June 2018 against the Trump Foundation, the president, and Ivanka and Eric Trump, in their capacity as board directors of the charity. We've written about the case in detail in a previous fact check. fact check In her June 2018 petition to the state's Supreme Court, then-New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood wrote: wrote "For more than a decade, the Donald J. Trump Foundation has operated in persistent violation of state and federal law governing New York State charities. This pattern of illegal conduct by the Foundation and its board members includes improper and extensive political activity, repeated and willful self-dealing transactions, and failure to follow basic fiduciary obligations or to implement even elementary corporate formalities required by law. One of the examples of "improper political activity" cited in the lawsuit related to a January 2016 fundraiser that the Trump Foundation and Trump's presidential election campaign jointly operated.  In January 2016, days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump complained of unfair treatment by Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and announced he would be boycotting the next Republican primary debate and instead host a fundraiser for veterans' charities in Iowa.  announced The event raised around $5.6 million, with roughly half going to the Trump Foundation, and half going directly to specific veterans charities. The Trump campaign directed the distribution of funds to recipient charities, and Trump himself repeatedly presented checks at campaign rallies and more broadly used the distribution of funds to boost his presidential campaign.  On the basis of those allegations, Underwood requested several outcomes, including asking the court to "dissolve the Foundation for its persistently illegal conduct, enjoin its board members from future service as a director of any not-for-profit authorized by New York law, to obtain restitution and penalties, and to direct the Foundation to cooperate with the Attorney General in the lawful distribution of its remaining assets to qualified charitable entities. The parties to the lawsuit spent around a year negotiating a settlement. In December 2018, for example, all sides agreed that the Foundation would be dissolved and its assets distributed to a list of mutually agreed charities.  agreed In November 2019, the New York Supreme Court published the final settlement. As part of that settlement between the parties, Trump, his children and the Foundation stipulated to (agreed upon) a set of facts, among them the following section related to the Iowa veterans fundraiser: settlement The website for the Iowa Fundraiser, DonaldTrumpForVets.com, was developed by campaign personnel and, with the agreement of the Foundation, featured the name of the Foundation at the top of the home page and informed visitors that "the Donald J. Trump Foundation is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization"; The campaign planned, organized and paid for the Iowa Fundraiser, with administrative assistance from the Foundation; and the campaign directed the timing, amounts and recipients of the Foundation's grants to charitable organizations supporting military veterans; The Iowa Fundraiser raised approximately $5.6 million in donations for veterans groups, of which $2.823 million was contributed to the Foundation; the balance was contributed by donors directly to various veterans' groups. At Campaign events in Iowa on January 30, January 31, and February 1, 2016, Mr. Trump personally displayed presentation copies of Foundation checks to Iowa veterans' groups. On May 31, 2016, at a Campaign press conference, Mr. Trump announced the grants the Foundation made to veterans' groups with the proceeds of the Iowa Fundraiser and, on or about the same day, the Campaign posted on its website a chart identifying the grant recipients. The New York Attorney General's office objected to the way in which the Trump Foundation had been used to advance the interests of the Trump campaign, and especially the way in which the campaign dictated how more than half of the funds were to be distributed, with Trump at times personally handing out checks at campaign rallies. The Attorney General's Office did not object on the grounds that Trump, his children, or his foundation, had stolen or kept the money.  Indeed, in an order accompanying the November 2019 settlement, New York Supreme Court Justice Saliann Scarpulla wrote that: wrote The Attorney General has argued that I should award damages for waste of the entire $2,823,000 that was donated directly to the Foundation at the Fundraiser. In opposition, Mr. Trump notes that the Foundation ultimately disbursed all of the Funds to charitable organizations and that he has sought to resolve consensually this proceeding. As stated above, I find that the $2,823,000 raised at the Fundraiser was used for Mr. Trumps political campaign and disbursed by Mr. Trumps campaign staff, rather than by the Foundation, in violation of [New York law]. However, taking into consideration that the Funds did ultimately reach their intended destinations, i.e., charitable organizations supporting veterans, I award damages on the breach of fiduciary duty/waste claim against Mr. Trump in the amount of $2,000,000, without interest, rather than the entire $2,823,000 sought by the Attorney General. [Emphasis added]. Trump was ordered to pay $2 million to a list of agreed-upon charities as damages for the waste incurred by the fact that his political campaign orchestrated and benefited from distributing around $2.8 million in donations to veterans groups. (That $2 million in damages was separate from the roughly $1.7 million the Trump Foundation had already agreed to distribute to various charities, as part of the resolution dissolving the Foundation.) Neither Trump, nor his children, nor his charity, were found to have "stolen" or kept the funds, and so none "admitted" to such actions (as Rashid falsely claimed in his tweets). The New York Supreme Court explicitly acknowledged that all the funds raised from the January 2016 Iowa event did ultimately end up with veterans groups.  The irony in those claims was that it was, in fact, the manner in which the Trump Foundation and Trump campaign colluded in distributing the donations to veterans charities that landed the president in hot water, not his having "stolen" the donations.  Mac Guill, Dan. "Did New York Reprimand Trump Family for 'Stealing From a Children's Cancer Charity'?"
 Snopes.com. 31 October 2019. Underwood, Barbara D. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Verified Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 14 June 2018. Shane III, Leo. "Donald Trump to Skip GOP Debate, Hold Fundraiser for Wounded Troops Instead."
 Military Times. 26 January 2016. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation Concerning the Dissolution of the Donald J. Trump Foundation."
  19 December 2018. New York Supreme Court, County of New York. "New York vs. Trump et al -- So-Ordered Stipulation of Final Settlement."
  7 November 2019. Scarpulla, Saliann. "New York vs. Trump et al -- Decision and Order On Petition."
 New York Supreme Court, County of New York. 7 November 2019. Appealing unsuccessfully to spend more money from the states so-called Rainy Day Fund, state Sen. Rodney Ellis hearkened to legislative history, saying in floor debate May 16: Members, this legislature has voted to use virtually all of the Rainy Day Fund four times since its creation in the late 1980s. The sad truth is that Texans and the (fund) are being held hostage to politics.Back story: GOP Gov. Rick Perry has said hes agreeable with taking about $3.1 billion from the fund, formally called the Economic Stabilization Fund, to help cover the state budget that runs through August. But Perry and many Republicans oppose tapping the fund, which is fed by state oil and gas oil production taxes, for the 2012-13 budget. Perry contends it needs to be protected in case of natural disasters.Democrats, noting the projected multi-billion-dollar shortfall in state revenue needed to maintain current programs, say the current dire circumstances justify taking more from the fund.And is Ellis correct about past legislatures voting four times to virtually empty the fund?Jeremy Warren, Elliss spokesman, said the senator relied on a report by the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank that advocates for programs serving the poor. To help balance the 2012-13 budget, the center has urged lawmakers to use the fund, which is projected by State Comptroller Susan Combs to have a balance of $9.7 billion by the end of August 2013, or about $6.6 billion if lawmakers stick with applying $3.1 billion from the fund to this years deficit .The centers Feb. 21reportsays: In 1991, the Legislature spent the funds entire balance ($28.8million) on public schools, and in 1993, spent the entire balance ($197 million) for criminal justice.In 2003, to deal with the last economic downturn, the Legislature appropriated $1.3 billion from the Rainy Day Fundalmost every penny of the balance the (state) comptroller forecast through 2005, the report says. Again in 2005, the Legislature appropriated $1.9 billion in Rainy Day funds, using roughly half for 2005 shortfalls, and the other half for 2006-07, spending almost all the $2 billion that was forecast to be available.Next, we confirmed the amounts of rainy-day money that lawmakers could have spent in each of these instances by reviewing biennial revenue forecasts made by respective state comptrollers. Finally, the Legislative Reference Library guided us to a Feb. 3reportby the House Research Organization, a non-partisan arm of the Texas House, specifying how much money the 1991, 1993, 2003 and 2005 Legislatures appropriated from the fund.Punch line: The centers recap is accurate.We rate Elliss statement True. In June 2021, world leaders from dozens of countries met in Brussels for the 31st formal meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). U.S. President Joe Biden held a number of bilateral meetings and news conferences during the event, and although a number of world leaders made remarks praising the American president  British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Biden was "a big breath of fresh air," and French President Emmanuel Macron said it was "great to have a U.S. president whos part of the club"  some Biden critics focused on a single image from the multi-day trip that they claimed showed Macron "scolding" the U.S. president: Joe Biden   This is a genuine image of Biden and Macron. However, the claim that Macron was "scolding" Biden is based purely on speculation. A single photograph is rarely enough to tell the entire story of an interaction. In fact, we've covered multiple instances in which single photographs were misrepresented and shared with misleading or fabricated context. In May 2017, for example, an image of Pope Francis "frowning" with former President Donald Trump was shared alongside an image of the pope "smiling" with former President Barack Obama. These photographs were both real, but they only showed a single moment from each president's meeting with the pope and did not accurately depict his mood during these meetings. We found other images that showed the pope smiling with Trump and frowning with Obama. image This tactic of cherry-picking a single image to create a misleading narrative was also at play when users shared the image that supposedly showed Macron "scolding" Biden. Although one could share this "scolding" image along with claims that Biden was "bullied" by European leaders, one could share other photographs (such as the one at the top of this page) to claim that Biden was best buds with Macron.  This image of Macron "scolding" Biden is available via Getty Images. The caption states that the two leaders were having a discussion before the start of the NATO summit: Getty Images "US President Joe Biden (R) and French President Emmanuel Macron (L) have a conversation ahead of the NATO summit at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) headquarters in Brussels, on June 14, 2021."  We did not find video showing the specific moment captured in this photograph, but we did find some footage of Biden and Macron talking before the start of the NATO summit. You can catch a glimpse of Biden and Macron speaking at the 3:08-minute mark of the following video.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFfJkWTAu-EYou can't hear what they are saying to one another, but it doesn't appear that this is a heated conversation. Reporting from the NATO summit also made no mention of unusual tensions between the two world leaders. In fact, it was quite the opposite. Reuters reported: reported The United States is back as a cooperative leader of the free world under President Joe Biden, Frances Emmanuel Macron said on Saturday, illustrating the relief felt by many key U.S. allies that the tumult of Donald Trumps presidency is over. Macrons remark echoes that of British Prime Minister Boris Johnson who hailed Biden on Thursday as a big breath of fresh air. Neither Macron nor Johnson drew an explicit parallel between Biden and Trump, though both praised Bidens distinctly cooperative tone and officials said there was relief after Trump at times shocked and bewildered many European allies. Biden, asked by a reporter if America was back, turned to Macron and gestured with his sunglasses towards the French president that he should answer that question. Yes definitely, Macron said. Its great to have a U.S. president whos part of the club and very willing to cooperate. What you demonstrate is that leadership is partnership, Macron told Biden as they sat on an outdoor terrace with a sweeping view of the turquoise sea behind them. Biden and Macron shared several moments together in June 2021. We found several images of them laughing together and even walking arm in arm. Reporting from the event also indicated that Macron's attitude toward the new U.S. president was generally positive. Here's a video of Biden and Macron during a meeting a few days before the NATO summit: laughing together walking arm in arm On Nov. 28, 2022, the@Xx17965797N Twitter accounttweeteda video with a misleading caption that claimed the clip showed a sea of lined-up electric scooter bikes that were abandoned because of the high cost of electric vehicle (EV) battery replacement. The tweet read, "Electric green scooters that have reached end of battery life. Due to the batteries being so expensive to replace, electric scooters are abandoned because disposing of them any other way is dangerous and expensive." tweeted This was not true, despite the tens of thousands of combined retweets and likes that the tweet received.  The same video upload from @Xx17965797N was also misleadingly reshared by accounts including@PeterDClack, @JamesMelville, and @MillerForTexas. The former two tweets received thousands of engagements, despite the fact that the information pushed in the original tweet was not true. @PeterDClack @JamesMelville @MillerForTexas In cases like these where a caption is incorrect but the picture or video is real, we issue a fact-check rating of "Miscaptioned." Days before the @Xx17965797N tweet was posted, the@ElevaBrasilES account also misleadingly tweeted that the same video was shot in France. The tweet went up on Nov. 21 with an incorrect caption that read, "Green energy Cemetery of electric motorcycles in France. Now designated as a 'biohazard zone.'" (Note: This mention of France reminded us of other rumors we've debunked in the past, in particular about two photosof other car graveyards. The two pictures showed false captions that claimed the cars had been abandoned due to the high cost of battery replacement, just like the video we're looking at in this fact check.) tweeted two photos The oldest upload of the video that we could find came from TikTok user @smartsetting. The video was uploaded on Nov. 7 and by the end of the month had received nearly 5 million views.   Based on watching the video, the scooters appeared to be parked in a parking lot near a basketball court, perhaps in a university complex or public park. Several blurry Chinese characters were visible on the side of the bikes. At the end of the clip, a tall building could be seen on the right-hand side of the frame. Other than those pieces of information, we didn't have much to go on. In order to find the truth behind this video, we first used Adobe Media Encoder to export a JPEG file for each and every frame from the video. The results of this export were 440 individual images from the 14-second video. We then performed numerous reverse image searches with these picture files using Google Images and TinEye.com. These reverse image searches provided several clues as to where other users had reposted the video. However, we did not find any further details from these searches. Next, we tried several searches on Google, Twitter, and YouTube with phrases such as "electric scooter China" and "electric bike graveyard China," among other terms. This helped to find several repostsof the video. The searches alsoshowedresults for many of the sites in China that are the final resting placesfor massive stacks of bicycles dumped by bike-sharing companies with failed business models. Perhaps the most striking video we found was titled, "No Place To PlaceThe Wonders of Shared Bicycle Graveyards in China." several reposts showed results sites final resting places failed business models video At one point in our research, we stumbled upon an AFP videofrom 2021 that appeared to show the same yellow color and model of electric scooter bike. The caption for the clip said that it was captured "outside the city of Shenyang." The end of the video showed a stadium with special colors for seating zones. video model After an exhaustive search, we were able to find this same stadium by using the map tools on the Chinese website Baidu.com. Unlike Google Maps, Baidu.com has street-level views of nearby roads. However, this part of our effort wasn't very helpful. It remained unclear if this was the same location where the viral clip was shot. Baidu.com In the end, it was going back to TikTok that helped us find the origins of the video. A search on TikTok for "electric share bike China" brought us to this video from @evstevepan. The video showed the same kind of yellow electric scooter bike with a similar logo. A scan of the logo using a mobile phone camera and Google Translate revealed the company name Meituan, which is known as an "all-encompassing platform for local services." this video We then searched the internet for Meituan and electric scooters, which produced plenty of pictures on Shutterstock.com. For a moment, the two large characters on the side of the scooter didn't seem to match those from the viral video. We then horizontally flipped a still-frame from the viral video, which led us to discover that it had been mirrored, meaning that all words and numbers were backward. plenty of pictures All of these developments in our research led us to news articles that helped to show our findings were lining up. In April 2018, news broke that Meituan had purchased the company Mobike for $2.7 billion. According to the story, Mobike is "a Chinese startup that helped pioneer bike-sharing services worldwide." broke But by November of that same year, TechCrunch reported that Meituan would be "[walking] away from bike-sharing and ride-hailing," as there wasn't enough demand from customers for the supply of its bike-sharing venture: reported In April, Meituan entered the bike-sharing fray after it scooped up top player Mobike for $2.7 billion to face off Alibaba-backed Ofo. Over the past few years, Mobike and Ofo were burning through large sums of investor money in a bid to win users from subsidized rides, but both have shown signs of softening their stance recently. Mobike is downsizing its fleets to "avoid an oversupply" as the bike-sharing market falters, Meituan's chief financial officer Chen Shaohui said during the earnings call. Ofo has also scaled back by closing down many of its international operations. ... During its third quarter that ended September 30, Meituan posted a 97.2 percent jump on revenues to 19.1 billion yuan, or $2.75 billion, on the back of strong growth in food delivery transactions. The firm's investments in new initiatives  including ride-hailing and bike-sharing  took a toll as operating losses nearly tripled to 3.45 billion yuan compared to a year ago. Meituan shares plunged as much as 14 percent on Friday, the most since its spectacular listing. Just as so many electric bicycles from bike-sharing companies had piled up across China, so had electric scooters like the ones seen in the viral video. In sum, social media users falsely claimed that a video showed tons of lined-up electric scooter bikes that were abandoned in a "graveyard" due to the high cost of EV battery replacement. All evidence pointed to a simple answer: supply and demand. The number of electric scooter bikes and bicycles far outnumbered the number of people who requested to use them (or else they went missing or were stolen), which resulted in downsizing by some companies, and the closure of others.The clip appears to have been shot in China, although its precise location is unclear. far outnumbered went missing or were stolen We reached out to Meituan for comment on Nov. 29 but did not receive a response in time for publication. 25  2022 . ELDORADO, https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gbI2Bo2xKCc. A Veces Hay Cosas Que Duelen y Desesperan. Lamenta, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmV5lBEYEMU. @Atomicfact. Twitter, 14 Aug. 2018, https://twitter.com/atomicfact/status/1029352130086424576. Baidu. https://map.baidu.com/. @BBC. "The Problem of China's Huge Bike Graveyards." Twitter, 20 May 2018, https://twitter.com/bbc/status/998231947359997952. @ElevaBrasilES. Twitter, 21 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/elevabrasiles/status/1594826198831570947. @evstevepan. "Share Electric Scooter in China #electricscooter #china #vlog." TikTok, 25 Sept. 2022, https://www.tiktok.com/@evstevepan/video/7147290373868506411. Freer. "Meituan Electric Shared Bikes on the Street." Shutterstock, 19 May 2020, https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/zhongshan-guangdong-chinamay-19-2020meituan-electric-1736816009. Google Images. https://images.google.com/. Google Translate. https://translate.google.com/. "Graveyard of the Bikes: Aerial Photos of China's Failed Share-Cycle Scheme Show Mountains of Damaged Bikes." The Straits Times via AFP, 21 Apr. 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/graveyard-of-the-bikes-chinas-failed-share-cycle-scheme-from-above. "Graveyard of the Bikes: China's Failed Share-Cycle Scheme from Above." Techxplore.com via AFP, 21 Apr. 2021, https://techxplore.com/news/2021-04-graveyard-bikes-china-share-cycle-scheme.html. @JamesMelville. Twitter, 29 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/jamesmelville/status/1597532727338639360. Liao, Rita. "Meituan, China's 'everything App,' Walks Away from Bike Sharing and Ride Hailing." TechCrunch, 23 Nov. 2018, https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/23/meituan-scale-back-ride-hailing-and-bike-sharing/. @mbrennanchina. Twitter, 4 Dec. 2018, https://twitter.com/mbrennanchina/status/1069940186786775042. @MillerForTexas. Twitter, 28 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/millerfortexas/status/1597346555111280640. No Place To PlaceThe Wonders of Shared Bicycle Graveyards in China. Guoyong Wu, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDfLWFv3ixk. @PeterDClack. Twitter, 28 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/peterdclack/status/1597371847397761024. Russell, Jon. "Chinese Bike-Sharing Pioneer Mobike Sold to Ambitious Meituan Dianping for $2.7B." TechCrunch, 3 Apr. 2018, https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/03/chinese-bike-sharing-pioneer-mobike-sold-to-ambitious-meituan-dianping-for-2-7b/. Shared Electric Bikes Roll into Changsha in Central China. CGTN, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkSUN-FSuNI. Siqi, Ji. "Taxpayers Foot the Clean-up Bill for China's Bike-Sharing Bust." South China Morning Post, 2 Oct. 2020, https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3103908/what-happens-discarded-bikes-chinas-sharing-boom-taxpayers. Sprawling Bike Graveyard from China's Failed Share-Cycle Scheme. AFP News Agency, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N1Qxs_KOYo. TinEye Reverse Image Search. https://tineye.com/. u/silvertomars. "A Graveyard for Electric Scooters the Batteries Have Reached the End of Their Life-Time, but Are Too Expensive to Replace and Safely Disposing or Recycling the Batteries Is Also Too Expensive." r/Wallstreetsilver via Reddit.com, 28 Nov. 2022, https://www.reddit.com/r/Wallstreetsilver/comments/z7i7ng/a_graveyard_for_electric_scooters_the_batteries/. @vegastarr. Twitter, 28 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/vegastarr/status/1597338236472659968. @Xx17965797N.Twitter, 28 Nov. 2022, https://twitter.com/xx17965797n/status/1597310309139873792. Yan, Alice. "Chinese Bike-Share Firm Closes after 90 per Cent of Cycles Stolen." South China Morning Post, 21 June 2017, https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2099293/chinese-bike-share-firm-closes-after-90-cent-cycles-stolen. One of the more whimsical messaging options offered by Snapchat  a social media app for mobile devices introduced in 2011  is the ability to personalize selfies in real time and share them instantly with other users, a feature that has at once contributed to the app's immense popularity (Snapchat boasts an estimated 166 million users daily) and raised privacy concerns among some of its customers.  Snapchat's rotating toolbox of image filters, called Lenses, enables users to manipulate photos and videos to humorous effect, as seen in these examples shared publicly on Instagram by celebrity Snapchatter Chrissy Teigen:   Cute and innocent though it may appear, the feature has become the target of conspiracy theorists claiming that Snapchat's corporate owner, Snap Inc., uses it to collect facial recognition data which it allegedly stores and shares with law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and CIA. We've found examples of such rumors dating back to Fall 2015 (soon after the Lenses feature was officially rolled out): you guys are all swooning over the snapchat filters... And The FBI is getting the most extensive facial recognition library ever  TEENWOLF (@TEENWOLFREMIX) October 3, 2015 October 3, 2015  It wasn't until April of the following year that the rumors reached takeoff speed, however, thanks largely to a tweet composed by hip hop artist, songwriter, and unabashed flat-earth theorist B.o.B to his roughly two million followers: tweet flat-earth when you realize all the snap chat filters are really building a facial recognition database ?  B.o.B (@bobatl) April 16, 2016 April 16, 2016 In May 2016, with civil cases already pending against Facebook and Google alleging unauthorized use of facial recognition technology, a class action lawsuit was filed by two Snapchat users in Illinois complaining that the app violated their rights under the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to obtain adequate permission before gathering and storing their "biometric identifiers and biometric information". lawsuit BIPA The company flatly denied it: denied Contrary to the claims of this frivolous lawsuit, we are very careful not to collect, store, or obtain any biometric information or identifiers about our community. The class action suit was eventually dismissed in favor of arbitration in September 2016, but as of this writing the case remains unresolved. Crucial to Snapchat's defense is their position, as stated in the Privacy Center of the company's web site, that the app relies on object recognition, not facial recognition, to make Lenses work: arbitration stated Have you ever wondered how Lenses make your eyes well up with tears or rainbows come out your mouth? Some of the magic behind Lenses is object recognition. Object recognition is an algorithm designed to understand the general nature of things that appear in an image. It lets us know that a nose is a nose or an eye is an eye. But object recognition isnt the same as facial recognition. While Lenses can recognize faces in general, they can't recognize a specific face. If it's true that Lenses can't recognize (i.e., identify) specific faces, then the claim that the app produces anything qualifying as a "biometric identifier" under Illinois law is seriously in doubt. (The district judge in Illinois overseeing the Google facial recognition case previously defined "biometric identifier" as "a set of biology-based measurements ... used to identify a person.) case As to the wider claim that Snapchat is building a "facial recognition database," the distinction between object and facial recognition, at minimum, places a burden of proof on those trumpeting the claim to show that the app is capable of identifying specific faces in the first place. If this explanation (provided by the web site Vox) of how the software works is accurate, Snapchat doesn't need to be able to identify specific faces to accomplish the task. It has to recognize a face as a face, and identify the parts of a face as the nose, eyes, ears, chin, etc., but it doesn't have to recognize who the face belongs to: this Moreover, Snapchat's Privacy Policy states that the company neither collects nor permanently stores user-created content (meaning photos and videos) let alone preserves such items in a database: states Snapchat lets you capture what its like to live in the moment. On our end, that means that we automatically delete the content of your Snaps (the photo and video messages that you send your friends) from our servers after we detect that a Snap has been opened by all recipients or has expired. And although the policy further acknowledges that Snap Inc. may share users' personal information "to comply with any valid legal process, governmental request, or applicable law, rule, or regulation" (and transparency reports show that the company has indeed complied with such requests in the past), they can't grant the FBI (or any other agency) access to a "facial recognition database" that doesn't exist. reports Some rumors die hard, however. An updated variant that cropped up in early 2017 brought two new claims to the mix: one, that the FBI literally created Snapchat's image filtering software (and alleged facial recognition database); and two, that there is a smoking gun to prove it  namely U.S. patent #9396354:   granted According to an analysis by Sophos' Naked Security blogger Alison Booth, the patent proposes using facial recognition software to identify individual subjects in photos, whereupon the latter would be modified and/or their distribution restricted in accordance with the subjects' pre-established privacy settings. analysis There is a catch. Implementation of the process would, of course, require amassing a facial recognition database. "For facial recognition to work," writes Booth, "Snapchat would need to store images of all users that sign up to the feature  as a reference image to compare photos against." So, there it is  a "facial recognition database" of the sort conspiracy theorists have been going on about since 2015, except that Snapchat has not, to date, implemented such a feature (a fact we were able to confirm with the company), nor is there evidence that the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) was involved in creating it, nor does the patent itself mention sharing facial recognition data with government entities. Despite finding no legitimate basis for the claim that Snapchat is currently engaged in collecting, storing, or sharing facial recognition data on its users, we do not wish to downplay the increasing prevalence of facial recognition technology in both commercial and government applications, nor the privacy issues this raises. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) articulated some of these issues in a statement announcing the release of a 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the privacy implications of the technology: report The newly released report raises serious concerns about how companies are collecting, using, and storing our most sensitive personal information. I believe that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, which is why it's important that, at the very least, the tech industry adopts strong, industry-wide standards for facial recognition technology. But what we really need are federal standards that address facial recognition privacy by enhancing our consumer privacy framework. The tech industry has yet to address these concerns to the satisfaction of consumer privacy watchdogs, however, nor has Congress made progress toward establishing the federal standards Franken called for. Thus far, issue has been dealt with primarily in the court system via cases such as the aforementioned BIPA class action lawsuits against Facebook and Google. watchdogs lawsuits One of the ironies of the false alarms about Snapchat's alleged sharing of facial recognition data with the FBI is that the agency already maintains a biometric data network comprising the facial images of more than 117 million Americans (about half the U.S. adult population, and growing), mostly drawn from state DMV databases and other non-criminal sources. A 2016 report by the Georgetown Law Center for Privacy and Technology warned that the technology is both error-prone, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and almost totally unregulated. already report disproportionate In testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing chaired by Sen. Franken in 2012, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Jennifer Lynch urged Congress to act sooner rather than later to protect the biometric privacy of all Americans: testimony Face recognition and its accompanying privacy concerns are not going away. Given this, it is imperative that government act now to limit unnecessary biometrics collection; instill proper protections on data collection, transfer, and search; ensure accountability; mandate independent oversight; require appropriate legal process before government collection; and define clear rules for data sharing at all levels. This is important to preserve the democratic and constitutional values that are bedrock to American society. Booth, Alison.  "Snapchat Turns Facial Recognition Technology on Its Head."
 Naked Security.  20 July 2016. Danley-Greiner, Kristin.  "Snapchat Defends Procedures After Facial Recognition Class Action."
 Legal Newsline.  2 September 2016. Garvie, Clare et al.  "The Perpetual Line-up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America."
 Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology.  18 October 2016. Graham, Meg.  "Illinois Biometrics Lawsuits May Help Define Rules for Facebook, Google."
 Chicago Tribune.  13 January 2017. Korte, Amy.  "Federal Court in Illinois Rules Biometric Privacy Lawsuit Against Google Can Proceed."
 Illinois Policy.  8 March 2017. Maass, Dave.  "Memo to the DOJ: Facial Recognition's Threat to Privacy Is Worse than Anyone Thought."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 October 2016. Mathies, Daven.  "The Incredible Underlying Technology of Snapchat's Selfie Lenses."
 Digital Trends.  1 July 2016. Nelson, Steven.  "Half of U.S. Adults Are in Police Facial Recognition Networks."
 US News & World Report.  18 October 2016. Roberts, Jeff John.  "Tech Industry's Facial Recognition Plan Bashed by Privacy Groups."
 Fortune.  16 June 2016. Thielman, Sam.  "FBI Using Vast Public Photo Data and Iffy Facial Recognition Tech to Find Criminals."
 The Guardian.  15 June 2016. Trujillo, Mario.  "Facial Recognition Quietly Taking Hold."
 The Hill.  1 August 2015. Welinder, Yana.  "EFF Urges Congress to Protect Privacy in Face Recognition."
 Electronic Frontier Foundation.  18 July 2012. Yakowicz, Will.  "Snapchat Sued Under Illinois Biometric Information Usage Law."
  Inc.  18 July 2016. Electronic Frontier Foundation.  "Testimony of Jennifer Lynch to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law."
 18 July 2012. Google.  "Patent: Apparatus and Method for Automated Privacy Protection in Distributed Images - US 9396354 B1."
  19 July 2016. Government Accounting Office.  "Facial Recognition Technology: Commercial Uses, Privacy Issues, and Applicable Federal Law."
 20 June 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken: New Report on Facial Recognition Technology Highlights Lack of Privacy Standards."
 30 July 2015. U.S. Senate.  "Sen. Franken Releases Extensive Report Detailing Concerns with FBI Facial Recognition Program."
 15 June 2016. The language in a 1974 report that was co-authored by Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has been analyzed and criticized for more than four decades. The piece tackled sex bias in the United States penal code. As these critics have devolved from scholars, to senators, to pundits, to conspiracy-minded web sites, to the lowly meme maker, the accusations against Ginsburg have grown more crude and distorted. scholars senators pundits web sites In February 2018, for instance, we came across a meme featuring an image of the Supreme Court Justice and a quote ostensibly uttered by her about pedophilia being good for children:     This is not a genuine quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This claim is based upon a gross misinterpretation of another misinterpretation, which was itself based upon a simple misreading of a 1974 report entitled "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law" that was co-authored by Ginsburg, who at the time was a professor of law at the Columbia Law School. The other co-author was Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, a former director of the American Civil Liberties Union's women's rights project. The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law In 1974 Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau published a report examining how federal law frequently employed gendered language. This report was used as the basis for the "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," a report published in 1977, which included a passage explaining the purpose of the study: Sex Bias in the U.S. Code The Constitution, which provides the framework for the American legal system, was drafted using the generic term "man." While the United States Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, might have determined that "man" also means "woman" in terms of rights, duties, privileges, and obligations under the Constitution, the Court instead has chosen on numerous occasions to deny to women certain rights and privileges not denied to men. While explaining the "equality principle" and arguing that pronouns should be altered in the existing penal code so that both men and women were equally accountable for crimes against both boys and girls, Ginsburg quoted a proposed 1973 Senate bill as an example of legislation which used gender neutral language:   The 1937 Senate bill, S. 1400, in 1631, provides a definition of rape that in substance conforms to the equality principle: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. It is the highlighted line that has been repeatedly misinterpreted and distorted over the ensuing decades. It appears that Ginsburg was first accused of wanting to lower the age of consent to 12 shortly before she was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1993. This accusation reemerged in 2005 after John Roberts was nominated. Both Senator Lindsey Graham and Fox News host Sean Hannity, for instance, used this line to argue that Ginsburg was "very left-wing" and immoral: accused Lindsey Graham Sean Hannity HANNITY: I guess where I am on this, if you look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I mean, she -- the Ginsburg rule, she doesn't have to answer specific questions, clearly pro-choice going in, thinks there may even be a constitutional right to polygamy, has a controversial view we should lower the age of consent to 12, supports legalized prostitution, very left-wing. GRAHAM: Well, there are all kind of hearts. There are bleeding hearts and there are hard hearts. And if I wanted to judge Justice Ginsburg on her heart, I might take a hard-hearted view of her and say she's a bleeding heart. She represents the ACLU. She wants the age of consent to be 12. She believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution. What kind of heart is that? However, Ginsburg never actually said that the age of consent should be lowered to 12. Ginsburg's report was about changing gendered language, not the age of consent, in our existing laws. In the quoted passage, she was not arguing for or against lowering the age of consent; rather, she was quoting a proposed Senate bill as an example of how appropriate gender-neutral pronouns should be used. Ginsburg wrote that she used this bill because it "conform(ed) to the equality principle," not because she agreed with the presented age of consent. Furthermore, Ginsburg mentioned another section of the penal code a few paragraphs earlier which referenced a different age of consent: 16. In both cases, Ginsburg's focus was on the gender of the victim, rather than the age, as her report was specifically concerned with gendered-language in U.S. law: 18 U.S.C.  1154 and 2032 make it a crime for a person to have carnal knowledge of a female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years. [...] The "statutory rape" offense defined in these sections follows the traditional pattern: the victim must be a female and the offender, a male. Protection of the girl's virtue as an asset to be traded by her family at marriage time can no longer survive as a justification for such provisions. The immaturity and vulnerability of young people of both sexes can be protected through appropriately drawn, sex-neutral proscriptions. The claim that Ginsburg said that "pedophilia was good for children" appears to be the result of a decades-long game of telephone that started with a misreading of a 1974 report. It started in 1993, after Ginsburg was nominated to the Supreme Court, when this report was quoted out of context as evidence that Ginsburg wanted to lower the age of consent to 12. As this errant argument was reiterated by pundits such as Sean Hannity it morphed from a single out of context quote to an alleged personal belief at the core of Ginsburg's political views. When the "Pizzagate" controversy exploded during the 2016 presidential election, this rumor underwent another devolution as conspiracy theorists claimed that Ginsburg once wrote that she wanted to legalize child rape. Pizzagate claimed In February 2018, this rumor took one more step away from reality when a meme featuring a quote ostensibly uttered by Ginsburg arguing that pedophilia was good for children went viral online. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth.  "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law."
  Report of Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project,  1974  (p. 71) Noah, Timothy.  "Lindsey Graham's Smear."
  Slate.  16 September 2005. Kalven, Josh.  "Hannity Falsely Claimed Ginsburg Advocated Legalizing Prostitution, Lowering the Consent Age to 12."
  Media Matters.  1 November 2005.