Was Uterus Mailed to Supreme Court? TikTok Fantasy Goes Viral
In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and ended 50 years of constitutionally protected abortion rights. While many people took to the streets to protest the ruling, others used social media to share fantasy scenarios of protesting by other means. On TikTok, for example, some people fantasized about someone mailing their uterus to the Supreme Court as an act of protest: overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision   While the above-displayed video described a potential future action ("I need to mail" vs. "I mailed"), other TikTok users shared videos claiming that someone had indeed followed through with this action.   While a number of TikTok users claimed that someone literally sent their uterus to the Supreme Court, there's no actual evidence that this happened.  Protests against the Supreme Court in the wake of the Roe v. Wade ruling garnered plenty of coverage by mainstream media outlets. If someone truly had one if their organs removed, put it in a box, sent their innards to the Supreme Court, and there were actual evidence of this, there would certainly be news coverage of the incident. However, no credible news outlets have filed any such reports.  Roe v. Wade While there are plenty of videos on TikTok of people making this claim, none of them contain images of the alleged package or the identity of the alleged sender. In fact, most of the TikTok videos that we viewed involve imagining what it would be like for an employee of the Supreme Court to open such a package.     The claim that someone mailed their uterus to the Supreme Court is part of a larger trend on TikTok involving users claiming that some extreme action was taken by someone to protest the abortion ruling. For example, another string of videos claimed (without evidence) that the several Supreme Court justices had had their credit card numbers leaked. Social media users also claimed (without evidence) that the IP addresses of the justices had been leaked.  another string of videos claimed also claimed (without evidence) that the IP addresses Sources: Fact Check: Posted IP Addresses NOT Linked To 5 Supreme Court Judges -- They Belong To Unrelated Entities | Lead Stories. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/06/fact-check-ip-addresses-not-linked-to-five-supreme-court-justices.html. Accessed 30 June 2022. Sullivan, Becky. With Roe Overturned, State Constitutions Are Now at the Center of the Abortion Fight. NPR, 29 June 2022. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2022/06/29/1108251712/roe-v-wade-abortion-ruling-state-constitutions.
FACT CHECK:  Are minimum wage Seattle workers asking for fewer hours in order to retain welfare benefits?  Claim: Minimum wage workers in Seattle are asking for their hours to be cut so they can retain welfare benefits.   : WHAT'S   Five full-time Seattle caregivers may have asked to adjust their hours in order to remain in subsidized housing.     WHAT'S UNPROVEN:  More than five to seven workers have deliberately reduced their working hours to retain subsidized housing, workers are spending fewer hours on the job to retain benefits other than subsidized housing, the Seattle minimum wage law has caused an reduction in overall hours worked by low-wage workers. Examples: [Collected via Twitter, June 2015] Workers Now Requesting To Work Less Hours In Order To Still Qualify For Welfare https://t.co/IzHMno6bJD #fightfor15 pic.twitter.com/KiC53fO12c https://t.co/IzHMno6bJD #fightfor15 pic.twitter.com/KiC53fO12c  The Patriot (@ThePatriot143) July 25, 2015 July 25, 2015 In Seattle, which now has a $15 minimum wage, workers are now demanding fewer hours to remain eligible for welfare. Obama's America.  Ken Gardner (@kesgardner) July 25, 2015 July 25, 2015 <!--Hey #Fightfor15 if workers just want to get out of poverty, why are they asking for fewer hours to stay on WELFARE? https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf el Sooper  (@SooperMexican) July 25, 2015This is just pathetic: Workers making $15 min wage in Seattle are asking for fewer hours just to stay on WELFARE: https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf el Sooper  (@SooperMexican) July 26, 2015-->   Hey #Fightfor15 if workers just want to get out of poverty, why are they asking for fewer hours to stay on WELFARE? https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf #Fightfor15 https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf  el Sooper  (@SooperMexican) July 25, 2015 July 25, 2015 This is just pathetic: Workers making $15 min wage in Seattle are asking for fewer hours just to stay on WELFARE: https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf https://t.co/2MIvc3QQLf  el Sooper  (@SooperMexican) July 26, 2015 July 26, 2015 -->   Origins: On 22 July 2015, Fox News published an article titled "Seattle Sees Fallout from $15 Minimum Wage, as Other Cities Follow Suit." Credited to correspondent Dan Springer (who also recently reported that Oregon was providing 15-year-olds with sex change surgeries), the article lamented what it claimed were "unintended consequences" resulting from a Seattle law raising the minimum wage there to $15 per hour. article Oregon The Fox News article and video reported that "evidence is surfacing" to suggest Seattle workers have begun to work less in order to claim a higher hourly wage while still qualifying for government assistance: Evidence is surfacing that some workers are asking their bosses for fewer hours as their wages rise  in a bid to keep overall income down so they don't lose public subsidies for things like food, child care and rent. Full Life Care, a home nursing nonprofit, told KIRO-TV in Seattle that several workers want to work less. "If they cut down their hours to stay on those subsidies because the $15 per hour minimum wage didn't actually help get them out of poverty, all you've done is put a burden on the business and given false hope to a lot of people," said Jason Rantz, host of the Jason Rantz show on 97.3 KIRO-FM. Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com  video.foxnews.com However, if Springer found "evidence" of such a trend, he did not include it in his 22 July 2015 article (claims from which have since been aggregated to multiple web sites). While Springer pointed to a Seattle home nursing nonprofit (Full Life Care), he only vaguely referenced a statement an unidentified individual there made to a third party, then quoted an opinion provided by a local radio host who speculated upon what might happen if workers opted to cut their hours based on a higher minimum wage in order to retain government assistance. Lacking from this narrative was any actual evidence that such claims were rooted in any measurable labor trend in Seattle. aggregated multiple sites It appears Springer's entire premise was lifted from an 8 June 2015 report by television station KIRO which provided additional context that painted the claim in a slightly different light: report Nora Gibson is the executive director of Full Life Care, a nonprofit that serves elderly people in various homes and nursing facilities. She is also on the board of the Seattle Housing Authority. Gibson told KIRO she saw a sudden reaction from workers when Seattle's phased minimum-wage ordinance took effect in April, bringing minimum wage to $11 an hour. She said anecdotally, some people feared they would lose their subsidized units but still not be able to afford market-rate rents. For example, she said last week, five employees at one of her organizations 24-hour care facilities for Alzheimer's patients asked to reduce their hours in order to remain eligible for subsidies. In that same article, Full Life Care's executive directly explicitly stated that the issue was not one of worker laziness or an intent by employees to "game the system" for additional "welfare benefits," but rather one of necessity due to Seattle's exceptionally high market rate for private housing: "This has nothing to do with people's willingness to work, or how hard people work. It has to do with being caught in a very complex situation where they have to balance everything they can pull together to pull together a stable, successful life," Gibson said. Gibson said she fully supports a minimum wage increase but was not surprised when her employees asked for fewer hours. "The jump from subsidized housing to market rate in Seattle is huge," she said. While two other Seattle residents spoke to KIRO about the specter of being shut out of subsidized housing by earning a slightly higher wage, a Seattle city council member told the outlet that the accounts did not reflect any measurable trend of which he was aware: Seattle Councilmember Nick Licata said he hadn't heard of purposeful reduction of hours before. "We need more information, for one thing. This is anecdotal," Licata said. Still, he said people need more options, especially after breaking the threshold that pushes them out of public housing. "We do not want this to be an improvement on one side of the scale, and then decrease in living conditions on another," Licata said. "We should not be using this as an excuse not to address the overall problem." What has been reported is that several full-time workers at a single Seattle non-profit may have expressed a desire to adjust their hours to retain subsidized housing, but more "evidence" of workers requesting fewer hours on the job after the minimum wage increase hasn't turned up yet. Moreover, the source originally quoted about the issue stated that workers earning the higher hourly rate would likely be unable to afford private housing in Seattle due to market conditions, but they were not seeking other "welfare" benefits nor unwilling to work. Last updated: 28 July 2015 Originally published:  28 July 2015 The Trump administration and Senate and House leaders have revealed a framework for tax legislation that proposes tax cuts for business, a reduction in tax brackets, and the elimination of several tax breaks. What the plan means for Americans remains to be determined. But Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., recently said that the amount of tax relief working families receive under the plan is entirely dependent on one thing: what happens to the child tax credit. The child tax credit, if we don't do it, there will be no tax relief for working families, Rubio said on WFLA on Oct. 15. How much tax relief working families get under tax reform is entirely dependent on whether or not we put in place an increase to the child tax credit. We wondered whether increasing the child tax credit will be the only way that working families can gain under the framework. What we found is that the child tax credit is indeed central in the current tax proposal. However, the plan is so tentative that its premature to say that will be the only way working families will see relief. Rubios team sought to back up his assertion with apress releasethat included two charts. Both charts relayed the same message: In order to help working families, a tax plan must increase the child tax credit and make the credit refundable. So in Rubios mind, expanding  not just increasing   the child tax credit is key in seeing working families prosper. The Trump-backed tax frameworkproposes increasing the creditfrom the current amount of $1,000 and raising the current income threshold at which the credit phases out. Experts agreed that expanding the child tax credit is one of the central provisions that will shape the impact that middle-income households will experience under the framework. Scott Greenberg, a senior analyst at the Tax Foundation, said the existing, $1,000 child tax credit is already quite large. Parents with children under the age of 17 are eligible for a tax credit of up to $1,000 per child. If they owe more than $1,000 in taxes, then the credit lowers their tax liability, or the total amount of tax left on their income. If parents owe less than $1,000 in taxes then the tax liability is reduced to zero. In its current form this tax credit is nonrefundable. Greenberg said that under current law, a married household with two children making $60,000 would owe about $3,733 in individual income taxes before taking the child credit into account. After taking the child credit into account, the households individual income tax burden would fall to about $1,733. (His math assumes that the household takes the standard deduction and does not claim any other major credits, exclusions, or other provisions.) Still, its not just about increasing the credit. Transforming it into a refundable credit is also important. In 2015, Rubio and Mike Lee, R-Utah, releaseda tax planthat connected the child tax credit to the payroll tax, which would have increased the refundability rate.At the time, experts were unsure whether this would have benefitted low-income families because it didnt include an expansion for them. Another reason why expanding the child tax credit is important is because the current framework eliminates the personal exemption  that is, the untaxed income pegged to the number of dependents on their return. This provision disproportionately benefits households with children. To compensate for eliminating it, the plan proposes increasing the child tax credit. It looks like theyll pay more under the current framework, but thats where the child tax credit comes into play, said Elaine Maag, a senior research associate at the Urban Institute. It does its magic and wipes away that tax liability. Its worth emphasizing that the details of the child tax credit are a work in progress. Right now, the plan does not specify how much the credit would increase or which incomes level would qualify. More broadly,little is knownabout the thresholds of new income tax brackets, which could greatly affect the distribution of benefits. From the sketchy details we have of the basic (framework), its pretty fair to say the child tax credit is key, said Edward McCaffrey, a tax law professor at the University of Southern California. As a result, the credit has emerged as one of few options available to policymakers looking to change the tax burden on middle-income households. Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, bemoaned the focus on a specific tax break such as the child credit, favoring instead overall tax simplification. In that context, Edwards said, policymakers have lots of ways to cut taxes on moderate-income Americans. Maag, meanwhile, pointed to proposals outside the framework that would expand the earned income tax credit. For example, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a very large increase in that credit -- a refundable credit targeted at low-income working Americans -- that would provide benefits to low- and middle-income families Rubio said if tax reform efforts dont expand the child tax credit, there will be no tax relief for working families. Thats a bit overstated, since the tax proposal is in its early stages. That said, judging by whats in the initial framework, experts say that the child tax credit is one of the few levers that could significantly affect the size of the tax burden for middle-income households. We rate this claim Mostly True. As social media users sorted through a flurry of news articles, opinion pieces, calls for boycotts, and other hot takes in September 2018 about Colin Kaepernick's involvement in a new Nike ad campaign, some stumbled across what appeared to be a news article reporting that Ford USA was following Nike's example by making the former NFL quarterback the face of their new ad campaign: articles   This item was not a social media link to a genuine news article, nor did the featured image show a genuine Ford advertisement featuring Colin Kaepernick. This item was created as a joke for the political humor section of the Reddit social news site. Kaepernick became a controversial figure in 2016 when he started kneeling during the pre-game performance of the U.S. national anthem in protest of racial inequality and police brutality. A number of conservative football fans, including President Trump, maintained that Kaepernick's protest was disrespectful to veterans, so when Nike announced that the former football star would be featured in their latest ad campaign, social media users urged each other to boycott the brand and started posting images purportedly showing them destroying various pieces of Nike apparel. 2016 Twitter user @Patterico apparently found the videos of people burning their shoes to be amusing but noted that the entertainment value would increase if people were burning Ford F-150 trucks instead: I'll pay Ford $10 if they put Kaepernick in a commercial for F-150s so I can watch some dumbass torch his pickup on Twitter, who's with me  Patterico (@Patterico) September 4, 2018 September 4, 2018  Reddit user u/fakenewsanchorman saw this tweet and decided to create a fake news item (note the username) stating that Ford USA had indeed named Kaepernick as their new brand ambassador. On 5 September 2018, his meme was posted to the Political Humor subreddit under the title "Please Make This Actually Happen." Political Humor That Reddit user admitted in the comments section that his image did not reflect a genuine news item, but we double-checked with FoxNews.com to see if reporter Judson Berger had filed any such report. This article does not appear on Berger's author page nor anywhere else on the Fox News web site. author page This bit of fake news may have sparked sparked interest in a genuine, albeit outdated, article about Ford's stance on the national anthem protests. In September 2017, the company officially took the side of the protesting players, saying that they respected the "individuals' right to express their views": article "We respect individuals' rights to express their views, even if they are not ones we share," the company said. "That's part of what makes America great" ... Martha Firestone Ford, owner and chairwoman of the Detroit Lions and a member of the Ford family, issued a statement criticizing President Trump for his comments. "Our game has long provided a powerful platform for dialogue and positive change in many communities throughout our nation," she said. "Negative and disrespectful comments suggesting otherwise are contrary to the founding principles of our country, and we do not support those comments or opinions." Abad-Santos, Alex.  "Why the Social Media Boycott Over Colin Kaepernick Is a Win for Nike."
  Vox.  6 September 2018. Sandritter, Mark.  "A Timeline of Colin Kaepernicks National Anthem Protest and the Athletes Who Joined Him."
  SB Nation.  25 September 2017. Wiener-Bronner, Danielle.  "Ford: We Respect the Right of NFL Players to Protest."
  CNN.  25 September 2017. FACT CHECK: Is Harley Davidson repossessing paid-up motorcycles belonging to bikers involved in the Waco shootout?  Claim:  Harley Davidson has been repossessing paid-off motorcycles belonging to owners involved in a biker shootout in Waco, Texas.   UNCONFIRMED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2015] Just read that Harley Davidson helps Waco PD to reposes motorcycles involved in the Twin Peaks incident even if they were not defaulting on their loan. Say it ain't so!!! Example:   On 17 May 2015, several motorcycle clubs convened at a Waco, Texas, location of the Twin Peaks chain of restaurants. Violence erupted amid rival biker factions that led to shootings which left nine attendees dead and eighteen more injured. A number of controversies stemmed from the deadly incident (such as conflicting eyewitness statements about what took place at the shootout), and one of those controversies involved the fate of motorcycles confiscated by police in the aftermath of the incident. Rumorswere circulated claiming that Harley Davidson and the Waco Police Department were in cahoots to seize and repossess the bikes of those present at the scene, whether or not the motorcycles were paid off or their registered owners were current on their payments. On 12 June 2015, the Waco Police Department seemingly addressed this scuttlebutt on their Facebook page, describing a rough inventory of motorcycles impounded and returned to date: addressed We initially impounded 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles. As of June 10, 2015, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners. In addition to those, 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lien holders due to repossession. On 15 June 2015, a blog post claimed manufacturer Harley Davidson had taken "bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity in California."  The blog's author pointed to language (either in Harley Davidson Financial Services contracts or a Department of Consumer Affairs guide to Repossession Practices) stipulating that the use of a vehicle during the commission of acrime (or suspected crime) was grounds for forfeiture, regardless of whether the loan was current at the time the vehicle was impounded: blog post Repossession Practices This morning someone told me it happens to them. So I called Harley Davidson Financial Services and asked. I have indeed confirmed that Harley took bikes that were paid up and sold them, claiming a default of loan for being involved in criminal activity. This is a different state but its basically the same thing. Read the part in the contracts used by all harley dealerships and other dealership loans about using the vehicle to engage in criminal activity: In some cases, you may not get your vehicle back at all. The legal owner can accelerate the maturity of your contract if:  You provided false or misleading information on the credit application when buying the vehicle.  You tried to avoid repossession by hiding the vehicle or taking it out of California.  You destroyed, or threatened to destroy, the vehicle, or failed to take care of it.  You committed, or threatened to commit, a criminal act of violence against the legal owner or anyone who tried to repossess the vehicle.  You used the vehicle, or allowed it to be used, in a crime, and the vehicle was seized by a federal, State, or local authority. In general, police are required by law to provide notice of impounded vehicles to both the registered owners and all lienholders of those vehicles.  Also, lienholders must typically provide police with a "hold harmless" affidavit and other evidence documenting that they are entitled to possession of a vehicle in order to claim it from police impound. required affidavit Without additional information, it would be difficult to say definitively whether Harley Davidson Financial Services (HDFS) exercised any claims over bikes impounded after the Waco shootout.  We attempted to contact HDFS to inquire about the issue but could reach only representatives waiting to talk to active account holders (not media contacts).  It appears, though, that civil asset forfeiture (rather than lienholder repossession) is the likely fate of unreturned bikes impounded by Waco police. forfeiture ThreeWaco Tribune articles examined whether motorcycles impounded at the scene would be taken from their owners for good. In an 18 May 2015 piece, the newspaper reported that owners might not be reunited with their motorcycles due to "civil forfeiture procedures": piece Even if the men bond out of jail, they likely wont be riding their motorcycles home. The motorcycles were confiscated as part of the massive law enforcement investigation, and sources say they likely will be seized and forfeited by McLennan County through civil forfeiture procedures and sold at auction. On 24 May 2015, theWaco Tribune published a far lengthier piece on the possibility that some of the bikes would be auctioned off. Titled "Vehicle forfeiture efforts could be lucrative, but difficult in Twin Peaks shooting," that article provided local background regarding civil forfeiture practices for all cases in the district (dating back to at least 1989): Its possible some of the vehicles could be declared illegal contraband associated with a crime, and ownership transferred to the county through a process known as civil forfeiture. The collective value of the vehicles likely exceeds $1 million, assuming typical vehicle values. As of Friday afternoon, McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna had not filed any civil forfeiture notices with the McLennan County district clerk. Reyna declined through a spokesperson to discuss this or any other aspect of the Twin Peaks case. But Reyna is known for aggressive pursuit of civil forfeiture, and defense attorneys are watching his moves in this case where so much property is at stake and so many owners are in jail. Yet another  article published in theWaco Tribune, this one from 12 June 2015, quoted Waco Police Chief Brent Stroman, who provided an update regarding the then-current status of bikes that remained impounded. The paper again reported that some of the vehicles could be seized bypolice (not Harley Davidson) and sent to auction under extant civil asset forfeiture laws: article A total of 130 motorcycles and 91 other vehicles were impounded from the scene that day, Stroman said, a number slightly above the original estimate. Of those, 52 motorcycles and 47 vehicles have been released to the owners, while 12 of the motorcycles and 3 of the other vehicles were released to the lienholders to be repossessed. Stroman said he did not know how many, if any, vehicles would be seized and put up for auction. Ultimately, it appeared to be true that some of the bikes remaining in police impound lots in June 2015 were fated to go to auction regardless of whether owners were current on payments at the time the bikes were seized. However, multiple local newspaper articles that coveredthe situation in depth described the potential repossessions as being within the scope of the Waco Police Department and not Harley Davidson Financial Services.  Messer, Olivia.  "Police Release More Details, Numbers in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  12 June 2015. Smith, J.B.  "Vehicle Forfeiture Efforts Could Be Lucrative, But Difficult in Twin Peaks Shooting."     Waco Tribune.  24 May 2015. Witherspoon, Tommy.  "Bikers Jailed Under $1 Million Bonds."     Waco Tribune.  18 May 2015. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman sees Texas as a model for how things might be going wrong across the nation and in hislatest blast, posted online Feb. 27, he pokes at the states reputedly low taxes.Texas taxes are low, at least if youre in the upper part of the income distribution, Krugman writes. He adds, parenthetically, that taxes on the bottom 40 percent of the population are actually above the national average.Its undisputed that the two major Texas state and local taxes--sales and property--impose a greater burden on low-income Texans. According to the Texas State Comptrollers lateststudyof tax incidence, issued last month, Texas households earning $29,223 or less are expected to spend 6 percent of their income in general sales taxes and 5.3 percent of their income on school property taxes in 2013. The report says households earning more than $29,223 are likely to spend on average no more than 3.4 percent of their income on each of the two taxes.The left-leaning Austin-based Center on Public Policy Priorities wrote in 2009: Texas relies on the sales tax for more than half of all state tax revenue  a pattern typical of regressive tax systems. Since low- and moderate-income Texans tend to spend all of their income each year to support their families, the sales tax takes a much greater percentage of their income then it does from higher-income families, who can afford to save some of their income or spend it on services that are not subject to the sales tax.Yet do the states poorest residents also pay higher taxes than the national average?By e-mail, Krugman told us he based his statement on an analysis released Nov. 18, 2009 by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a research arm of Washington-based Citizens for Tax Justice, which says it advocates for fair taxation of middle- and low-income families.The study says the 20 percent of Texas families earning less than $18,000 a year spend 12.2 percent of their income on state and local taxes, while the next-wealthiest 20 percent of families, earning $18,000 to $31,000, spend 10.2 percent of income on the taxes, which largely consist of sales and property taxes. Nationally, the poorest 20 percent and next-poorest 20 percent of families spend an average of 10.9 percent and 10 percent of income, respectively, on state and local taxes, the study says.Conversely, the study says, the 60 percent of Texas families that earned $31,000 or more put less of their income into state and local taxes than the national average. Texas households in the top 20 percent of income, earning $89,000 or more, paid 5.8 percent of their income or less, while such households nationally paid 8.8 percent or less.Texas is among 10 states with particularly regressive tax systems, the study says. One result is that low-income families pay almost six times as much of their earnings in taxes as do the wealthy and middle-income families in these states pay up to three-and-a-half times as high a share of their income as the wealthiest families.We reached Matt Gardner, the institutes director. He said the study drew on data from the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureaus American Community Survey. He said it was methodologically improved from earlier attempts by the institute to gauge who bears the brunt of state and local taxes. Next, we shared the methodological details that Gardner aired with Billy Hamilton, a former deputy state comptroller of Texas. Hamilton, who was involved in the states past studies of tax incidence, said: It sounds like what they did is very logical. Gardner said Krugmans comparison accurately tracks the study. We noticed that the difference between what the second-poorest 20 percent of Texas households pays and the national average looks small; the Texans paid only .2 percent more. Based on a $30,000 annual income, thats $60 more. Though measurable, its not a huge difference, Gardner said.Footnote: Krugmans statement might not have applied to both subsets of lower-income Texans in the past. The institutes previous studies, based on different methodologies and 1995 and 2002 tax payments, similarly showed the poorest 20 percent of Texans paying more than counterparts nationally. But the next-to-poorest 20 percent of Texans paid less of their incomes to state and local taxes than residents in the same income group nationally, Gardner said.We rate Krugmans statement True. A single tweet posted on Aug. 25, 2019 caused a significant social media headache for the Olive Garden chain of casual dining Italian-themed restaurants by positing that the business was "funding Trump's re-election in 2020" and suggesting that viewers share the message and promote a boycott:  That Tweet prompted the creation and use of the #BoycottOliveGarden hashtag, as numerous social media users advocated boycotting the restaurant chain over its alleged part in financing of President Trump's re-election campaign: Olive Garden is supporting Trump's bigotry, climate change denial, deregulation, tax cuts for the top 1%. Its okay for rich & corporations to get Gov assistance, meanwhile the average worker never had help from the Gov cuz of this corruption. This must stop. #BoycottOliveGarden pic.twitter.com/1HNT9tryMd #BoycottOliveGarden pic.twitter.com/1HNT9tryMd  Joe Negan (@mynameisNegan) August 26, 2019 August 26, 2019  Olive Garden responded to complaints on social media by quickly and repeatedly disclaiming having made any donations to presidential candidates: We dont know where this information came from, but it is incorrect. Our company does not donate to presidential candidates.  Olive Garden (@olivegarden) August 26, 2019 August 26, 2019  Corporations are prohibited from making contributions to candidates and their committees, so corporate-related donations typically come from a "[company's] PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate family members." prohibited Olive Garden's parent company is Darden, a corporation that also owns several other chain restaurant brands, including LongHorn Steakhouse, Cheddar's Scratch Kitchen, Yard House, The Capital Grille, Seasons 52, Bahama Breeze, and Eddie V's. Darden Open Secrets, a website operated by the Center for Responsive Politics that tracks "money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy" bears out Olive Garden's claim, showing no Darden-related donations to President Trump's campaign for the 2020 election cycle to date. donations For the previous election cycle, as Open Secrets observed, "all contributions to candidates from Darden Restaurants came from individuals," and contributions to Donald Trump from those individuals totaled a paltry $886 in 2016 and $250 in 2018, hardly enough to merit a claim that the company was "funding" Trump's election or re-election. (Hillary Clinton received nearly ten times as much in Darden-related campaign contributions in 2016 than Donald Trump did.) 2016 2018 Darden does not appear to be operating any political action committees (PACs), and all in all, Darden-related political contributions in 2018 were about evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. The top three donation recipients were GOPAC, (a Republican state and local political training organization), Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida, and the Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association. 2018 O'Kane, Caitlin.  "Olive Garden Disputes Claim That It Donated to Trump's Reelection Campaign."
  CBS News.  26 August 2019. Goforth, Claire.  "A Made-Up Tweet About Olive Garden Supporting Trump Sparked a Boycott."
  The Daily Dot.  26 August 2019. Carman, Tim.  "Olive Garden: Unlimited Breadsticks, Yes. Trump Campaign Donations, No."
  The Washington Post.  26 August 2019. On 22 June 2017, the Occupy Democrats Facebook page posted a meme claiming that the United States government paid for Mitch McConnell's care and rehabilitation when the Republican senior senator contracted polio as an infant in the 1940s. meme This claim is contrasted, in the meme, with McConnell's support for the Senate Republican health care plan published that day: plan As a kid, Mitch McConnell had polio, and the government paid for ALL of his care and rehabilitation. Now, as the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, McConnell is taking government-funded care away from tens of millions of Americans. Let that sink in.   An article accompanying this meme reports that government-sponsored, publicly funded healthcare saved the young McConnell's life: article Mitch McConnell has been relentlessly working to roll back Medicaid and deprive millions of Americans of government-sponsored healthcare coverage for eight years now. But if it werent for the government, McConnell wouldnt be able to walk at all.  Young Mitch came down with a terrible case of polio as a child in Alabama. My mother was, of course, like many mothers of young polio victims, perplexed about what to do, anxious about whether I would be disabled for the rest of my life he admitted in a 2005 interview. But luckily for him, his mother took him 50 miles to the Warm Springs, where President Roosevelt won his own battle with polio and established a polio treatment center that was paid for by the public. President Roosevelt asked the people of America to send in dimes to the White House as part of his March of the Dimes foundation. Over two and a half million dimes were mailed in, and they paid for Mitchs physical therapy and treatment. A Death and Taxes article posted on the same date reports a similar story:  article How did Warm springs fund McConnells therapy, you ask? This was two decades before Lyndon Johnson launched federal health coverage by signing into law the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. In the mid-30s, Roosevelt and his law partner Basil OConnor founded the Georgia Warm Springs Foundation and started organizing fundraising balls around the country. By 1938, however, the balls grew less effective and the president needed a new strategy. Using a phrase coined by vaudeville entertainer Eddie Cantor, March of Dimes  a spin on the popular newsreel series March of Time  Roosevelt founded the March of Dimes foundation and launched a campaign asking the public to mail ten-cent donations to the White House. Within a month, Roosevelt received around 2,680,000 dimes. The campaign continued through WWII. McConnell started visiting Warm Springs in 1944. In other words, he overcame polio with the help of public money allocated by the White House. Mitch McConnell has often told the story of his childhood affliction with polio, and the role of FDR's Warm Springs rehabilitation center in his recovery. In his 2016 memoir The Long Game, McConnell recounted how he was struck with polio at the age of two while staying with his mother in his aunt's home in Five Points, Alabama.  memoir It's one of my life's great fortunes that Sister's home was only about sixty miles from Warm Springs, Georgia, where President Franklin D. Roosevelt had established a polio treatment center and where he'd often travel to find relief from the polio that paralyzed him at the age of thirty-nine. My mother took me there every chance she had. The nurses would teach her how to perform exercises meant to rehabilitate my leg while also emphasizing her need to make me believe I could walk, even though I wasn't allowed to. So it's clear that Mitch McConnell did indeed receive significant help  primarily in the form of physical therapy and physical therapy training for his mother  from the polio rehabilitation center established by Roosevelt at Warm Springs, Georgia.  However, neither this particular center nor the care given to McConnell were government-funded. Roosevelt purchased the property at Warm Springs, Georgia and established a center there in 1927, having visited frequently for therapy for his own polio, which he contracted in 1921. He (and others) set up the Warm Springs Foundation, a nonprofit organization that depended on wealthy philanthropists and donations from members of the public.  1927 In 1934, Basil O'Connor (once a partner at Roosevelt's law firm and a close associate of the recently-elected President) began organizing fundraising for the Warm Springs Foundation, set around the President's birthday celebrations each year. Within four years, these birthday balls had raised $1,350,030 for the Warm Springs rehabilitation center (the equivalent of $23.3 million in 2017). equivalent In September 1937, Roosevelt reconstituted the Warm Springs Foundation as the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (as polio was then widely known); in January 1938, the directors of the foundation launched the first "March of Dimes", a phrase coined by vaudeville star Eddie Cantor who helped promote a nationwide fundraising drive which attracted the support of Hollywood stars as well as charitable middle-class families giving 10 cents each.  In six months, the March of Dimes raised $81,073 (which would be about $1.4 million in 2017). In July 1938, the New York Times published a detailed auditor's report, which offered a breakdown of donations and expenditure. report Some aspects of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis perhaps reflect a more innocent time. For example, the hundreds of thousands of dimes sent by members of the public were processed at the White House and a cheque was given to Roosevelt, who then turned it over to O'Connor for distribution via the Foundation. However, in many ways the operation was a precursor of the professional, almost corporate style of non-profit fundraising and campaigning that has followed since. For example, a large portion of funds raised in 1938 came from attendees at 8,000 Presidential birthday balls throughout the country, labor organizations contributed the equivalent of $760,000, and the Western Union and Postal Telegraph companies wrote off the cost of thousands of birthday greetings sent to the President at 25 cents per message. The following year, charity sporting events were held throughout the country, and badges were distributed to donors as part of an awareness-raising "Give a Dime and Wear a Button" campaign.  year Funds raised for the Warm Springs Foundation and National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis were also distributed in the form of research grants to scientists hoping for a breakthrough in the treatment of polio. grants This came to fruition in the 1950s when Dr. Jonas Salk  who had received a grant from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis  developed a successful polio vaccine.  Jonas Salk The Warm Springs center that helped in Mitch McConnell's recovery was indeed founded by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was President at the time McConnell was struck by the disease, in 1944. Roosevelt was the driving force behind both the Warm Springs Foundation and its successor, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and used his political office to energetically promote fundraising for polio care and research. The funding came from the kindness and charity of the public, as well as wealthy celebrities and large corporations. However, it was operated as an innovative, nationwide nonprofit organization, not a federal or state agency, and it was not taxpayer or government-funded. The Warm Springs center visited by McConnell remained owned and operated by a nonprofit organization until 1974, when the state of Georgia took it over, making it truly government-run. Since 2014, it has been owned and operated by Augusta University.  Augusta University McConnell, Mitch. "The Long Game." (pg 9,10).
 Penguin Random House. 31 May 2016. New York Times. "$1,350,030 Raised for Warm Springs."
 New York Times Archive. 16 January 1938. New York Times. "Net of $1,021,034 to Paralysis Fund."
 New York Times Archive. 7 July 1938. New York Times. "Sport World Aids in Paralysis Drive."
 New York Times Archive. 27 December 1938. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Inauguration Day, Kamala Harris made history several times over. In being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021, the outgoing California senator became the first Black person, first woman, and first person of South Asian heritage to be elevated to the vice presidency.  Inauguration Day The historic nature of her achievement was placed in stark context in a viral meme that showed Harris, whose parents immigrated to the United States from India and Jamaica, respectively, juxtaposed with a long list of official portraits of white men. (Charles Curtis, who served with Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933, had some Native American heritage and was therefore the first person of color to hold the office of vice president). Charles Curtis The meme also highlighted several purported landmarks in the slow progress of women's rights and racial desegregation in the United States, as follows: Dont understand why its a big deal that Kamala Harris is VP? Until Red box? She would have been enslaved. Until Blue box? She couldnt vote. Until Yellow box? She had to attend a segregated school. Until Green one? She couldnt have her own bank account.   The following screenshot shows a selection of instances of the meme on Facebook and demonstrates its popularity on social media in January 2021: popularity   The vice presidents highlighted in various colors were as follows (along with the dates of their tenure as vice president): Red: Andrew Johnson, March 4 to April 15,1865 Andrew Johnson Blue: Calvin Coolidge, March 4, 1921, to Aug. 3, 1923 Calvin Coolidge Yellow: Richard Nixon, Jan. 20, 1953, to Jan. 20, 1961 Richard Nixon Green: Spiro Agnew, Jan. 20, 1969, to Oct. 10, 1973 Spiro Agnew The claims made in the meme were therefore that: until Johnson's tenure as vice president (in 1865), Harris would have been enslaved due to her racial heritage; until Coolidge's tenure as vice president (1921 to 1923), she would have been denied the right to vote due to her gender; until Nixon's tenure as vice president (1953 to 1961), she would have been forced to attend a segregated school due to her racial heritage; and until Agnew's tenure as vice president (1969 to 1973), she would have been denied the right to her own bank account, due to her status as a married woman.  On the whole, the claims contained a high degree of historical accuracy, though in some cases they over-simplified certain discriminatory practices and made some relatively minor errors in identifying the vice president in office during certain major reforms. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The following is our assessment of each of those claims.   The creator of the meme appears to have chosen the year 1865, and therefore the tenure of Johnson, because that is the year in which the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was passed. The text of the amendment reads as follows:  text Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress passed the amendment in January 1865, while Johnson was vice president-elect to President-elect Abraham Lincoln, but it was not ratified by the states until December 1865, by which time Johnson had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, leaving the vice presidency vacant for the duration of his presidency. So the sequence of events is a bit muddled, but it is certainly reasonable to place the 13th Amendment, and the abolition of slavery, during the Johnson era.  Until the passing of the 13th Amendment, Black people in the United States lacked legal protection against enslavement. That doesn't mean that all Black people before 1865 were slaves, but the vast majority were. Based on figures included in the 1860 U.S. Census (page 14), some 89% of Black people in the country at that time were slaves. page 14 Slavery was far more prevalent in the southern states, but on average, a Black woman in the U.S. shortly before the 13th Amendment had close to a 90% likelihood of being enslaved. From a human rights perspective, Black people had no legal or constitutional protection from slavery, which is likely the thrust of the point made in the meme.   The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was passed by Congress in June 1919 and ratified by the states in August 1920. The text of the amendment read: text The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. On both those dates, Thomas Riley Marshall was vice president, under President Woodrow Wilson. So the meme was incorrect in stating that women could not vote until the vice presidency of Calvin Coolidge. In fact, women voted for the first time in the November 1920 election, which saw Warren Harding and his running mate Coolidge elected president and vice president, respectively.  Thomas Riley Marshall That inaccuracy does not impinge upon the truth of the broader point being made in the meme, namely that Harris, as a woman, would not have been able to vote in the United States until the early 1920s. However, the meme does miss an important additional barrier to voting rights that Harris, as a Black woman, could have faced even after the passage of the 19th Amendment.  While the 15th Amendment in principle gave Black men the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment gave all women the right to vote, states continued to discriminate against Black voters by imposing obstacles such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and "grandfather clauses"  all of which were designed to suppress Black voters. 15th Amendment obstacles It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that such practices were prohibited by federal law, although many activists argue that present-day voter-ID rules continue the legacy of electoral restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on voters of color. Voting Rights Act argue   The creator of the meme appears to have selected the vice presidency of Nixon (1953 to 1961) because that was the period during which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education. In a follow-up ruling in 1955, the court ordered school districts to arrange for the desegregation of public schools "with all deliberate speed."  declared follow-up ruling Most, though not all, schools were racially segregated in the 19th and early-20th centuries in the United States. So a Black student, such as Harris, would very likely have been forced to "attend a segregated school," as the meme claims. Brown vs. the Board of Education marked the beginning of the end of school segregation, but it did not bring about integration overnight. Over the course of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, state lawmakers and local authorities fought protracted and often bitter battles to resist the Supreme Court's clear mandate. battles So while the meme was right to point out that Black students would be very likely forced to attend segregated schools before the decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education, it's also the case that many Black students were forced to attend segregated schools for many years after the ruling, as well. What changed in 1954 was that the nation's highest court clearly declared that system of racial segregation to be unconstitutional.   The meme appears to refer to the enactment of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in the early 1970s, which made it illegal for financial services companies to discriminate against customers on the basis of anything other than their creditworthiness. The legislation stated that: stated It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction(1) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract)... However, the law wasn't enacted until October 1974, when the office of vice president was vacant. Spiro Agnew resigned in late 1973, after he was charged with bribery and tax fraud, and his replacement, Gerald Ford, ascended to the presidency in August 1974, after Nixon resigned. So the meme is again mistaken on the precise sequence of events. While Agnew was vice president, banks could (and did) legally deny credit to a woman on the basis of extraneous considerations such as her marital status, her husband's income and credit history, and so on. and did The meme also somewhat overstated the restrictions in place before 1974. Women, including married women, could open their own bank accounts before the ECOA was passed, but often faced difficulty and discrimination in doing so. It was particularly difficult for women to obtain a line of credit or a credit card, in her own name. In 1972, the National Commission on Consumer Finance published a report that found the following common discriminatory practices in lending: report What the ECOA changed in 1974, and what the meme appears to allude to, is that banks and lenders could no longer legally engage in such discriminatory practices. Claim:  Starting in 2011, all employees will have to pay taxes on the value of health insurance provided by their employers.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] I contacted my Congressman about House bill HR 3590, the health care bill. I asked for a summary of changes. The Aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov, enter HR 3590 in the search box and look for summaries. Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross WILL go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I'm reading: On page 25 of 29:TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS - (sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901)    Sec.9002."requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income." Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplinger's and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about. Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November and we need to vote in Conservatives that will repel this horrid law!    Origins:  This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone. Section 9002 of PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), requires that all employers, beginning in 2011, report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health benefits they provide to employees on those employees' W-2 forms.  However, the monetary values so reported will neither be counted as gross income nor will they be taxed; they will be included for informational purposes only.  (Section 106A of the Internal Revenue Code states that, in general, employer-provided health coverage is not taxable to the employee.) Section 106A The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the PPACA referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage."  This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers.   Title IX, Sec. 9001 In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), the PPACA imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually).  This excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance: Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise. The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a 40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $27,500 a year for a family, starting in 2018. The tax on a $29,500 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees. That $27,500 threshold is well above the current average of $13,400 for a family plan. By 2016, more than 80 percent of all family plans are projected to still fall below the threshold. In the following years, the tax threshold would rise more slowly than the likely rate of inflation in medical costs, which could mean the plans of millions of workers  a small minority of the work force  would be subject to the tax in theory. Most likely, insurers will drop their premiums just below the threshold. They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits. Last updated:  25 May 2010    The New York Times.  "Cadillac Plans."   15 January 2010.    The Washington Post.  "Will President Obama Defend the 'Cadillac Tax' to Cut Health-Care Costs?"   12 January 2010. 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.