Complimentary lifetime access to fast food.
In January2015, links began circulating on Facebook promisingusers free lifetime passes to popular fast food outlets such as KFC, McDonald's, Wendy's, Starbucks, Subway, and Burger King, typically presented as promotions offeredin celebration of the brands' purported anniversaries: The embedded links led to severalURLs, and users who clicked through on them to claim the promised lifetime passes were routed to a pages that clonedthe style of Facebook-based content (but werehostedoff Facebook):    As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users.A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media:Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. As noted, the visible URLs in the above-reproduced imagesdon't belong to any official domains owned by these fast food chains. The ads are survey/sweepstakes scams that urge usersto share their enticementsvia Facebook in order to recruit friends to further the fake promotions and dupevisitors intosubscribing to various expensive offers to claim their "free" passes.Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used asbait byscammers, withmany of these scams aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau explainedhow userscan spot and avoid scammersimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. A nearly identical scam commonin October 2015 promised a lifetime pass to Starbucks in the same manner. Many users who completed the steps were dismayed to discover that no such reward awaited them. Starbucks
Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In early 2020, a number of smartphone applications (apps) were tested and launched across North America to help regions identify which users have been infected with the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, who they came into contact with, and transmission zones.  These apps are attempting to help make contact tracing easier, a form of disease control that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calls a key strategy for preventing further spread of the disease. The process involves public health staff who work with COVID-19 patients to help them recall everyone they came into contact with during the time they may have been infectious. Staff then warn exposed individuals in a rapid and sensitive manner (while protecting the identity of the patient) and provide support and information on how to mitigate the spread.  calls In May 2020, a number of Facebook posts claimed that mobile apps that are using contact tracing to research COVID-19 transmission patterns are also taking information from the user's device to "identify, track or locate" various contacts on their phones or their Facebook friends lists. Most posts refer to one of two such apps: Healthy Together or ABTraceTogether. The posts say:     These posts greatly exaggerate the extent to which apps have access to contact lists and particularly to Facebook accounts.  Healthy Together, built by Twenty Holdings, Inc., was rolled out by the state of Utah in April and May 2020, as part of an effort to help public health officials trace contacts of those infected with the disease, and to allow Utahns to track their symptoms and find the nearest testing center. The app uses GPS, location data, and Bluetooth technology to identify potential contacts. rolled out Bluetooth technology allows health officials to gather data by connecting devices to each other, while GPS data allows them to track a person's movements and their location to within 5 to 10 feet. Thus, Bluetooth determines potential person-to-person transmission of the disease while GPS tracking figures out potential transmission zones and how contagious diseases can move through populations and regions.  allows The Utah government is encouraging more people to download this application. As of May 13, more than 45,000 people had done so, at least 2% of the states population, according to CNBC. CNBC The app is opt-in and voluntary and allows users to control what data they release. They own their personal data and can delete it at any time. Location data is automatically deleted after 30 days, symptom data becomes anonymous after 30 days, and users can identify what data they would like to share, which includes Bluetooth data, location data, or contact lists. The app The FAQ on the Utah governments coronavirus resources website suggest that officials are taking precautions around user privacy as well: FAQ Will anyone have access to personally identifiable information?Public health officials and a limited number of development employees with Twenty Holdings, Inc. will have access to your name, phone number, and location data for COVID-19 tracing purposes only. What collective data would the Utah government like to share publicly in the weeks following the launch?The State of Utah values the role of limited government and recognizes that asking you to provide personal information may be uncomfortable and concerning to some. However, you can be assured that your personal data will be used only for the purpose of fighting COVID-19. Utah will investigate GPS and location data to help understand transmission zones, with the goal of informing policy makers so they can make swift and smart decisions in the coming weeks or months. Healthy Together's privacy policy also states users may provide the following, among other details:  privacy policy We may receive: Registration and Profile Information. We may receive information from you when you register to use Healthy Together. That information may include, among other things, your full name, phone numbers, and device identifiers.Contact List. If you choose to share your mobile device contacts or address book with Healthy Together, we will store your contacts or address book information, including the phone numbers and names of your contacts, to enable you to invite your contacts to Healthy Together and help facilitate your user experience. Healthy Together responded to Snopes' questions about these rumors: Only if a user opts-in to share their phones contact list, can they then invite friends on their contact list to use the app. Sending this invitation will prompt their contact to join Healthy Together, but this invitation to join the app is also opt-in. Sending an invitation to a friend does not mean Healthy Together will track or automatically collect data. If someone chooses to download the app by accepting their friends invitation, they too have to opt-in to share any data permissions. The app is not connected to Facebook and Healthy Together users cannot invite their Facebook friends to use the app. Healthy Together is not tracing anyone who is not a user of the app, and is not tracing anyone who does not opt in to the Bluetooth or location data permissions. Healthy Together is completely opt-in, users own their data, and can delete it at any time. Thus the app's ability to access your contact list is in the user's control and is available only to invite friends to download the app. The app does not appear to have the ability to access your Facebook friends list. Furthermore, the app can only track and identify people who have downloaded it, so those people without the app cannot be tracked.  The app ABTraceTogether requires even less information from the user. The other app at the center of the Facebook/phone contacts rumor mill has been downloaded in the Canadian province of Alberta 100,000 times as of May 5. This voluntary app also does not connect to your phone contact list or Facebook friends list but collects only the following information: 100,000 following information During the app set up, the only personal data we collect is your mobile number, so Alberta Health Services can contact you quickly if you were in close proximity to a COVID-19 case. With your consent, the ABTraceTogether app exchanges Bluetooth proximity data with nearby phones running the same app. This data is anonymized and encrypted, and does not reveal your identity or the other persons identity. In order to measure distance, information about your phone model and the signal strength recorded is also shared, since different phone models transmit at a different power. This data is stored only on your phone, and is not shared with Alberta Health Services. Should Alberta Health Services need the data for contact tracing, they will ask you directly to share it with them and enable an upload of your contact tracing logs. Contact tracers, health officials who are trying to track down people exposed to the virus, may ask users about their locations in verbal interviews. The app's privacy policy states: Contact tracers privacy policy The information you provide will be collected by Alberta Health and Alberta Health Services for the purpose of conducting contact-tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic response to manage the public health emergency under the Public Health Act. [...] ABTraceTogether enables you to exchange non-identifying information with other users via Bluetooth; other users will not have access to any of your individually identifying information. If you receive a positive diagnosis for COVID-19, Alberta Health or Alberta Health Services will send you a code to enter into the Application. Your information will then be accessed and potentially disclosed by Alberta Health and Alberta Health Services to one another, for the purpose of facilitating contact-tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The privacy policy further points out that because tracers rely only on Bluetooth technology and not GPS, they do not collect data about users' locations; they only communicate with nearby phones through Bluetooth for a limited period.  Privacy advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are critical of apps that ask for names and phone numbers of users, arguing that will erode trust and discourage people from signing on. They argue that developers need to be as transparent as possible to ensure their app is effective. Bennett Cyphers, a Staff Technologist with EFF spoke to Snopes, arguing that ultimately these apps should only get what is absolutely necessary from the user, with "as little private information [and] strict data minimization," something they don't agree apps like Healthy Together and ABTraceTogether are doing:  critical [The government] doesnt need [this information], they want it ... Apples and Googles proposals [have] ways to do it where the user's phone is able to give push notifications to the user through anonymized data. There are ways to do contact tracing that is privacy preserving, and that the government doesn't get data at all. The only difference between [the] decentralized contact tracing approach (which Apple and Google are proposing) and the centralized approach is that in the first model [when] someone who you've contacted is sick, [you will be notified] on your phone and it will tell you what to do and which public health officials to get in touch with. The other scenario is the government calls you themselves. The government prefers the latter because it gives them more control. We don't think there is a significant difference in the outcome [pertaining to health access] for users. ...All these apps are opting to share a record of who the people interacted with. That can reveal a lot about what you do, whether you engage in political activism, criminal activity, all kinds of things not related to COVID, and the government will have access [to it] ... We wouldn't be able to tell you what the government will do [with this] but what they could do ... [and] that's the problem. Jeff Jenkins, associate professor of Information Systems at the Brigham Young University, Marriott School of Business, said this about Healthy Together in a published news interview: "Jenkins said he feels like the app gives users a reasonable amount of control over their data, even if its not totally clear how the data will be used. 'With any app, there is a tradeoff between the intended benefit  in this case, combating COVID-19  and privacy.'" interview A range of contact-tracing apps were being tested and implemented in the spring of 2020. In May, Apple and Google released their own smartphone technology to automatically notify people if they have been exposed to someone with the virus. Unlike Healthy Together, their tech relies solely on Bluetooth technology to monitor person-to-person contact. Many of these apps are achieving mixed results, and the full implications of their impact on data privacy are being closely followed by groups like EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  released In sum, little evidence exists to indicate that apps like Healthy Together and ABTraceTogether are collecting others' information from users' phone or Facebook contacts, especially without consent. As their privacy policies outline, the information they gather is for specific health-related purposes, and all the information given is with the user's consent. Healthy Together can receive your contact list if you agree to it, while ABTraceTogether only asks for your phone number. Furthermore, users have to actually install the app for their interactions to be monitored, or their location to be tracked. Individuals without the app will not be tracked this way. As such, we rate this claim a "Mixture."  Update, Dec. 2, 2020: In July 2020, Utah's state epidemiologist Dr. Angela Dunn announced that Healthy Together's major feature of using GPS and Bluetooth location tracking would be turned off, "Weve learned over the course of the last three months that location tracking isnt popular and as a result, it hasnt really been helpful to our contact tracing efforts." In November, the state's health leaders announced their intention to explore using Google and Apple technology to notify users if they had been exposed to the coronavirus. Healthy Together now serves as a symptom checker and a resource for people in the event that they get COVID-19. announced November ABTraceTogether has also face issues with its effectiveness. In November, the Alberta government revealed that its app had been used to trace only 20 cases over six months. The province also said that issues with the app could persist on devices made by Apple and the app needs further testing. Apple and Google's contact tracing software forms the backbone of the federal Canadian government's COVID Alert app, and is being used in all provinces except Alberta and British Columbia.  ABTraceTogether Alberta.ca. "ABTraceTogether FAQ." Coronavirus.utah.gov. "Healthy Together Beta App." Human Rights Watch."Mobile Location Data and Covid-19: Q&A."
 13 May 2020. Khalid, Amrita. "Utahs new Covid-19 contact tracing app will track user locations."
 Quartz. 23 April 2020. Leswing, Kif. "Utah has rejected the Apple-Google approach to tracing coronavirus, and is using an app made by a social media start-up instead.
 CNBC. 13 May 2020. Means, Sean P. and Alberty, Erin. "Utah launches an app to track people  and help trace their contacts if they get COVID-19."
 The Salt Lake Tribune.23 April 2020. Merkley, Lisi. "New app designed to track COVID-19 raises privacy concerns."
 The Daily Universe. 4 May 2020. O'Brien, Matt."Apple, Google release technology for pandemic apps."
 The Associated Press. 20 May 2020. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Contact Tracing : Part of a Multipronged Approach to Fight the COVID-19 Pandemic." Toy, Adam."Albertas contact-tracing app only works on iOS when phone is unlocked, app running in foreground."
 Global News. 4 May 2020. Weber, Jonathan and Dave, Paresh. "Factbox: The race to deploy COVID-19 contact tracing apps."
 Reuters. 14 May 2020. Claim:   Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real?  Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs?  What has happened to "separation of church and state"?  Does it now only apply to churches preaching against  orruption in government?  Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins:  On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here  and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement:  The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple.  The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors.  At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A  2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho:  Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated:  7 July 2015    Starnes, Todd.   "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings."   Fox News.  20 October 2014. On 30 December 2018, News Punch, a junk news website with a long history of spreading misinformation, published an article reporting that 10,800 American children had been raped by illegal immigrants during 2018: "The number of U.S. children raped by illegal immigrants in 2018 was a staggering 10,800, according to data compiled by NCFIRE (North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement)." News Punch misinformation This claim has multiple dubious aspects, starting with the NCFIRE data. NCFIRE purports to compile "monthly child rape reports" covering sexual assaults committed by illegal immigrants in North Carolina. Our inspection of their data, however, turned up a number of issues. For starters, while the data were compiled under the title "monthly child rape reports," the supporting documents actually included a variety of sex-related crimes, such as possession of child pornography and "indecent liberties with a child," that aren't rape. We also found one individual who was included in the 2018 report even though he raped a child in 2011. That person presumably was included in the 2018 report because of an arrest that year for failing to report an address change. report In addition to including outdated charges and crimes other than rape in the "monthly child rape reports," NCFIRE also appears to be counting arrests, not convictions. In other words, a number of individuals included in these reports have only been accused of crimes, and the charges against them may be dropped or found to be unsupported at trial. Furthermore, while some entries on this list link to genuine reports from ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the majority of entries include links to news reports or mugshot pages that make no mention of immigration status. Although this group claims that they "verify the illegal alien status of each individual we post in our Monthly Child Rape reports through the arresting agency of each individual," a spokesperson for the Raleigh Police Department told us that they "were not familiar" with NCFIRE.  Despite the multiple problems with the rape reporting, News Punch used these statistics to come up with their 10,800 figure: Meanwhile, data compiled by NCFIRE (North Carolinians for Immigration Reform and Enforcement) reveals that the state of North Carolina has arrested an average of 18 illegal aliens every month this year for the crime of child rape. Statistically, this means that the 50 states in America are on track to arrest 10,800 illegal aliens for raping children in 2018. And that 10,800 figure is a bare-minimum, super-generous, giving-the-illegal-alien-child-rapists-the-benefit-of-the-doubt number. A total of 10,800 arrests assumes that each illegal alien child rapist only rapes one child in America. Many will rape three, four, or a dozen before they are caught, so the "true" number could be in the 30,000 to 40,000 raped children range. The claim that 10,800 children in the U.S. were raped by illegal immigrants did not originate with a law enforcement agency, government body, or other reputable crime-tracking source. Rather, an average figure pulled from questionable data compiled by one group in one state was extrapolated to the entirety of the U.S. without basis. That number also doesn't square with what we know about the criminal activities of illegal immigrants or the statistics for sexual abuse against children. Although the 2018 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report does not specifically list crimes against children, it does shed some light on the number of sexual crimes committed by illegal immigrants. According to the ICE report, 5,350 charges or convictions of sexual assault were levied against illegal immigrants during the 2018 fiscal year. Another 6,888 charges or convictions relating to sexual offenses (not involving assault) were also recorded: Report Table 1 tallies all pending criminal charges and convictions by category for those aliens administratively arrested in FY2018 and lists those categories with at least 1,000 combined charges and convictions present in this population. These figures are representative of the criminal history as it is entered in the ICE system of record for individuals administratively arrested. Each administrative arrest may represent multiple criminal charges and convictions, as many of the aliens arrested by ERO are recidivist criminals.   The claim that 10,800 American children were raped by illegal immigrants in 2018 is also implausible due to the fact that the vast majority of sexual crimes against children are committed by parents or relatives, as the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) reported in 2016: RAINN Out of the yearly 63,000 sexual abuse cases substantiated, or found [by] strong evidence, by Child Protective Services (CPS), the perpetrator was most often the parent: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  "ICE Arrests Fugitive Alien in NC Wanted on Multiple Maryland Rape Charges."
  18 October 2018.  Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network.  "Child Sexual Abuse Is a Widespread Problem."
  Retrieved 9 January 2019. Adl-Tabatabai, Sean.  "10,800 U.S. Children Were Raped by Illegal Immigrants in 2018."
  News Punch.  30 December 2018. WRAL.  "Moore County Man Charged with Raping Child."
  1 January 2001. Updated [15 January 2019]: Added quote from Raleigh Police Department spokesperson. In April 2021, a purported letter to the editor from a newspaper was shared on Facebook. The letter, titled "What has America become?," was credited to Ken Huber from Tawas City, Michigan. It appeared in a Facebook meme with the words: "This is from a small Michigan newspaper who had the guts to say what most of the rest of us are thinking!!" shared on Facebook  The letter as it appeared in a meme in April 2021.  This was a real letter to the editor. Readers who might have given it a quick glance on Facebook in 2021 may have left with the impression that it was new. However, it was first published in 2010. on Facebook Part of the letter included references to former U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, with the former in the White House at the time of its original publishing. Barack Obama George W. Bush We've received inquiries about the letter for a number of years. The originally printed name was Ken Huber in the Iosco County News-Herald. However, we've also seen variations online in which the name was changed to Ted Huber, Ken Huber, and Kwen Huber. Iosco County News-Herald Tawas City, which was mentioned as Huber's place of residence, is located in Iosco County, Michigan. We also found "What has America become?" was published in newspapers in Louisiana as far back as July 7, 2010. All of the newspaper reprints included the name Ken Huber. The variations appeared to only appear on the internet. The letter read as follows: What has America become? Editor, Has America become the land of special interest and home of the double standard? Lets see: if we lie to the Congress, it's a felony and if the congress lies to us its just politics; if we dislike a black person, we're racist and if a black person dislikes whites, its their 1st Amendment right; the government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and they do almost nothing for the victims; in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process; you can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer; we don't burn books in America, we now rewrite them; we got rid of the communist and socialist threat by renaming them progressives; we are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea; if you protest against President Obama's policies you're a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your 1st Amendment right. You can have pornography on TV or the internet, but you better not put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas; we have eliminated all criminals in America, they are now called sick people; we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal. We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work; we all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology; we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct; parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games; the land of opportunity is now the land of hand outs; the similarity between Hurricane Katrina and the gulf oil spill is that neither president did anything to help. And how do we handle a major crisis today? The government appoints a committee to determine who's at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises our taxes; tells us the problem is solved so they can get back to their reelection campaign. What has happened to the land of the free and home of the brave? - Ken HuberTawas City We don't know who this Ken Huber is, however, we can see this letter used a number of odd comparisons. It didn't provide any evidence to support its claims in a classic appeal to emotion. Readers may be reminded of the term "logical fallacy," which is best defined as "an error in reasoning" with a conclusion that does not follow the subject preceding it. defined The dated letter has spawned a number of responses and a bit of discussion over the years. It was also reprinted on blogs as far back as July 2010. a number of responses a bit of discussion reprinted on blogs In sum, it's true that a 2010 letter to the editor asking "What has America become?" was credited to Ken Huber. On March 11, 2022, we changed the rating for this story from "Correct Attribution" to "Outdated." The reason for the rating change came after we examined the original rating and came to the conclusion that "Outdated" made more sense. 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 Oct. 31 2020, The New York Times reported that the Trump Campaign's fundraising landing page was "now automatically checking a box to create recurring weekly donations from supporters until mid-December." This is true, though the "automatically checked box" development is fairly old news. The Trump Campaign's primary fundraising platform  WinRed  changed the landing page to automatically check the monthly recurring donation option in March 2020. The shift to soliciting for weekly donations occurred in mid-September 2020, with that option also appearing as pre-checked. reported changed March 2020 shift September 2020 The more recent development is the change in when those weekly contributions would stop. Earlier solicitations committed people to donations that would stop automatically recurring on Election Day, Nov. 3 2020. In late October, the text was changed to read "make this a recurring donation until 12/14." It bears mentioning that well before any returns came in on Nov. 3, the campaign encouraged donations as a way to "keep fighting after election day" because "there will be voter fraud like you've never seen." late October Speaking to the Times, Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said that no one would receive a recurring charge without their knowledge and donors could opt out at any time. He argued that funds were needed because "this race will be very close, and it is possible that multiple states will require recounts and potential additional spending from our campaign.  Speaking From a factual standpoint, there is no guarantee that the money goes to fight election-related lawsuits. Some of the money goes to resolving Trump Campaign debt, much of the rest goes to the Republican National Committees' general operating account. Because the Trump Campaign is indeed accepting recurring donations until Dec. 12, and because that option is auto-checked on the campaign's primary fundraising platform, we rank this claim  the money A new Trump administration directive targeting international students at U.S. colleges is beingchallenged by universitiesin court  and by pundits on the cable news channels. Thenew Immigration and Customs Enforcement guidancewould bar foreign college students from staying in the country if they take all their courses online. International students enrolled atHarvard Universityandother U.S. collegesthat have moved fall-semester classes entirely online due to the coronavirus pandemic will have to leave the U.S. or transfer to a school with in-person teaching, according to the new rule. The rule, if put into effect, could trim the number of foreign students in the U.S. and at specific universities. It could also deal a blow to the U.S. economy, said MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who argued on his primetime TV show that the policy has no upside. Higher education is one of America's strongest export sectors, Hayes said, while displaying achart on U.S. education exports. Over 1 million international students studied at American universities, (in the) 2018-19 school year. They contributed over $40 billion to the economy. Hayes statistics are accurate. In 2019, U.S. service exports from education totaled roughly $44 billion, according to theBureau of Economic Analysis. That made education the sixth largest service export for the year, behind services such as personal travel and professional and management consulting, a spokesperson for the International Trade Administration said. Academic experts and representatives from nonprofits focused on international education also backed Hayes claims. An ICE spokesperson said Hayes statement was accurate but declined to comment further due topending litigation. Higher education is one of the few areas in which we have a big surplus of exports over imports, said Dick Startz, professor of economics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who wrote about the economics of education in a2017 article for the Brookings Institution. All three of the statistics Hayes cited are correct. More than 1 million international students studied at U.S. institutions during the 2018-19 academic year, according to theInstitute of International EducationandNAFSA: Association of International Educators, two nonprofits dedicated to international education. The two organizations reported that those international students contributed more than $40 billion to the U.S. economy during the year. Experts said higher education can be considered an export because international students pay their tuition and living expenses to colleges and universities using money from abroad. International students are buying an American education, Startz said. Hence its an export. Exports from education amounted to roughly $44 billion in 2019, up from about $42.6 billion in 2018, according to theBureau of Economic Analysis. Thats more than the U.S. made from exporting manyother goodsand services in the same timeframe. Education ranked sixth among service exports in 2019, the International Trade Administration spokesperson told us. It wasfifth in 2018. Those numbers make sense when you factor in thecost of college, said Judith Scott-Clayton, professor of economics and education at Columbia Universitys Teachers College. If there are 1.1 million international students in the country, and each of them spends about $40,000 on U.S. tuition and living expenses, that gets you to $44 billion, she said. In an email to PolitiFact, Hayes also cited theInternational Trade Administrationand anarticle in the New York Times Magazinein which an Institute of International Education adviser was quoted saying higher education is one of Americas biggest exports. But the article said U.S. schools were losing their international appeal for a number of reasons, including rising tuition costs and various policies enacted under President Donald Trump. Rachel Banks, NAFSAs senior director for public policy and legislative strategy, said in a statement that new international student enrollment is down over 10% since the fall of 2016, a trend NAFSAestimateshas cost the U.S. economy $11.8 billion. Thats before the impacts of a global pandemic and related travel restrictions, several presidential proclamations targeting immigrants and nonimmigrants, and this guidance, Banks said. Therefore, we dont anticipate this downward trajectory to reverse itself anytime soon. Hayes said, Higher education is one of America's strongest export sectors. Over 1 million international students studied at American universities, 2018-19 school year. They contributed over $40 billion to the economy. Government agencies, academic experts and nonprofit organizations said Hayes statistics are correct. The money the U.S. gets from foreign students studying at its colleges and universities makes education one of the countrys top service exports. We rate this statement True. In late March 2021, a video was shared that showed Bill Belichick shaking his head moments after NFL prospect Mac Jones overthrew a football. The New England Patriots coach was on hand to attend the University of Alabama football team's pro days. In the video, he was standing next to San Francisco 49ers head coach Kyle Shanahan: video  The video appeared in articles that were shown to Google Discover users. For example, one story said: "Bill Belichick isn't impressed with Mac Jones throw at Alabama pro day." Another read: "Cameras catch Bill Belichick's reaction to Mac Jones' overthrow at Alabama Pro Day."  Several articles appeared to perhaps read minds.    We found no indication that Belichick was shaking his head or showing disapproval at a single overthrow by Jones. In the video, it appeared that Shanahan and Belichick were having a conversation. The likely explanation of Belichick's head shake was that he was reacting to something Shanahan said. Four NFL coaches were on hand to watch Jones and other Alabama football prospects. Sean Payton of the New Orleans Saints, Matt Nagy of the Chicago Bears, Shanahan, and Belichick were all in attendance. The Associated Press also reported that Belichick was among a group of five general managers on hand. reported In January 2021, Jones led the Alabama football team to the College Football Playoff national championship. He was also a Heisman Trophy finalist, placing third in the vote count. The team's head coach is Nick Saban. placing third The same Twitter account that hosted the video of Belichick shaking his head also tweeted this video. It showed Jones throwing a deep ball with precision: this video  ESPN also shared more videos of the Alabama pro days that showed Jones executing a number of solid plays. more videos The Associated Press published a brief comment from Jones. He appeared to feel confident in his showing in front of Belichick and the other NFL coaches and general managers: published "At Alabama, they told me to sit in the picket and rip it, so that's what I did," Jones said. "That's what you're supposed to do when you're at Alabama." "But when the NFL comes, I'll do whatever they tell me to do. I showed today that I can do everything that they want me to do." Without further evidence that Belichick was showing disapproval at a single throw of the football by a Heisman Trophy finalist who led his team to a national title, we have rated this claim as "Unproven." disapproval Claim:  Opinion piece expresses columnist Charles Krauthammer's thoughts on Chief Justice John Roberts and the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2012] I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly  attributed.  Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer.  To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides.  I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.  I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court.  Let me explain. First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice.  He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent.  The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became.  It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters.  If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942.  As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is.  They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday.  In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts' Court's fairness.  That's why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next let's look at the decision itself.  Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece.  (As I write this the libsdon't even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)  He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements.  They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total.  This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama's whole defense of the bill.  They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause.  Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do.  Well done.  Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law.  Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.  This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax" and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor.  That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney.  More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare.  This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck.  If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romneys and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing.  Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S.Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt.  What a day.   Origins:  This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to  Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.  However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March).  His column on the court's Obamacare  decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.  Why Roberts Did It The earliest versions of this item that we received bore the signature block of Richard Bolen of the Bolen Law Firm in Lexington, South Carolina. Last updated:  8 July 2012 New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo two weeks ago toured a sprawling solar panel factory the state paid to have built in Buffalo and said, I am just blown away by this facility. Cuomo returned to Buffalo on Friday, a day after U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara announced bombshell corruption allegations that included bid rigging to build the plant at RiverBend for SolarCity. The criminal charges wont stop Buffalos resurgence, Cuomo said in his remarks at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo. He cited completion of the $750 million facility as a milestone in the states Buffalo Billion economic development initiative, which he said is working because the private sector believes in Buffalo again. Cuomo defended the states investments in Buffalo with a claim about the number of private jobs in the Buffalo region. Most private sector jobs in the history of Buffalo exist in Buffalo today, Cuomo said. Cuomo has devoted his time and the states resources on upstate revitalization. Is he right? Does Buffalo have more private sector jobs than ever before? Private sector jobs Neither the state nor the U.S. Department of Labor tracks the number of jobs for the city of Buffalo alone. Instead, they break the state up into regions, including the Buffalo-Niagara Falls metropolitan area. The state and national labor departments both show the same numbers for private sector jobs. But information is available only back to 1990. The way job data is compiled changed in 1990, so the figures from the past 25 years can't be accurately compared with the numbers before 1990. The federal and state labor departments reported 479,500 private sector jobs in August in the Buffalo Niagara region. There were 439,000 jobs in 1990. The closest the Buffalo area came to the August jobs number before Cuomo took office was in November 2000, when the state reported 474,700 private sector jobs. Private sector jobs in June and July of this year exceeded that number, but still fell below the August number. Our ruling During Cuomos remarks in Buffalo, he said the most private sector jobs in the history of Buffalo exist in Buffalo today. Data from the federal and state labor departments back up his claim. There are more private sector jobs in Buffalo today than any other time dating back to at least 1990. The data doesnt prove his policies and economic development projects are responsible for the increase. But we rate his claim as True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/a3b65649-df87-4209-b2b6-41b9c7676fd6 Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., believes the governments economic policies over the past few decades have cut the legs out from underneath America's middle class. At the AFL-CIO National Summit on Raising WagesJan. 7, Warren spoke about growing income inequality, particularly since the 1980s, when the trickle-down economics policies gained traction under former President Ronald Reagan. She argued that this theory -- that giving tax breaks and other economic benefits to corporations and the wealthy will benefit the poor by improving the economy overall -- hasnt worked. Warren, a former law professor and expert on the economic challenges of the middle class, cited a number of statistics to support her point, including: Well, since 1980, guess how much of the growth in income over the last 32 years -- how much of the growth in income did the 90 percent get? Zero. None. Nothing. In fact, it is worse than that. The average family not in the top 10 percent makes less money today than they were making a generation ago. We wondered if that was true -- that the bottom 90 percent of earners in America have a lower income than they had more than 30 years ago. The statistic comes from data compiled by well-known economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, who study income inequality. TheirWorld Top Incomes Databasespecializes in cataloging the highest level of incomes over time in more than 20 countries. To check out Warrens claim, we looked at average income data from 1979 to 2012 for the top 10 percent and bottom 90 percent of earners. (The time frame Warren used in her speech was a generation, which is vague, but in context its clear shes talking about since the 1980s.) The Saez-Piketty data comes from millions of tax returns filed over the past century. The data supports her claim. Adjusted for inflation, the top 10 percent of earners in the United States made, on average, $144,418 in 1979 and $254,449 in 2012. Thats about 76 percent growth. The bottom 90 percent of earners, on the other hand, made $33,526 in 1979 and $30,438 in 2012. Thats adecreaseof about 9 percent. This chart generated on the Saez-Piketty top income database shows the growth of the top 10 percent of earners average income over time, compared to the relatively stagnant progression of the bottom 90 percent of earners average income. Compare this to the 30 years prior, where -- according to Saez and Pikettys data -- the average income for the bottom 90 percent of earners grew alongside the top 10 percent, albeit at a slower pace. However there is some context to consider. Mainly, not everyone approves of the Saez-Piketty approach to cataloging income. Their approach uses pre-tax income and includes realized capital gains. Because the richest Americans earn a lot of capital gains and pay a lot of taxes, this arguably magnifies their income. On the other hand, the approach lowballs the income of lower-level earners -- the bottom 90 percent in this case. The income calculation does not include government payments, such as Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and the earned income tax credit. Salim Furth, an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation, also noted that the data looks at tax units -- individuals or married couples filing together -- rather than households, which may artificially lower average incomes. For example, a young adult living with his parents are two separate tax units; together they are one household or family. The Saez-Piketty data captures that the young worker has a very small income, but not the fact that he lives in a house with multiple incomes. Also, tax law has changed over the past 50 years to increase the number of units, Furth said. Of the general trend in income growth, he said, Data sources that are more widely used show solid, though not fantastic, income growth for most of the income distribution through 2007. There are big losses in the Great Recession, and then an incomplete recovery since then. TheCongressional Budget Officeproduced a report in November 2014 showing that the bottom 80 percent of earners (measured by households rather than tax units) saw income increases of about 16 percent between 1979 and 2011. The top 81-99 percent, on the other hand, saw increases of about 56 percent over the period. And the top 1 percent alone saw their household income grow 174 percent. That report also found that if it includes government benefits in its income calculation, all income brackets saw even more income growth. Still, this data shows that top earners incomes are growing at a faster pace than everyone elses -- which supports Warrens broader point. Richard Burkhauser, an economist at Cornell University, pointed us to a paper he co-wrote on income inequality that compares Saez-Piketty-style data to other income measurements. The results are consistent with the Saez-Piketty data until households are adjusted for size, and capital gains taxes and government payments are factored in. With those controls, incomes have grown across the board, and income inequality has also grown -- but not at as dramatic a rate as the Saez-Piketty data implies. Ultimately, Burkhausers report concludes that different measurements work for different policy questions. If Warrens talking specifically aboutmarket income-- that is, income earned before taxes and before government payments -- the Saez-Piketty data is appropriate, and undoubtedly income inequality has grown substantially in recent years, and the middle class is struggling. If the question is, alternatively, whether government programs are doing something to close the gap and help the middle class -- other measures show that programs like food stamps and Medicaid are helping to a certain extent, at least for people who qualify. (And of course not everyone in the bottom 90 percent of earners does qualify.) Arguably, in a speech directed at working and middle-class Americans at a summit on raising wages, the context of Warrens remarks give credence to the fact that she was referencing data that emphasizes earned income over government-provided income. In the speech, Warren wasnt advocating for new government programs that give out payments to individuals in need. She was making a policy argument against the idea of trickle-down economics and in favor of broad economic policies that she believes would improve Americans job-earned income, like raising the minimum wage and breaking up the Wall Street banks. We can make new choices, she said. And one way to make those choices is to talk openly and honestly and directly about work, about how we value work, and how we value those who do the work. Our ruling Warren said, The average family not in the top 10 percent makes less money today than they were making a generation ago. According to one measurement, the bottom 90 percent of American earners had a lower income in 2012 than they had 30 years ago. By other measurements -- mainly ones that include government payments such as Social Security -- incomes have grown across the board. However, this data still supports Warrens overall point that income inequality is growing. Additionally, given the context of her speech at a forum about wages, it makes sense that Warren would reference data that gives more weight to pre-tax income. Shes arguing that middle-class wages havent increased enough over the past couple decades. We rate Warrens claim Mostly True. Help fund PolitiFacts Kickstarter to live fact-check the 2015 State of the Union and GOP response.