Says Republican presidential candidate and Gov. John Kasich has spent 177 days out of state and used $350,000 in taxpayer money on his costly campaign.
In recent weeks, the national media has poked fun at John Kasich for chomping through Italian subs and pasta in the Bronx and eating pizza in Queens  with a knife and fork. Back home, Ohio Democrats talked about something else: the governors out-of-state travel, and what it costs taxpayers in the only state he has won. The Ohio Democratic Party posted a graphic on itsFacebookpage on April 8, 2016, to bolster its complaint. Kasichs costly campaign, the image says, entails 177 days spent out of state and a tab of $350,000 to taxpayers. How did they calculate the days and dollars? We decided to look into it. The partys communications director, Kirstin Alvanitakis, pointed us to aMarch 26Columbus Dispatchstoryreporting that Kasich has been out of state at least 177 days as he pursued the presidency. TheDispatchtally includes days he spent exploring the bid before his official announcement July 21, 2015. AnAssociated Press storycontains the $350,000 figure. By law, a special unit within the state department of public safety is assigned to protect the governor, and nine state troopers guard him 24/7. So when he goes to Mikes Deli, so do they. State funds from the public safety departments non-highway program, which includes the governors security detail, is likely paying for rental cars, hotel rooms, flights, fuel, per diems and overtime while Kasich criss-crosses the country chasing delegates. But theDispatchstory describes how cagey state agencies are being with these specifics. Information that was public in the years before Kasichs run is now shielded. On payroll records, the governors detail was previously listed as the executive protection unit. Officials told theDispatchthat that designation that has been dropped to shield the troopers identities. To ensure safety and security, we do not discuss any of the resources used as part of the executive security detail, is the response repeated by agency spokespersons and the governors campaign staff alike. The Associated Press used another tool to approximate the cost: an interactive, searchable checkbook of state spending hosted on the website of Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, part of hisnationally recognizedtransparency initiative. We used the Ohio Checkbook to drill down into the data, which has been updated since the AP checked. Isolating the travel costs of the non-highway program, which is currently showing expenditures from July 1, 2015, through Feb. 2, 2016, the total now comes to $403,638. This chart shows how disproportionate the travel spending has been in 2016 so far, compared to prior years. Most of the transactions shown through the Ohio Checkbook lack details (General Travel Expenses is a recurring line item), but there are some expenditures that coincide with Kasichs campaign stops. Like a batch of hotel rooms booked over a series of days in December at the Wynn Las Vegas, the Renaissance Des Moines, the Doubletree Salt Lake City, and the Hampton Inn of Waterloo, all around the time period last December when Kasich bounced from a debate in Nevada, to a town hall in Iowa, to a fundraiser in Utah, and back to Iowa. Its not a staggering total, though some taxpayers might argue that $403,638 could be better spent on other state services. Kasich has poo-pooed any suggestions that he should drop out of the race before the Republican National Convention in July, which means the total taxpayer share from his campaign travel could continue to swell. (The average monthly spending from this fund in fiscal year 2016 is about $57,663. By comparison, $57,562 was the total spent in all of fiscal year 2014.) Other governors who ran for president have stuck taxpayers with tabs, too. Chris Christies security detail cost New Jersey taxpayers an estimated$614,000. Bobby Jindal racked up$400,000in Louisiana during his considerably shorter run through November 2015. Wisconsin taxpayers paid Scott Walkers security team$577,000in overtime alone before he dropped out in September 2015. Walker reimbursed about $260,000 to the state for expenses his campaign incurred. So far, the Kasich campaign has refused to disclose details about his security detail or its resources, or whether he similarly intends to give taxpayers a refund. We did not hear a response from Kasichs campaign, or spokesman Rob Nichols. Our ruling The Ohio Democratic Party said that in 177 days on the campaign trail, Kasichs security detail cost taxpayers $350,000. Our analysis confirmed that $350,000 is most likely a conservative estimate. At the current rate, the total could be twice that by the RNC in July. Since neither state officials nor Kasichs camp will confirm any details on the governors security, we have to rely on what we learned from the treasurers open records data. We rate this claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f55505e5-5211-4178-9fd0-7d1b2854c596
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. On May 18, 2023, a Twitter user shared a photograph of the late physicist Stephen Hawking sitting with a group of people in what appeared to be a tropical setting. The user claimed that Hawking was on the Caribbean island owned by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.  In a tweet, @dom_lucre asked, "Serious question, why the hell was Stephen Hawking on Jeffrey Epstein's Island?" asked  (@@dom_lucre/X)  This is a real photograph of Hawking that shows him either on one of Epstein's private islands or on nearby St. Thomas Island, at an Epstein-sponsored conference. It was taken in March 2006, a few months before Epstein was charged with multiple counts of unlawful sex with a minor.  March 2006 charged Epstein, a financier who was later charged with sex trafficking, died in his prison cell in 2021 while awaiting trial (he previously had been convicted of other sex offenses). But before his fall, he was known for his parties and his extensive connections with high-profile celebrities, politicians, and intellectuals. He owned two private islands, Great St. James and Little St. James, which were prominent features in the civil and criminal cases against him. Numerous young women said in court papers that they were taken via private jet to Little St. James, where they were ordered to perform sex acts with Epstein and other men.  died owned said Hawking was just one of many scientists and intellectuals invited to these islands for less-sinister reasons  a scientific conference Epstein paid for. So how was Hawking brought into Epstein's orbit? For years, Epstein financed the Edge Foundation, billed as a salon for elite thinkers, which hosted prominent gatherings of scientists and intellectuals, and gave Epstein access to such circles. According to a Buzzfeed News investigation, Epstein's donations helped Edge carry out most of its activities, including an annual "billionaires dinner" that ceased to take place after his last contribution in 2015.  financed billed investigation An archived page from Edge.org describing Epstein's involvement can be seen here, where he was described as "a financier and science philanthropist." The website stated, "He is one of the largest supporters of individual scientists, including theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Gerard 't Hooft, David Gross and Frank Wilczek."  Edge.org here In 2006, Epstein sponsored a conference at the neighboring St. Thomas Island. Per a March 2006 report in the St. Thomas Source, a local newspaper, prominent scientists gathered in a series of private meetings dubbed "Confronting Gravity: A workshop to explore fundamental questions in physics and cosmology." Among those scientists was Hawking.  March 2006 Epstein was also described by the local report as the "driving force behind the conference." He reportedly said to the paper that he brought the group to St. Thomas with hopes that the relaxed setting would free the physicists' minds to explore one of the 20th century's last unanswered physics questions: What is gravity? described "There is no agenda except fun and physics, and that's fun with a capital 'F,'" Epstein reportedly said. reportedly The New York Times also reported in 2019 on Hawking's trip to this island (emphasis, ours): reported It was a five-day gathering in the Caribbean of some of the world's top scientists, including Dr. Hawking, to share ideas about gravity and cosmology, with scuba and catamaran excursions on the side. One evening, the participants had dinner on the beach at Mr. Epstein's private island. Some of the scientists noticed that Mr. Epstein "was always followed by a group of something like three or four young women," as Alan Guth, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, put it in an email to The Times, but they did not probe further. In another 2019 report, The New York Times described how, "Once, the scientists  including Mr. Hawking  crowded on board a submarine that Mr. Epstein had chartered."  2019 report But where did the photograph come from? In 2006, The Edge Foundation also published a blog post on the conference and interviewed an attendee and organizer, theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss. Per the post (emphasis, ours): The Edge Foundation post The topic of the meeting was "Confronting Gravity." Krauss intended to have "a meeting where people would look forward to the key issues facing fundamental physics and cosmology". They could meet, discuss, relax on the beach, and take a trip to the nearby private island retreat of the science philanthropist Jeffrey Epstein, who funded the event. We scrolled to the bottom of the page and found photographs of Hawking and more from the gathering. The photograph in question showed Hawking seated alongside Nobel Prize winner David Gross, and physicists Kip Thorne and Lisa Randall. Yet another shows Hawking on what appears to be the interior of a boat, captioned, "Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking on the way to Atlantis Submarine."  page (Screenshot via Edge.org) The New York Times described Epstein's allure for these scientists: The New York Times The lure for some of the scientists was Mr. Epstein's money. He dangled financing for their pet projects. Some of the scientists said that the prospect of financing blinded them to the seriousness of his sexual transgressions, and even led them to give credence to some of Mr. Epstein's half-baked scientific musings. The photograph of Hawking has been disseminated in the media, and is also publicly available on the website of the foundation once financed by Epstein, along with a description of the conference he attended, with the dates and details of the gathering matching up with reliable media reports. We thus rate this claim    "A Timeline of the Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell Scandal." AP NEWS, 28 June 2022, https://apnews.com/article/epstein-maxwell-timeline-b9f15710fabb72e8581c71e94acf513e. Accessed 19 May 2023. Aldhous, Peter. "How Jeffrey Epstein Bankrolled An Exclusive Intellectual Boys Club And Reaped The Benefits." BuzzFeed News, 26 Sept. 2019, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/jeffrey-epstein-john-brockman-edge-foundation.Accessed 19 May 2023. Chappell, Bill. "Financier Buys Jeffrey Epstein's Private Islands, with Plans to Create a Resort." NPR, 4 May 2023. NPR, https://www.npr.org/2023/05/04/1173956903/jeffrey-epstein-island-sold-st-james.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Jeffrey Epstein." Edge.Org. 5 Apr. 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20190405211237/https:/www.edge.org/memberbio/jeffrey_epstein.Accessed 19 May 2023. Kantor, Jodi, et al. "Jeffrey Epstein Was a Sex Offender. The Powerful Welcomed Him Anyway." The New York Times, 13 July 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/13/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-new-york-elite.html.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Physicists Debate Gravity at St. Thomas Symposium." St. Thomas Source, 17 Mar. 2006, https://stthomassource.com/content/2006/03/17/physicists-debate-gravity-st-thomas-symposium/.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Pictured: Stephen Hawking on Jeffrey Epsteins 'Sex-Slave Island.'" The Independent, 13 Jan. 2015, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/stephen-hawking-pictured-on-jeffrey-epstein-s-sex-slave-caribbean-island-9974955.html.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Stephen Hawking Pictured on Jeffrey Epstein's "Island of Sin."" Telegraph, 12 Jan. 2015. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking/11340494/Stephen-Hawking-pictured-on-Jeffrey-Epsteins-Island-of-Sin.html. Accessed 19 May 2023. Stewart, James B., et al. "Jeffrey Epstein Hoped to Seed Human Race With His DNA." The New York Times, 31 July 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/business/jeffrey-epstein-eugenics.html.Accessed 19 May 2023. "THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO." Edge.Org. 6 Mar. 2023, https://web.archive.org/web/20230306164658/https://www.edge.org/conversation/lawrence_m_krauss-the-energy-of-empty-space-that-isnt-zero.Accessed 19 May 2023. "Who Was Jeffrey Epstein? The Financier Charged with Sex Trafficking." BBC News, 8 July 2019. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48913377.Accessed 19 May 2023. Claim:  E-mail reports the truth about the environmental impact of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)    OF  AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] First, do you know what ANWR is? ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, a comparison:  And some perspective ...  NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ... (its in the "ANWR Coastal Plain")  THIS IS WHAT THE TV People and others "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR ... and they are right ... these ARE photographs of ANWR   Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place? Well, thats not exactly the truth. Do you remember the map? The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain. Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? What's going on here? The answer is simple. That is NOT where they are wanting to drill! This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter:  And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer:    HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH   As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland.  Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife. Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the 'depleted wildlife' situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don't you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling?  Here's that same spot during the winter:  Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.  Now, why do you think that the Democrats are LYING about ANWR? Remember when Al Gore said that the government should work to ARTIFICIALLY raise gas prices to $5 a gallon? Well, Al Gore and his fellow Democrats have almost reached their goal! Now that you know that the Democrats have been lying, what are you going to do about it? You can start by forwarding this to everyone you know, so that they will know the truth. P.S.: Drilling does not "destroy." It creates jobs, resources and strengthens our economy  all while protecting our environment. Everyone benefits, even caribou. Origins:  As the price of oil continues to rise with no predictable end in sight, debates over whether the U.S. can and should be producing more oil from domestic sources have been renewed.  A primary focus of such  debates has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area which encompasses 19 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. The ANWR issue is now a political hot potato batted back and forth between proponents of exploration and development in ANWR's Coastal Plain who assert that the area could become a valuable source of domestic oil production with minimal impact on the environment, and opponents who maintain that the potential advantages to be gained from drilling for oil in ANWR are far too small to offset the despoiling (and potential devastation) of a protected wildlife area.The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.    factors The e-mailed slide show reproduced above might serve a useful function in prompting the public to take a greater interest in all the issues surrounding the potential opening of ANWR to oil exploration, but the information it presents is scant and one-sided.  Since the ANWR issue is far too extensive and complex to cover in detail here, we'll just provide a brief summary of both sides' arguments regarding points mentioned by the e-mailed slide show, with links to sites (on both sides of the issue) that provide greater detail:  Although the ANWR is small in size compared to the entirety of Alaska, at 19 million acres it is larger than ten other states.  (As the third graphic shows, ANWR is about the size of the state of South Carolina.) Proponents point out that the proposed development area within the ANWR Coastal Plain is a relatively small patch of 2,000 acres, an area which constitutes roughly1/10,000 of the total acreage of the ANWR.  Opponents maintain that a similar drilling operation in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay was originally designated to encompass only 2,100 acres but has since expanded to a total drilling footprint of 12,000 acres spread over 640,000 acres of the North Slope. size expanded  Proponents maintain that wildlife continues to flourish amid drilling and other oil production activities in other Arctic regions and would fare just as well near ANWR exploration facilities.  Opponents assert that other North Slope oil development activities have caused an average of 504 spills per year since 1996, including "4,532 spills between 1996 and 2004 totaling more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances." flourish spills  Proponents maintain that the proposed ANWR Coastal Plain development area is primarily a featureless, barren expanse that is frozen and windswept for most of the year, and therefore exploration and drilling activities would have minimal impact on wildlife in the immediate area (or in the greater ANWR).  Opponents assert that environmental accidents can have devastating effects far outside the limited areas in which they originally occur.  Last updated:  2 July 2008 With the rise of the fiscally conservative tea party and the recent release of a draft report by the presidentially appointed National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the nation's fiscal challenges have rocketed up the list of urgent agenda items in Washington. We'll take a look at two comments on federal spending made on the Nov. 14, 2010, Sunday talk shows -- one by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and the other by Sen.-elect Rand Paul, R-Ky. We'll address Conrad's here.In an interview on ABC'sThis Week With Christiane Amanpour, Conrad -- who chairs the Senate Budget Committee and serves on the presidentially appointed panel -- said, If you look at our spending, it's the highest it's been as a share of our economy in 60 years, revenue is the lowest it's been as a share of our economy in 60 years, so we're going to have to work both sides of the equation.Let's take a look at Conrad's numbers.As we did with Paul's item, we turned to a historicaltablefrom the Office of Management and Budget that shows tax receipts, spending and the deficit as a percentage of GDP -- essentially, as a percentage of the nation's economy as a whole.In 2009, the last full year available, federal spending accounted for 24.7 percent of GDP. That's higher than it's been in any year since 1949 -- 60 years prior. You have to go back to 1946 to find a higher percentage -- 24.8 -- and that was a year in which the nation was winding down high rates of spending for World War II. (From 1943 to 1945, the height of the war, federal spending ranged from 41 percent to 43 percent of GDP. )Clearly, recessions have an impact on how high this percentage gets. The only other years since 1946 in which federal spending exceeded 23 percent of GDP came in 1982 and 1983, with 23.1 percent and 23.5 percent, respectively. That was during and immediately after the 1981-82 recession -- the last one that rivaled today's in severity. Economic downturns tend to affect this statistic because theyslowGDP growth and increase the demand for government services. Even without special stimulus measures, spending goes up for mandatory items such as food stamps.Either way, Conrad is correct on spending. What about tax revenue as a percentage of GDP?In 2009, tax receipts accounted for 14.8 percent of GDP. According to the table, tax receipts as a share of GDP were always higher all the way back through 1950, when they accounted for 14.4 percent of GDP. That would be 59 years -- not quite 60, but very, very close.The recession factors into the tax revenue statistic as well. Both the 2008 stimulus package under President George W. Bush and the 2009 stimulus under President Barack Obama included tax breaks as a major component.Because the statistics show a number so close to 60 years -- and because Conrad was speaking during a television interview rather than a prepared speech or written statement -- we'll give him some leeway and rate the statement True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In early 2020, a number of smartphone applications (apps) were tested and launched across North America to help regions identify which users have been infected with the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, who they came into contact with, and transmission zones.  These apps are attempting to help make contact tracing easier, a form of disease control that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calls a key strategy for preventing further spread of the disease. The process involves public health staff who work with COVID-19 patients to help them recall everyone they came into contact with during the time they may have been infectious. Staff then warn exposed individuals in a rapid and sensitive manner (while protecting the identity of the patient) and provide support and information on how to mitigate the spread.  calls In May 2020, a number of Facebook posts claimed that mobile apps that are using contact tracing to research COVID-19 transmission patterns are also taking information from the user's device to "identify, track or locate" various contacts on their phones or their Facebook friends lists. Most posts refer to one of two such apps: Healthy Together or ABTraceTogether. The posts say:     These posts greatly exaggerate the extent to which apps have access to contact lists and particularly to Facebook accounts.  Healthy Together, built by Twenty Holdings, Inc., was rolled out by the state of Utah in April and May 2020, as part of an effort to help public health officials trace contacts of those infected with the disease, and to allow Utahns to track their symptoms and find the nearest testing center. The app uses GPS, location data, and Bluetooth technology to identify potential contacts. rolled out Bluetooth technology allows health officials to gather data by connecting devices to each other, while GPS data allows them to track a person's movements and their location to within 5 to 10 feet. Thus, Bluetooth determines potential person-to-person transmission of the disease while GPS tracking figures out potential transmission zones and how contagious diseases can move through populations and regions.  allows The Utah government is encouraging more people to download this application. As of May 13, more than 45,000 people had done so, at least 2% of the states population, according to CNBC. CNBC The app is opt-in and voluntary and allows users to control what data they release. They own their personal data and can delete it at any time. Location data is automatically deleted after 30 days, symptom data becomes anonymous after 30 days, and users can identify what data they would like to share, which includes Bluetooth data, location data, or contact lists. The app The FAQ on the Utah governments coronavirus resources website suggest that officials are taking precautions around user privacy as well: FAQ Will anyone have access to personally identifiable information?Public health officials and a limited number of development employees with Twenty Holdings, Inc. will have access to your name, phone number, and location data for COVID-19 tracing purposes only. What collective data would the Utah government like to share publicly in the weeks following the launch?The State of Utah values the role of limited government and recognizes that asking you to provide personal information may be uncomfortable and concerning to some. However, you can be assured that your personal data will be used only for the purpose of fighting COVID-19. Utah will investigate GPS and location data to help understand transmission zones, with the goal of informing policy makers so they can make swift and smart decisions in the coming weeks or months. Healthy Together's privacy policy also states users may provide the following, among other details:  privacy policy We may receive: Registration and Profile Information. We may receive information from you when you register to use Healthy Together. That information may include, among other things, your full name, phone numbers, and device identifiers.Contact List. If you choose to share your mobile device contacts or address book with Healthy Together, we will store your contacts or address book information, including the phone numbers and names of your contacts, to enable you to invite your contacts to Healthy Together and help facilitate your user experience. Healthy Together responded to Snopes' questions about these rumors: Only if a user opts-in to share their phones contact list, can they then invite friends on their contact list to use the app. Sending this invitation will prompt their contact to join Healthy Together, but this invitation to join the app is also opt-in. Sending an invitation to a friend does not mean Healthy Together will track or automatically collect data. If someone chooses to download the app by accepting their friends invitation, they too have to opt-in to share any data permissions. The app is not connected to Facebook and Healthy Together users cannot invite their Facebook friends to use the app. Healthy Together is not tracing anyone who is not a user of the app, and is not tracing anyone who does not opt in to the Bluetooth or location data permissions. Healthy Together is completely opt-in, users own their data, and can delete it at any time. Thus the app's ability to access your contact list is in the user's control and is available only to invite friends to download the app. The app does not appear to have the ability to access your Facebook friends list. Furthermore, the app can only track and identify people who have downloaded it, so those people without the app cannot be tracked.  The app ABTraceTogether requires even less information from the user. The other app at the center of the Facebook/phone contacts rumor mill has been downloaded in the Canadian province of Alberta 100,000 times as of May 5. This voluntary app also does not connect to your phone contact list or Facebook friends list but collects only the following information: 100,000 following information During the app set up, the only personal data we collect is your mobile number, so Alberta Health Services can contact you quickly if you were in close proximity to a COVID-19 case. With your consent, the ABTraceTogether app exchanges Bluetooth proximity data with nearby phones running the same app. This data is anonymized and encrypted, and does not reveal your identity or the other persons identity. In order to measure distance, information about your phone model and the signal strength recorded is also shared, since different phone models transmit at a different power. This data is stored only on your phone, and is not shared with Alberta Health Services. Should Alberta Health Services need the data for contact tracing, they will ask you directly to share it with them and enable an upload of your contact tracing logs. Contact tracers, health officials who are trying to track down people exposed to the virus, may ask users about their locations in verbal interviews. The app's privacy policy states: Contact tracers privacy policy The information you provide will be collected by Alberta Health and Alberta Health Services for the purpose of conducting contact-tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic response to manage the public health emergency under the Public Health Act. [...] ABTraceTogether enables you to exchange non-identifying information with other users via Bluetooth; other users will not have access to any of your individually identifying information. If you receive a positive diagnosis for COVID-19, Alberta Health or Alberta Health Services will send you a code to enter into the Application. Your information will then be accessed and potentially disclosed by Alberta Health and Alberta Health Services to one another, for the purpose of facilitating contact-tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The privacy policy further points out that because tracers rely only on Bluetooth technology and not GPS, they do not collect data about users' locations; they only communicate with nearby phones through Bluetooth for a limited period.  Privacy advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) are critical of apps that ask for names and phone numbers of users, arguing that will erode trust and discourage people from signing on. They argue that developers need to be as transparent as possible to ensure their app is effective. Bennett Cyphers, a Staff Technologist with EFF spoke to Snopes, arguing that ultimately these apps should only get what is absolutely necessary from the user, with "as little private information [and] strict data minimization," something they don't agree apps like Healthy Together and ABTraceTogether are doing:  critical [The government] doesnt need [this information], they want it ... Apples and Googles proposals [have] ways to do it where the user's phone is able to give push notifications to the user through anonymized data. There are ways to do contact tracing that is privacy preserving, and that the government doesn't get data at all. The only difference between [the] decentralized contact tracing approach (which Apple and Google are proposing) and the centralized approach is that in the first model [when] someone who you've contacted is sick, [you will be notified] on your phone and it will tell you what to do and which public health officials to get in touch with. The other scenario is the government calls you themselves. The government prefers the latter because it gives them more control. We don't think there is a significant difference in the outcome [pertaining to health access] for users. ...All these apps are opting to share a record of who the people interacted with. That can reveal a lot about what you do, whether you engage in political activism, criminal activity, all kinds of things not related to COVID, and the government will have access [to it] ... We wouldn't be able to tell you what the government will do [with this] but what they could do ... [and] that's the problem. Jeff Jenkins, associate professor of Information Systems at the Brigham Young University, Marriott School of Business, said this about Healthy Together in a published news interview: "Jenkins said he feels like the app gives users a reasonable amount of control over their data, even if its not totally clear how the data will be used. 'With any app, there is a tradeoff between the intended benefit  in this case, combating COVID-19  and privacy.'" interview A range of contact-tracing apps were being tested and implemented in the spring of 2020. In May, Apple and Google released their own smartphone technology to automatically notify people if they have been exposed to someone with the virus. Unlike Healthy Together, their tech relies solely on Bluetooth technology to monitor person-to-person contact. Many of these apps are achieving mixed results, and the full implications of their impact on data privacy are being closely followed by groups like EFF and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  released In sum, little evidence exists to indicate that apps like Healthy Together and ABTraceTogether are collecting others' information from users' phone or Facebook contacts, especially without consent. As their privacy policies outline, the information they gather is for specific health-related purposes, and all the information given is with the user's consent. Healthy Together can receive your contact list if you agree to it, while ABTraceTogether only asks for your phone number. Furthermore, users have to actually install the app for their interactions to be monitored, or their location to be tracked. Individuals without the app will not be tracked this way. As such, we rate this claim a "Mixture."  Update, Dec. 2, 2020: In July 2020, Utah's state epidemiologist Dr. Angela Dunn announced that Healthy Together's major feature of using GPS and Bluetooth location tracking would be turned off, "Weve learned over the course of the last three months that location tracking isnt popular and as a result, it hasnt really been helpful to our contact tracing efforts." In November, the state's health leaders announced their intention to explore using Google and Apple technology to notify users if they had been exposed to the coronavirus. Healthy Together now serves as a symptom checker and a resource for people in the event that they get COVID-19. announced November ABTraceTogether has also face issues with its effectiveness. In November, the Alberta government revealed that its app had been used to trace only 20 cases over six months. The province also said that issues with the app could persist on devices made by Apple and the app needs further testing. Apple and Google's contact tracing software forms the backbone of the federal Canadian government's COVID Alert app, and is being used in all provinces except Alberta and British Columbia.  ABTraceTogether Alberta.ca. "ABTraceTogether FAQ." Coronavirus.utah.gov. "Healthy Together Beta App." Human Rights Watch."Mobile Location Data and Covid-19: Q&A."
 13 May 2020. Khalid, Amrita. "Utahs new Covid-19 contact tracing app will track user locations."
 Quartz. 23 April 2020. Leswing, Kif. "Utah has rejected the Apple-Google approach to tracing coronavirus, and is using an app made by a social media start-up instead.
 CNBC. 13 May 2020. Means, Sean P. and Alberty, Erin. "Utah launches an app to track people  and help trace their contacts if they get COVID-19."
 The Salt Lake Tribune.23 April 2020. Merkley, Lisi. "New app designed to track COVID-19 raises privacy concerns."
 The Daily Universe. 4 May 2020. O'Brien, Matt."Apple, Google release technology for pandemic apps."
 The Associated Press. 20 May 2020. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Contact Tracing : Part of a Multipronged Approach to Fight the COVID-19 Pandemic." Toy, Adam."Albertas contact-tracing app only works on iOS when phone is unlocked, app running in foreground."
 Global News. 4 May 2020. Weber, Jonathan and Dave, Paresh. "Factbox: The race to deploy COVID-19 contact tracing apps."
 Reuters. 14 May 2020. In August 2018, a bit of Islamophobic copypasta started making its way around social media, asserting that the mayor of Minneapolis, Minnesota had canceled a 4th of July city fireworks display but allowed "Muslim animal sacrifice" to be held in the city's U.S. Bank Stadium (home of the Minnesota Vikings football team) the following month: copypasta   This copypasta was based on a bit of fake news, a fear-mongering report about the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha, and a misreading of two genuine news reports. Fake News On 10 June 2018, the Last Line of Defense web site published an article positing that the Muslim mayor of Minneapolis had "canceled the 4th of July": article Mayor Ahneid al Ahmed of Haskentot, Minnesota has done the unthinkable and canceled the 4th of July. According to his office, the city has no desire to spend money on something so frivolous. Muslim spokesman Art Tubolls said: This city elected our mayor to do what is best. We dont hink buying a bunch of flags and fireworks and spending a day celebrating nationalism like nazis is a good idea. This was not a genuine news story about the mayor of Minneapolis, who is neither named "Ahneid al Ahmed" nor a Muslim. (The city's actual mayor is Jacob Frey.) The Last Line of Defense is part of a network of sites that engages in political trolling under the guise of proffering "satire." Jacob Frey This junk news piece may have prompted some confusion, as it resembled a genuine news story about a nearby Minnesota city. The mayor of St. Paul did cancel the city's Independence Day firework show due to budgetary concerns: cancel St. Paul will go without the rockets red glare on Independence Day this year. Mayor Melvin Carter announced that the city wont hold a Fourth of July fireworks event. The cancellation may foreshadow of what could be a difficult budget season. Carters announcement, posted to Facebook, cited concerns about the citys budget climate. Minneapolis, on the other hand, hosted multiple firework shows on July 4th. multiple firework shows Fear-Mongering Reports About Eid al-Adha The Muslim celebration of Eid al-Adha is also referred to as the "Feast of Sacrifice." The holiday, which honors Ibrahim's (Abraham's) willingness to sacrifice his son at God's command, is celebrated by Muslims around the world. In many places, Muslims observe that holiday by  sacrificing an animal and then sharing its meat with the poor: sacrificing To commemorate God's test of Ibrahim, many Muslim families sacrifice an animal and share the meat with the poor. They also are required to donate to charities that benefit the poor. Muslims also routinely exchange presents during the holiday. When it was announced that U.S. Bank Stadium would be hosting a Eid al-Adha festival, the Islamophobic web site "Bare Naked Islam" published an article about the upcoming event imploring readers to "imagine" 50,000 Muslims at the stadium and displaying various photographs and videos of animal sacrifices from around the world. article The following photograph, for instance, was taken in Lahore, Pakistan, in 2008: taken   These photographs led many readers to mistakenly believe that the "Super EID" festival at U.S. Bank Stadium would also feature animal sacrifices, but that wasn't the case. Ahmed Anshur, executive director of Masjid Al-Ihsan Islamic Center in St. Paul and one of the organizers of "Super EID," attempted to quell these fears, telling Minnesota Public Radio that no animal sacrifices would take place at the event: Minnesota Public Radio Eid Al-Adha, the second Muslim holiday of the year, comes at the end of the pilgrimage. Its name in Arabic means the "festival of sacrifice." Muslims celebrate by sacrificing animals and donating meat to charity. But Ahmed Anshur, executive director of Masjid Al-Ihsan Islamic Center in St. Paul and one of the organizers, wants to be clear: The actual ritual will not take place at U.S. Bank Stadium. "Nobody is going to sacrifice an animal, or nobody is going to slaughter an animal in that field," he said. "I can assure you that, 100 percent." The Minneapolis Star Tribune filed a report after the 21 August 2018 celebration on  which stated that in fact no animal sacrifices had taken place at the stadium during the EID celebration: report The holiday honors the prophet Ibrahim, also known as Abraham in Judaism and Christianity, and his willingness to sacrifice his son for God. It comes at the end of the annual hajj pilgrimage. It is one of the holiest days of the year for Muslims, who celebrate with prayer, shared meals and gifts. In some places, families who can afford it slaughter an animal and share the meat with family and charities. No animals were sacrificed at the stadium Tuesday. Bowling, Chris.  "Thousands Join in 'Super Eid' Celebration at U.S. Bank Stadium in Minneapolis."
  [Minneapolis] Star Tribune.  21 August 2018. Feshir, Riham.  "Thousands Expected for 'Super Eid' in Downtown Minneapolis."
  MPR News.  20 August 2018. CNN.  "5 Things to Know About the Muslim Holiday Eid al-Adha."
  21 August 2018. The Current.  "Fourth of July 2018: Where to See Fireworks in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Beyond."
  26 June 2018. Melo, Frederick.  "St. Paul Mayor Cancels July 4 Fireworks, Cites Budget Concerns."
  TwinCities.com.  27 June 2018. 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 In September 2020, social media users began circulating a text meme charting the decrease in abortion rates in the U.S. during previous presidential administrations, attributing the greater drop in those rates during Democratic administrations to a difference in approach (i.e., making it illegal vs. making it unnecessary):     As we noted in an earlier article on a similar topic, following the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that protected a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction, the abortion rate rose immediately afterward until it peaked in the 1980s, and it has fairly consistently declined since that peak through presidential administrations of both parties: article Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace.     Although it is true that the abortion rate has experienced greater declines during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, we can't draw any definitive conclusion that, as the meme tries to suggest, this difference is primarily due to varying approaches by the two main political parties. The simple idea presented by the meme has a number of flaws, chief among them that political factors that might influence the abortion rate (e.g., policies, legislation, judicial appointments and rulings) do not neatly conform to presidential terms of office -- what takes place during one administration generally continues to have an effect throughout subsequent administrations. As well, events occurring at state and local levels (not necessarily directly tied to federal actions) can have a substantial impact on the availability and prevalence of abortions. More important, though, is that we cannot definitively determine to what extent political factors influence the abortion rate. As the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion-rights research organization) observed, recent declines in the abortion rate appear to have been driven not primarily by abortion restrictions but by a broader decline in pregnancies: observed Abortion restrictions target either individuals ability to access the procedure (such as by imposing coercive waiting periods and counseling requirements) or providers ability to offer it (such as through unnecessary and intentionally burdensome regulations). Any one of these restrictions could result in some people being forced to continue pregnancies they were seeking to end; this could, in theory, lower the abortion rate. With the available evidence, it is impossible to pinpoint exactly which factors drove recent declines, and to what degree. However, previous Guttmacher analyses have documented that abortion restrictions, while incredibly harmful at an individual level, were not the main driver of national declines in the abortion rate ... Rather, the decline in abortions appears to be part of a broader decline in pregnancies, as evidenced by fewer births over the same period. What's driving that decline in pregnancies, then? We don't know that for sure, either, but likely a combination of social, cultural, economic, medical, and political factors: combination Experts say the decline isnt due to a single cause, but rather a combination of several factors, including changing economics, delays in childbirth by women pursuing jobs and education, the greater availability of contraception, and a decline in teen pregnancies. The trend seen in the United States is also seen in much of the developed world, including Western Europe, said Dr. John Rowe, a professor at Columbia Universitys Mailman School of Public Health. One important factor driving this is the changing roles of women in society, Rowe said. In general women are getting married later in life, he explained. They are leaving the home and launching their families later. [Dr. Helen Kim, an associate professor at Northwestern Universitys Feinberg School of Medicine] said the concept of the ideal family size may be changing. There are shifts where having smaller families is a trend, she added. I cant speak on this as a sociologist, but this is what Ive seen among my peers and colleagues. One of the biggest factors is the decline in teen pregnancies, Rowe said. Thats good news ... And that makes a huge difference to their lives. The Guttmacher Institute posited a similar mix of factors to explain the decline in the abortion rate: Because both abortions and births [have] declined, it is clear that there were fewer pregnancies overall in the United States ... The big question is why. One possible contributing factor is contraceptive access and use. Since 2011, contraception has become more accessible, as most private health insurance plans are now required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to cover contraceptives without out-of-pocket costs. In addition, thanks to expansions in Medicaid and private insurance coverage under the ACA, the proportion of women aged 1544 nationwide who were uninsured dropped more than 40% between 2013 and 2017. There is evidence that use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods -- specifically IUDs and implants -- increased through at least 2014, especially among women in their early 20s, a population that accounts for a significant proportion of all abortions Another possible contributing factor might be a decline in sexual activity. Findings from one national survey suggest a long-term increase in the number of people in the United States -- mostly younger men -- reporting not having sex in the past year. Yet another possibility is that infertility is increasing in the United States, thereby reducing the chances of getting pregnant and subsequently seeking to obtain an abortion. More generally, there are a host of other potential factors that could be driving declines in pregnancy rates, from individuals evolving desires about whether and when to become parents to peoples changing economic and social circumstances. Finally, it is possible that ... there could have been an increase in self-managed abortions happening outside of medical facilities, which the census would be unable to capture. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also offered a combination of potential explanations for lower abortion rates: combination Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception. As we stated four years ago, "causation between the presidency and abortion rates [is] difficult to demonstrate in any case, because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement." That observation remains true today. Carroll, Linda and Shamard Charles, M.D.  "Americans Aren't Making Enough Babies to Replace Ourselves."
  NBC News.  13 January 2019. Nash, Elizabeth and Joerg Dreweke.  "The U.S. Abortion Rate Continues to Drop: Once Again, State Abortion Restrictions Are Not the Main Driver."
  Guttmacher Institute.  18 September 2019. Kasprak, Alex.  "Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations and Rise During Republican Ones."
  Snopes.com.  11 November 2016. Public education advocates gave a collective sigh of relief on April 28. Gov. Nathan Deal signed the 2015 state budget that day, and that action gave them hope that school systems might be able to ease up on the worst of the belt-tightening measures. Unpaid furlough days. Larger class sizes. Shorter school years. State austerity cuts to public education started in 2003 --- well before the Great Recession -- and they are not ending. But this year, they total $746.6 million, and that to educators, who can do the math, looked better than the $1 billion-plus-a-year cuts in each of the five prior years. We have been through tough times since the Great Recession started, Deal said during a candidate forum that was part of the annual meeting of the Professional Association of Georgia Educators foundation on September 15th. But just how tough? The governor told the crowd that it has taken until this year for overall state revenues to return to the levels they were in 2007. (The National Bureau of Economic Research declared that the countrys longest recession since World War II lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, although surveys show many people believe it has lasted much longer.) Given all the debate about state budget cuts through the years -- especially in education  -- we decided to run Deals statement through the Truth-O-Meter. We reached out to the Deal campaign as we always do for supporting evidence. Campaign spokeswoman Jen Talaber said Deal was relying on information from the Governors Office of Planning and Budget. OPB reports shows that 2007 was a fiscal high water mark for the state. Taxes on everything from personal and corporate income to gasoline and alcohol hit $17.8 billion that year, up $1.3 billion from 2006. Those same documents show that as the national and Georgia economies sank, so did state revenues. At the low point --- which was the fiscal year that ran from July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 -- total tax collection were about $14.5 billion -- or $3.3 billion off the peak. It wasnt until Fiscal 2014, which ended June 30 of this year, that total state tax collections were back to -- and slightly above -- 2007 levels, budget documents show. Tax collections for 2014 were $17.9 billion -- or about $100 million over 2007 levels. The governor is right on the money on this one. We rate Deals statement as True. In late January 2016, Facebook users began sharing a post that promiseda $200 coupon for the Wegmanssupermarket chain to users who completed a short series of steps.  In July 2019, social media users began encountering a similar offer for an $80 coupon:  The embedded links in those posts pointed to a URL not associated with Wegmans.Userswho attempted to complete the steps andclaim thecoupon were directed toa page that resembledcontent hosted on Facebook,but its URL didn't matchthe social network's. The landing page was familiar to all who had encountered similar scams in the past:   Wegmans'official Facebook page warned customers about the coupon scam:  A Better Business Bureauarticle provided shoppers tips about avoiding survey and coupon scams operating in that fashion: 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. Scam:  Advertisers offer kits that enable home workers to make money posting links on the Internet. Example:   If you live in Canada or the US and you have been wanting to work from home, you might be in luck. Google has now released a new 'Work From Home Program' that will allow Americans to work for the titan from the comfort of their own homes. To thousands of North Americans this means that they will soon have a safe and bright future working for one of the fastest growing companies in the world. In the middle of this recession this country and the world is going through, Google has been thriving and reporting profits consistently every quarter.  Completely innovating the Search Engine industry in the late 1990's, Google has had a history of development and innovation, and another one is about to come.  Google has now opened it's doors and will be hiring everyday people to work from the comfort of their own homes posting links. The way this works is Google will allow people to signup and receive a package which will contain all the step by step instructions to get setup from home. This will allow Google to hire talent in places like Canada that would otherwise be unreachable and compensate them based on results on a long term basis. What you need: A Computer, an Internet Connection and the desire to make a living working from home. No special skills are required other than knowing how to use a computer and navigate the internet.  Mary, a mother from Toronto, who worked with Google in the experimental parts of this program, is thriving, in the middle of an economic recession, working in the comfort of her own home with Google. From her website: 'I get paid about $25 USD for every link I post on Google and I get paid every week... I make around $5500 USD a month right now' Google has now officially released their new 'work from home' system out to the public. There will be thousand of spots available that are expected to go very soon in the next few days.  The way this works is very simple, Google says.  First you will need to apply for their work from home kits. Google has release a limited amount of kits, all distributed through local websites in your area throughout US and Canada, which will cost $2 of shipping and handling to the public.  Google says this charge is made to cover shipping costs but also to separate the people that are serious about working with them through this program.  Once you have ordered your kit (if you are one of the lucky few to get availability in your area) then you will receive a package that will contain all the instructions you need to start working from home for the online titan. This kit will show you all you need to know, Google says. You will be performing simple and straightforward tasks such as posting links. 'Anybody with basic computer skills will be able to perform these tasks' adding to that they say that 'We understand the psychology of working from home and we want to give our employees tasks that are simple and easy, and reward them generously in order to keep them motivated.' Is this worth quitting your job? If you're lucky enough to receive a kit, you might not even have to.  'We start off our work from home program only requiring 1-2 hours a day of work, earning a great income from the start. This way our work from home employees will see the benefit and start devoting more and more time each day and their salaries will increase accordingly' Google reports. Although they are going very fast since their release earlier today, thousands of positions are still available at the time of this writing.  To apply for a job working from home for Google here are the three steps: Step 1: Get the Google Work From Home Kit, only pay the $2.95 for shipping. (The shipping cost allows Google to screen for serious people).  Step 2: Follow the directions on your package and set up a Google account. Then they will give you the website links to post. Start posting those links. Google tracks everything. Step 3: Google will send out your checks weekly. Or you can start to have them wire directly into your checking account. (Your first checks will be about $750 to $1,500 a week. Then it goes up from there. Depends on how many links you posted online.) Variations:  In December 2009 we began encountering a Yahoo version of the scam, which was the same as the Google scam discussed below, just with Yahoo's name inserted in place of Google's. Origins:  Those searching for employment opportunities that will allow them to work from home are all too often the very people who can least afford to be defrauded. Although many folks daydream about earning livable incomes from the comfort of their dens rather than having to make the trek to their offices each day, they do not as a general rule of thumb search for such job openings with the same fervor as do the elderly, the physically challenged, or parents committed to remaining at home with their preschool children. Members of those groups hunt for work-at-home opportunities because laboring in more traditional job settings is impossible for them. Because genuine offers of work of this nature are few and far between, with the need to secure a steady income becoming more of a pressing issue with each passing non-employed day, those folks are at far greater risk of being victimized by such schemes; their desperation leads them to be gulled by pie-in-the-sky promises and mollified by the wild backstories that go with them, while the financially better off  are more likely to remain convinced something is very wrong with the offer of mucho bucks in exchange for only a few hours'labor performed from home each week by persons possessed of no special training or skills. From 2009 onwards, a proliferation of seeming newspaper articles touting "Google Job Opportunities," "Google Money Master," "Easy Google Profit," "Google Cash Kit," "Google Fortune Kit," "Home Cash System," "Six Figure Program" and the like began popping up on the Internet. Such come-ons are typically emblazoned with "As seen on" taglines followed by an impressive array of logos, including those of ABC, AOL, CNN, MSNBC, and USA Today.Often these come-ons include what appear to be tearsheets from legitimate-looking publications, such as the New York Tribune and Los Angeles Tribune. As for the publications supposedly reporting these stories, while there was a New York Tribune long ago, in 1924 it merged with the New York Herald to form the New York Herald Tribune. (Even that newspaper is no longer around; it went out of business in 1967.) As for the ostensible Los Angeles Tribune, that paper is wholly fictional; it existed only in the television show Lou Grant. Web pages purporting to be personal reports of riches reaped through these programs have also popped up, such as the now defunctBryansMoneyBlog.com. They too were the same sort of come-on. While the promise of vast riches to be gained through working from home is held out to those seeking an answer to their financial problems, that promise is but the worm used to entice the fish into biting down on the hook. Those who sign up for such kits will not soon find themselves on Easy Street; instead, they will find their bank accounts tapped to the tune of approximately $80 a month. While prospective job seekers are told they need to pay a $2 charge for kits that supposedly contain the step-by-step instructions on how to begin working from home (often explained as Google's way of sifting the serious from non-serious candidates), a closer examination of the Terms and Conditions associated with the programs applicants are signing up for reveals they are instead authorizing monthly charges either to their bank accounts or credit cards, usually to the tune of about $80 a month. Those who attempt to cancel these charges find the task a difficult one, in that only rarely does anyone at the phone number supplied for that purpose actually come onto that line. Those still not convinced they haven't just found the answer to their prayers are invited to closely examine the various web page come-ons. Usually, buried at the bottom of the page in fine print is a statement to the effect that "Google is in no way associated with this website." Barbara "web slight of hand" Mikkelson How to Avoid Falling Victim to 'Work From Home' Scams: Don't pay a company to hire you, not even if such payment is presented as your buying necessary training materials, obtaining required certification, or registering with databases of available workers. Remember, if the process involves your sending your "employers" money, it's probably a scam.  If you have questions about the legitimacy of a job listing, contact your Better Business Bureau, your state or local consumer agency, or the Federal Trade Commission.   Examine your credit card and bank account statements every month, keeping an eye peeled for unauthorized charges. Immediately challenge items you did not approve. Additional information:        Suspicious sites and what to look for   (Google)        How to steer clear of money scams   (Official Google blog)   Last updated:  15 December 2009    Sources:   Buck, Claudia.  "Employment Work-at-Home Deals Often Are Just Scams."   The Houston Chronicle.  30 March 2009  (p. B8).     Turner, Tracy.  "Scammers Tweeting Their Way to Easy Prey."   The Columbus Dispatch.  12 July 2009  (p. D1).     Weeks, Carly.  "As the Economy Tanks, Scams Thrive."   The Globe and Mail.  9 March 2009  (p. L1).