claim
stringlengths 4
479
| label
stringclasses 3
values | origin
stringlengths 3
44.1k
| evidence
stringlengths 3
19.1k
| images
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
A Dunkin' Donuts in Brooklyn refused to serve two NYPD officers. | Neutral | On 3 August 2017, the BlueLivesMatter.blue blog published a post largely lifted from a New York Post article, both reporting that two New York City Police Department officers had been refused service at a Dunkin' Donuts in Brooklyn: A pair of NYPD officers were denied service at a Brooklyn Dunkin' Donuts by a clerk who said, 'I don't serve cops' - and the head of the detectives union is leading a boycott of the chain, The Post has learned. Detectives' Endowment Association President Michael Palladino said Thursday that the blatant discrimination was 'disgraceful and it should not go unattended ... I assume it is an isolated incident. Nevertheless, Dunkin' Donuts corporate should issue an apology to the NYPD and until that happens, I have asked detectives and their families to refrain from patronizing the stores,' he said. Palladino also took a thinly veiled swipe at Mayor Bill de Blasio and other city officials in apportioning blame for the Sunday afternoon incident at 1993 Atlantic Ave. 'Political leaders in this city have encouraged this type of behavior by constantly demonizing cops and pushing their decriminalization agenda,' he said. Details offered near the end of the original article which were missed by many casual readers - and omitted from the BlueLivesMatter.blue post entirely - included a quote from the manager at the store, who said that the plainclothes officers were standing in the pickup area of the store and did not place an order: These two men in shirts and ties - who I later found out were police - must have never come to this Dunkin' Donuts before, because instead of waiting in the line where you order, they waited at the counter where you pick up your order ... You can see on the security tape: they stand here for five minutes, while other customers were being served. One customer even ordered ice cream, and they must've not like that because they left the store[.] The manager, who wouldn't give his name, wouldn't let The Post view the video. ... I kept trying to explain [to angry callers that] we serve everyone, we have nothing but respect for the police, and that they were standing at the wrong counter. It was busy at the time, and we were busy serving customers. In a second New York Post piece hours later, the paper repeated the report, then added that a representative for the chain had apologized to one of the involved officers. No one appears to have confirmed which version of events was accurate one, although the Post implies that the claim was verified by questioning whether the worker involved had been 'disciplined': The owner of a Brooklyn Dunkin' Donuts where two NYPD cops were refused service has personally apologized to one of the officers and plans a meeting to try and put the matter to rest, the shop's corporate parent said Thursday. In a prepared statement, Dunkin' Brands spokeswoman Michelle King said the company was 'aware of the recent situation' - in which a worker declared, 'I don't serve cops' - revealed exclusively by The Post. 'The franchisee who owns and operates this restaurant informed us that immediately upon learning of this situation earlier this week, he contacted one of the police officers involved to personally apologize for any negative experience he may have had in his store,' she said. 'The franchisee of the Brooklyn restaurant is meeting with the police officer he spoke to earlier this week in person to hopefully bring this to a satisfactory conclusion for all involved.' The provided statement gave no indication that Dunkin' Donuts had apologized for anything other than the officers' interpretation of events, and the absence of mention of employee discipline seemed to suggest that the company did not observe any such behavior on the tape. Both versions closely follow the ever-popular 'shunned serviceman' and 'shunned policeman' template of urban legends and rumors, which date back decades but have spiked in popularity with the advent of social media. Nearly all viral 'shunned policeman' tales turns out to be misinterpretations or exaggerations that nevertheless can cause lasting harm to businesses targeted by the sticky slurs. We contacted the media relations department of Dunkin' Donuts to request further information and on 9 August 2017 a representative for the chain responded: Dunkin' Donuts sincerely apologizes to the two police officers who were left unattended in the store. We have a long history of supporting the NYPD and we look forward to continuing that support in the future. | nan | [
"00998-proof-02-dunkin_donuts_fb.jpg"
] |
Mississippi House Bill 1100 would force public school teachers to recite the Ten Commandments at the start of each school day. | Neutral | The separation of church and state has been the subject of contentious debate in the United States since the country's foundation. Proposals to introduce symbols and expressions of Christian faith into public spaces have, in the last few decades, typically come from the Republican side of the aisle. So it was with a certain sense of surprise that news organizations reported in January 2018 that a Mississippi Democrat-State Representative Credell Calhoun-had introduced legislation that would 'require teachers to recite the Ten Commandments every morning,' as the left-wing web site Think Progress wrote. 'In addition to reciting the Ten Commandments at the top of every day,' Bustle reported, 'teachers would also be required to display the Commandments prominently (at least a poster size of 11×14 inches), along with the U.S. motto 'In God We Trust, in every classroom, school auditorium, and cafeteria.' We received several enquiries from readers about whether Calhoun really was seeking to require public school teachers to read the Ten Commandments aloud each morning. The implications of Calhoun's proposal, in that regard, are unclear. House Bill 1100, which he introduced in January 2018, would force public school boards in Mississippi to require a period of 'quiet reflection' in each public school classroom, lasting no more than one minute. Currently, school boards 'may authorize' such a period, allowing both school boards and schools the freedom to abstain from quiet reflection. Calhoun's bill would change that. Strangely, Calhoun has a seemingly competing bill before the Mississippi Legislature, H.B. 783. Unlike H.B. 1100, it would only force school boards to authorize a 60-second period of quiet reflection. We asked the Representative how he reconciled this measure with the more restrictive measure contained in H.B. 1100, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. H.B. 1100 would also require public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments and the motto 'In God We Trust' in each classroom, auditorium and cafeteria. Currently, Mississippi public schools are only required to display 'In God We Trust.' Finally, H.B. 1100 also states: The school board of each school district shall require the teachers in that school district to have the Ten Commandments recited aloud at the beginning of the first hour of class each day that school is in session. However, the bill also appears to give teachers and students an opt-out: Any student or teacher who objects to reciting the Ten Commandments must be excused from participating without penalty. According to the wording of the legislation, teachers are not explicitly required to recite the Ten Commandments, they are required to 'have the Ten Commandments recited,' which might suggest that they would be obliged to arrange for a colleague or a student to read aloud or recite the Ten Commandments. However, it is conceivable that every available teacher or student could 'object' to reciting the Ten Commandments, something that the bill itself allows for. We asked Rep. Calhoun how this section of H.B. 1100 could be enforced, if nobody is actually obliged to take part, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the use and display of the phrase 'In God We Trust' in currency does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the constitutional provision at the heart of the separation of church and state, which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... In the landmark 1970 case Aranow v. United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the inscription of 'In God We Trust' on U.S. currency did not violate the Establishment Clause, because-in the words of District Judge Bruce Thompson: It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of displaying 'In God We Trust' in public schools, specifically. By contrast, the court has previously ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in a public school is a violation of the Establishment Clause, and it's questionable whether that section of Calhoun's bill would pass constitutional muster. In the 1980 case Stone v. Graham, the court examined a Kentucky state law that required a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom. The law violated the Establishment Clause, according to the majority opinion, because it had 'no secular legislative purpose.' The section of Calhoun's bill that requires schools to arrange for the Ten Commandments to be read aloud would probably be even more likely to violate the Establishment Clause, since it involves active participation in a uniquely Judeo-Christian ritual, as opposed to the passive display of an object. However, its constitutionality would ultimately have to be determined by the courts. House Bills 1100 and 783 had been forwarded to the Mississippi Legislature's Education Committee, as of 25 January 2018. | nan | [
"01093-proof-06-ten_commandments_gerry_dincher_flickr_fb.jpg"
] |
Mississippi House Bill 1100 would force public school teachers to recite the Ten Commandments at the start of each school day. | Neutral | The separation of church and state has been the subject of contentious debate in the United States since the country's foundation. Proposals to introduce symbols and expressions of Christian faith into public spaces have, in the last few decades, typically come from the Republican side of the aisle. So it was with a certain sense of surprise that news organizations reported in January 2018 that a Mississippi Democrat-State Representative Credell Calhoun-had introduced legislation that would 'require teachers to recite the Ten Commandments every morning,' as the left-wing web site Think Progress wrote. 'In addition to reciting the Ten Commandments at the top of every day,' Bustle reported, 'teachers would also be required to display the Commandments prominently (at least a poster size of 11×14 inches), along with the U.S. motto 'In God We Trust, in every classroom, school auditorium, and cafeteria.' We received several enquiries from readers about whether Calhoun really was seeking to require public school teachers to read the Ten Commandments aloud each morning. The implications of Calhoun's proposal, in that regard, are unclear. House Bill 1100, which he introduced in January 2018, would force public school boards in Mississippi to require a period of 'quiet reflection' in each public school classroom, lasting no more than one minute. Currently, school boards 'may authorize' such a period, allowing both school boards and schools the freedom to abstain from quiet reflection. Calhoun's bill would change that. Strangely, Calhoun has a seemingly competing bill before the Mississippi Legislature, H.B. 783. Unlike H.B. 1100, it would only force school boards to authorize a 60-second period of quiet reflection. We asked the Representative how he reconciled this measure with the more restrictive measure contained in H.B. 1100, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. H.B. 1100 would also require public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments and the motto 'In God We Trust' in each classroom, auditorium and cafeteria. Currently, Mississippi public schools are only required to display 'In God We Trust.' Finally, H.B. 1100 also states: The school board of each school district shall require the teachers in that school district to have the Ten Commandments recited aloud at the beginning of the first hour of class each day that school is in session. However, the bill also appears to give teachers and students an opt-out: Any student or teacher who objects to reciting the Ten Commandments must be excused from participating without penalty. According to the wording of the legislation, teachers are not explicitly required to recite the Ten Commandments, they are required to 'have the Ten Commandments recited,' which might suggest that they would be obliged to arrange for a colleague or a student to read aloud or recite the Ten Commandments. However, it is conceivable that every available teacher or student could 'object' to reciting the Ten Commandments, something that the bill itself allows for. We asked Rep. Calhoun how this section of H.B. 1100 could be enforced, if nobody is actually obliged to take part, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the use and display of the phrase 'In God We Trust' in currency does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the constitutional provision at the heart of the separation of church and state, which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... In the landmark 1970 case Aranow v. United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the inscription of 'In God We Trust' on U.S. currency did not violate the Establishment Clause, because-in the words of District Judge Bruce Thompson: It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of displaying 'In God We Trust' in public schools, specifically. By contrast, the court has previously ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in a public school is a violation of the Establishment Clause, and it's questionable whether that section of Calhoun's bill would pass constitutional muster. In the 1980 case Stone v. Graham, the court examined a Kentucky state law that required a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom. The law violated the Establishment Clause, according to the majority opinion, because it had 'no secular legislative purpose.' The section of Calhoun's bill that requires schools to arrange for the Ten Commandments to be read aloud would probably be even more likely to violate the Establishment Clause, since it involves active participation in a uniquely Judeo-Christian ritual, as opposed to the passive display of an object. However, its constitutionality would ultimately have to be determined by the courts. House Bills 1100 and 783 had been forwarded to the Mississippi Legislature's Education Committee, as of 25 January 2018. | nan | [
"01093-proof-06-ten_commandments_gerry_dincher_flickr_fb.jpg"
] |
Mississippi House Bill 1100 would force public school teachers to recite the Ten Commandments at the start of each school day. | Neutral | The separation of church and state has been the subject of contentious debate in the United States since the country's foundation. Proposals to introduce symbols and expressions of Christian faith into public spaces have, in the last few decades, typically come from the Republican side of the aisle. So it was with a certain sense of surprise that news organizations reported in January 2018 that a Mississippi Democrat-State Representative Credell Calhoun-had introduced legislation that would 'require teachers to recite the Ten Commandments every morning,' as the left-wing web site Think Progress wrote. 'In addition to reciting the Ten Commandments at the top of every day,' Bustle reported, 'teachers would also be required to display the Commandments prominently (at least a poster size of 11×14 inches), along with the U.S. motto 'In God We Trust, in every classroom, school auditorium, and cafeteria.' We received several enquiries from readers about whether Calhoun really was seeking to require public school teachers to read the Ten Commandments aloud each morning. The implications of Calhoun's proposal, in that regard, are unclear. House Bill 1100, which he introduced in January 2018, would force public school boards in Mississippi to require a period of 'quiet reflection' in each public school classroom, lasting no more than one minute. Currently, school boards 'may authorize' such a period, allowing both school boards and schools the freedom to abstain from quiet reflection. Calhoun's bill would change that. Strangely, Calhoun has a seemingly competing bill before the Mississippi Legislature, H.B. 783. Unlike H.B. 1100, it would only force school boards to authorize a 60-second period of quiet reflection. We asked the Representative how he reconciled this measure with the more restrictive measure contained in H.B. 1100, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. H.B. 1100 would also require public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments and the motto 'In God We Trust' in each classroom, auditorium and cafeteria. Currently, Mississippi public schools are only required to display 'In God We Trust.' Finally, H.B. 1100 also states: The school board of each school district shall require the teachers in that school district to have the Ten Commandments recited aloud at the beginning of the first hour of class each day that school is in session. However, the bill also appears to give teachers and students an opt-out: Any student or teacher who objects to reciting the Ten Commandments must be excused from participating without penalty. According to the wording of the legislation, teachers are not explicitly required to recite the Ten Commandments, they are required to 'have the Ten Commandments recited,' which might suggest that they would be obliged to arrange for a colleague or a student to read aloud or recite the Ten Commandments. However, it is conceivable that every available teacher or student could 'object' to reciting the Ten Commandments, something that the bill itself allows for. We asked Rep. Calhoun how this section of H.B. 1100 could be enforced, if nobody is actually obliged to take part, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the use and display of the phrase 'In God We Trust' in currency does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the constitutional provision at the heart of the separation of church and state, which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... In the landmark 1970 case Aranow v. United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the inscription of 'In God We Trust' on U.S. currency did not violate the Establishment Clause, because-in the words of District Judge Bruce Thompson: It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of displaying 'In God We Trust' in public schools, specifically. By contrast, the court has previously ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in a public school is a violation of the Establishment Clause, and it's questionable whether that section of Calhoun's bill would pass constitutional muster. In the 1980 case Stone v. Graham, the court examined a Kentucky state law that required a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom. The law violated the Establishment Clause, according to the majority opinion, because it had 'no secular legislative purpose.' The section of Calhoun's bill that requires schools to arrange for the Ten Commandments to be read aloud would probably be even more likely to violate the Establishment Clause, since it involves active participation in a uniquely Judeo-Christian ritual, as opposed to the passive display of an object. However, its constitutionality would ultimately have to be determined by the courts. House Bills 1100 and 783 had been forwarded to the Mississippi Legislature's Education Committee, as of 25 January 2018. | nan | [
"01093-proof-06-ten_commandments_gerry_dincher_flickr_fb.jpg"
] |
Mississippi House Bill 1100 would force public school teachers to recite the Ten Commandments at the start of each school day. | Neutral | The separation of church and state has been the subject of contentious debate in the United States since the country's foundation. Proposals to introduce symbols and expressions of Christian faith into public spaces have, in the last few decades, typically come from the Republican side of the aisle. So it was with a certain sense of surprise that news organizations reported in January 2018 that a Mississippi Democrat-State Representative Credell Calhoun-had introduced legislation that would 'require teachers to recite the Ten Commandments every morning,' as the left-wing web site Think Progress wrote. 'In addition to reciting the Ten Commandments at the top of every day,' Bustle reported, 'teachers would also be required to display the Commandments prominently (at least a poster size of 11×14 inches), along with the U.S. motto 'In God We Trust, in every classroom, school auditorium, and cafeteria.' We received several enquiries from readers about whether Calhoun really was seeking to require public school teachers to read the Ten Commandments aloud each morning. The implications of Calhoun's proposal, in that regard, are unclear. House Bill 1100, which he introduced in January 2018, would force public school boards in Mississippi to require a period of 'quiet reflection' in each public school classroom, lasting no more than one minute. Currently, school boards 'may authorize' such a period, allowing both school boards and schools the freedom to abstain from quiet reflection. Calhoun's bill would change that. Strangely, Calhoun has a seemingly competing bill before the Mississippi Legislature, H.B. 783. Unlike H.B. 1100, it would only force school boards to authorize a 60-second period of quiet reflection. We asked the Representative how he reconciled this measure with the more restrictive measure contained in H.B. 1100, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. H.B. 1100 would also require public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments and the motto 'In God We Trust' in each classroom, auditorium and cafeteria. Currently, Mississippi public schools are only required to display 'In God We Trust.' Finally, H.B. 1100 also states: The school board of each school district shall require the teachers in that school district to have the Ten Commandments recited aloud at the beginning of the first hour of class each day that school is in session. However, the bill also appears to give teachers and students an opt-out: Any student or teacher who objects to reciting the Ten Commandments must be excused from participating without penalty. According to the wording of the legislation, teachers are not explicitly required to recite the Ten Commandments, they are required to 'have the Ten Commandments recited,' which might suggest that they would be obliged to arrange for a colleague or a student to read aloud or recite the Ten Commandments. However, it is conceivable that every available teacher or student could 'object' to reciting the Ten Commandments, something that the bill itself allows for. We asked Rep. Calhoun how this section of H.B. 1100 could be enforced, if nobody is actually obliged to take part, but we did not receive a response in time for publication. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the use and display of the phrase 'In God We Trust' in currency does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the constitutional provision at the heart of the separation of church and state, which reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion... In the landmark 1970 case Aranow v. United States, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the inscription of 'In God We Trust' on U.S. currency did not violate the Establishment Clause, because-in the words of District Judge Bruce Thompson: It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of displaying 'In God We Trust' in public schools, specifically. By contrast, the court has previously ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in a public school is a violation of the Establishment Clause, and it's questionable whether that section of Calhoun's bill would pass constitutional muster. In the 1980 case Stone v. Graham, the court examined a Kentucky state law that required a copy of the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public school classroom. The law violated the Establishment Clause, according to the majority opinion, because it had 'no secular legislative purpose.' The section of Calhoun's bill that requires schools to arrange for the Ten Commandments to be read aloud would probably be even more likely to violate the Establishment Clause, since it involves active participation in a uniquely Judeo-Christian ritual, as opposed to the passive display of an object. However, its constitutionality would ultimately have to be determined by the courts. House Bills 1100 and 783 had been forwarded to the Mississippi Legislature's Education Committee, as of 25 January 2018. | nan | [
"01093-proof-06-ten_commandments_gerry_dincher_flickr_fb.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump wrote personal checks to tornado victims in Nashville, Tennessee. | Neutral | On March 6, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump traveled to Tennessee to meet with local officials, residents, and first-responders as he surveyed the damage from a deadly tornado that killed at least 25 people statewide. The following day, a rumor holding that Trump had pulled out his personal checkbook during this visit to give money to tornado victims started to go viral on Facebook: This Facebook post was shared close to 20,000 times within a few days of its initial posting. The text of the message was also copied and pasted by several additional social media accounts. The copypasta text reads: So Trump comes to Nashville to oversee damage from the tornado. He flies into the area in a helicopter to get there without further traffic problems in the city. He writes PERSONAL checks to those in need, with his personal accountant in tow. No other President in history has done this. Then, he poses beside a Jeep. Now let's hear all those Cherokee owners gawk!!! There is no evidence to support these claims. We have not encountered any news articles about Trump writing personal checks to tornado victims, nor any videos or photographs capturing such a moment. Furthermore, this post claims that Trump had his 'personal accountant in tow' during the visit. But that doesn't appear to be the case. Trump was accompanied on his trip to Nashville with members of the state's delegation, including Republican Senators Marsha Blackburn and Lamar Alexander, but we found no mentions of an 'accountant' tagging along on this trip. Trump's 'personal accountant' likely refers to Allen Weisselberg, the Trump family's longtime accountant and the current chief financial officer of The Trump Organization, but Weisselberg did not accompany Trump on this trip to Tennessee. The Facebook post also gets details about Trump's method of travel wrong. While Trump did take Marine One, the presidential helicopter, to get an aerial view of the damage and to travel to Cookeville, Tennessee, he actually traveled to Nashville via Air Force One. A photograph supposedly showing Trump in Nashville after he 'got his check book out and just started writing' was also spread on social media: This photograph, however, does not show Trump during his visit to Nashville in March 2020. This image actually comes from Trump's trip to Alabama in March 2019 after a tornado left 23 people dead. Contemporary news reports made no mention of Trump writing personal checks to to tornado victims during this trip, either. It should be noted that Trump has donated his presidential salary to various causes since he took office. While the Trump administration has made public announcements concerning these donations, no such statement has been released about Trump allegedly writing personal checks to tornado victims in Nashville. In March 2020, it was announced that Trump would be donating to the Department of Health and Human Services To help 'confront, contain, and combat coronavirus.' We reached out to the White House and Kirby Pearce, the apparent author of the viral Facebook post, for comment. We will update this article if more information becomes available. This rumor did not originate with a credible source, nor was it accompanied by any supporting evidence. Furthermore, this rumor appears to have a single source. While this text has been copied and pasted by several different accounts, nobody has provided any additional information. It appears that this rumor was simply made up out of whole cloth. | nan | [
"01234-proof-09-GettyImages-1205518518-e1583862996423.jpg"
] |
iPhone users can access emergency services simply by tapping the Lock button of their device five times. | Neutral | In late 2017, a number of memes circulated on Facebook advising iPhone users of a purported new function allowing them to discreetly contact emergency services by pressing the Lock button five times and selecting Emergency SOS: \ Readers asked: Can you really hit your lock screen button six times on an iPhone and get an SOS button? I saw a meme about it on Facebook, and wondered if it was true. I don't have an iPhone, so I couldn't test it! But I'm curious! Is this true for some I-phone models? '#shareable PSA: If you're ever in an unsafe situation and need to discreetly call the police, hit your iPhone's lock button (on the side) quickly 5 times and you'll get this screen.' Can you contact 911 by tapping the home screen on your iPhone 5 times? I saw this on a Facebook post. This option is available to users of iPhones running the operating system iOS 11. An Apple Support page explaining the details and limitations of the feature began: Use Emergency SOS on your iPhone With Emergency SOS in iOS 11, you can quickly and easily call for help and alert your emergency contacts. Here's how it works When you make a call with SOS, your iPhone automatically calls the local emergency number. In some countries and regions, you might need to choose the service that you need. For example, in China you can choose police, fire, or ambulance. You can also add emergency contacts. After an emergency call ends, your iPhone alerts your emergency contacts with a text message, unless you choose to cancel. Your iPhone sends them your current location, and, for a period of time after you enter SOS mode, it sends updates to your emergency contacts when your location changes. The feature is accessible by different methods, depending on the iPhone model and geographic location of the user: Call emergency services Here's how to make the call on iPhone X, iPhone 8, or iPhone 8 Plus: 1. Press and hold the side button and one of the Volume buttons until the Emergency SOS slider appears. 2. Drag the Emergency SOS slider to call emergency services. If you continue to hold down the side button and Volume button, instead of dragging the slider, a countdown begins and an alert sounds. If you hold down the buttons until the countdown ends, your iPhone automatically calls emergency services. Here's how to make the call on iPhone 7 or earlier: 1. Rapidly press the side button five times. The Emergency SOS slider will appear. (In India, you only need to press the button three times, then your iPhone automatically calls emergency services.) 2. Drag the Emergency SOS slider to call emergency services. After the call ends, your iPhone sends your Emergency contacts a text message with your current location, unless you choose to cancel. If Location Services is off, it will temporarily turn on. If your location changes, your contacts will get an update, and you'll get a notification about 10 minutes later. To stop the updates, tap the status bar and select 'Stop Sharing Emergency Location.' If you keep sharing, you'll get a reminder to stop every 4 hours for 24 hours. If you use the Emergency SOS shortcut, you need to enter your passcode to re-enable Touch ID, even if you don't complete a call to emergency services. Because the feature depends iOS 11, users of iPhone models older than 5s cannot access it. Users with newer iPhones must upgrade to iOS 11 in order to access the feature; they should read Apple's documentation and test whether they can access the Emergency SOS option before trying to use it in an emergency. The service may depend on the reliability of local emergency services. Travelers should also inform themselves about how to manually access emergency services in whatever location they are visiting, as it is entirely possible that they might not have access to their phone in an emergency. Skepticism about the claim wasn't unwarranted. A similar rumor held that asking Siri (iPhone's voice assistant) to 'charge my phone to 100 percent' would trigger a police response, but that was mostly false. Rumors about ways to surreptitiously contact emergency services long predate the use of smart phones. Another false rumor purported that leaving a phone off the hook would eventually trigger a 911 call. The danger of these rumors is that they give potential crime victims a false sense of security, and could distract from other (real) ways to get help in an emergency. | nan | [
"01278-proof-03-iphone-SOS-PSA.jpg",
"01278-proof-06-iphone_emergency_SOS_fb.jpg"
] |
iPhone users can access emergency services simply by tapping the Lock button of their device five times. | Neutral | In late 2017, a number of memes circulated on Facebook advising iPhone users of a purported new function allowing them to discreetly contact emergency services by pressing the Lock button five times and selecting Emergency SOS: \ Readers asked: Can you really hit your lock screen button six times on an iPhone and get an SOS button? I saw a meme about it on Facebook, and wondered if it was true. I don't have an iPhone, so I couldn't test it! But I'm curious! Is this true for some I-phone models? '#shareable PSA: If you're ever in an unsafe situation and need to discreetly call the police, hit your iPhone's lock button (on the side) quickly 5 times and you'll get this screen.' Can you contact 911 by tapping the home screen on your iPhone 5 times? I saw this on a Facebook post. This option is available to users of iPhones running the operating system iOS 11. An Apple Support page explaining the details and limitations of the feature began: Use Emergency SOS on your iPhone With Emergency SOS in iOS 11, you can quickly and easily call for help and alert your emergency contacts. Here's how it works When you make a call with SOS, your iPhone automatically calls the local emergency number. In some countries and regions, you might need to choose the service that you need. For example, in China you can choose police, fire, or ambulance. You can also add emergency contacts. After an emergency call ends, your iPhone alerts your emergency contacts with a text message, unless you choose to cancel. Your iPhone sends them your current location, and, for a period of time after you enter SOS mode, it sends updates to your emergency contacts when your location changes. The feature is accessible by different methods, depending on the iPhone model and geographic location of the user: Call emergency services Here's how to make the call on iPhone X, iPhone 8, or iPhone 8 Plus: 1. Press and hold the side button and one of the Volume buttons until the Emergency SOS slider appears. 2. Drag the Emergency SOS slider to call emergency services. If you continue to hold down the side button and Volume button, instead of dragging the slider, a countdown begins and an alert sounds. If you hold down the buttons until the countdown ends, your iPhone automatically calls emergency services. Here's how to make the call on iPhone 7 or earlier: 1. Rapidly press the side button five times. The Emergency SOS slider will appear. (In India, you only need to press the button three times, then your iPhone automatically calls emergency services.) 2. Drag the Emergency SOS slider to call emergency services. After the call ends, your iPhone sends your Emergency contacts a text message with your current location, unless you choose to cancel. If Location Services is off, it will temporarily turn on. If your location changes, your contacts will get an update, and you'll get a notification about 10 minutes later. To stop the updates, tap the status bar and select 'Stop Sharing Emergency Location.' If you keep sharing, you'll get a reminder to stop every 4 hours for 24 hours. If you use the Emergency SOS shortcut, you need to enter your passcode to re-enable Touch ID, even if you don't complete a call to emergency services. Because the feature depends iOS 11, users of iPhone models older than 5s cannot access it. Users with newer iPhones must upgrade to iOS 11 in order to access the feature; they should read Apple's documentation and test whether they can access the Emergency SOS option before trying to use it in an emergency. The service may depend on the reliability of local emergency services. Travelers should also inform themselves about how to manually access emergency services in whatever location they are visiting, as it is entirely possible that they might not have access to their phone in an emergency. Skepticism about the claim wasn't unwarranted. A similar rumor held that asking Siri (iPhone's voice assistant) to 'charge my phone to 100 percent' would trigger a police response, but that was mostly false. Rumors about ways to surreptitiously contact emergency services long predate the use of smart phones. Another false rumor purported that leaving a phone off the hook would eventually trigger a 911 call. The danger of these rumors is that they give potential crime victims a false sense of security, and could distract from other (real) ways to get help in an emergency. | nan | [
"01278-proof-03-iphone-SOS-PSA.jpg",
"01278-proof-06-iphone_emergency_SOS_fb.jpg"
] |
iPhone users can access emergency services simply by tapping the Lock button of their device five times. | Neutral | In late 2017, a number of memes circulated on Facebook advising iPhone users of a purported new function allowing them to discreetly contact emergency services by pressing the Lock button five times and selecting Emergency SOS: \ Readers asked: Can you really hit your lock screen button six times on an iPhone and get an SOS button? I saw a meme about it on Facebook, and wondered if it was true. I don't have an iPhone, so I couldn't test it! But I'm curious! Is this true for some I-phone models? '#shareable PSA: If you're ever in an unsafe situation and need to discreetly call the police, hit your iPhone's lock button (on the side) quickly 5 times and you'll get this screen.' Can you contact 911 by tapping the home screen on your iPhone 5 times? I saw this on a Facebook post. This option is available to users of iPhones running the operating system iOS 11. An Apple Support page explaining the details and limitations of the feature began: Use Emergency SOS on your iPhone With Emergency SOS in iOS 11, you can quickly and easily call for help and alert your emergency contacts. Here's how it works When you make a call with SOS, your iPhone automatically calls the local emergency number. In some countries and regions, you might need to choose the service that you need. For example, in China you can choose police, fire, or ambulance. You can also add emergency contacts. After an emergency call ends, your iPhone alerts your emergency contacts with a text message, unless you choose to cancel. Your iPhone sends them your current location, and, for a period of time after you enter SOS mode, it sends updates to your emergency contacts when your location changes. The feature is accessible by different methods, depending on the iPhone model and geographic location of the user: Call emergency services Here's how to make the call on iPhone X, iPhone 8, or iPhone 8 Plus: 1. Press and hold the side button and one of the Volume buttons until the Emergency SOS slider appears. 2. Drag the Emergency SOS slider to call emergency services. If you continue to hold down the side button and Volume button, instead of dragging the slider, a countdown begins and an alert sounds. If you hold down the buttons until the countdown ends, your iPhone automatically calls emergency services. Here's how to make the call on iPhone 7 or earlier: 1. Rapidly press the side button five times. The Emergency SOS slider will appear. (In India, you only need to press the button three times, then your iPhone automatically calls emergency services.) 2. Drag the Emergency SOS slider to call emergency services. After the call ends, your iPhone sends your Emergency contacts a text message with your current location, unless you choose to cancel. If Location Services is off, it will temporarily turn on. If your location changes, your contacts will get an update, and you'll get a notification about 10 minutes later. To stop the updates, tap the status bar and select 'Stop Sharing Emergency Location.' If you keep sharing, you'll get a reminder to stop every 4 hours for 24 hours. If you use the Emergency SOS shortcut, you need to enter your passcode to re-enable Touch ID, even if you don't complete a call to emergency services. Because the feature depends iOS 11, users of iPhone models older than 5s cannot access it. Users with newer iPhones must upgrade to iOS 11 in order to access the feature; they should read Apple's documentation and test whether they can access the Emergency SOS option before trying to use it in an emergency. The service may depend on the reliability of local emergency services. Travelers should also inform themselves about how to manually access emergency services in whatever location they are visiting, as it is entirely possible that they might not have access to their phone in an emergency. Skepticism about the claim wasn't unwarranted. A similar rumor held that asking Siri (iPhone's voice assistant) to 'charge my phone to 100 percent' would trigger a police response, but that was mostly false. Rumors about ways to surreptitiously contact emergency services long predate the use of smart phones. Another false rumor purported that leaving a phone off the hook would eventually trigger a 911 call. The danger of these rumors is that they give potential crime victims a false sense of security, and could distract from other (real) ways to get help in an emergency. | nan | [
"01278-proof-03-iphone-SOS-PSA.jpg",
"01278-proof-06-iphone_emergency_SOS_fb.jpg"
] |
California Governor Jerry Brown signed a law allowing convicted felons to vote while still in prison. | Neutral | In October 2017, we received several inquiries from readers asking whether California Governor Jerry Brown had signed a law that would enable individuals convicted of a felony to vote while still in prison. Yes and no. On 28 September 2016, Brown signed California Assembly Bill 2466, which allowed convicted felons imprisoned in a county jail to vote while behind bars. People convicted of felonies who are on state or federal parole or imprisoned in a state or federal prison are still barred from voting in California. Previously, anyone in prison or on parole for a felony in California was barred from registering to vote or casting their ballot. The law came into effect on 1 January 2017. The measure stems from a 2011 reform in California, where 'low-level' (mainly non-violent) felons began to be imprisoned in county jails so as to ease overcrowding in state and federal prisons. The law's sponsor, Democratic Assembly member Shirley Weber, said the measure was aimed at rehabilitating and reintegrating convicted felons into society, The Los Angeles Times reported: Civic participation can be a critical component of re-entry and has been linked to reduced recidivism...I wrote AB 2466 because I want to send a message to the nation that California will not stand for discrimination in voting. The bill was opposed by Republican Assembly members, along with the California State Sheriffs' Association and California Police Chiefs Association, according to The Los Angeles Times. In the fall of 2017, the California non-profit organization Initiate Justice began a campaign to amend the state's constitution to further extend voting rights to individuals on state or federal parole or in a state prison for a felony conviction. As it stands, Article 2 Section 4 of the California Constitution bars anyone who is deemed 'mentally incompetent or imprisoned or on parole for the conviction of a felony' from voting (AB 2466 circumvented this by redefining 'imprisoned or on parole' to only include state or federal institutions). Before a ballot measure in 1976, the constitution barred anyone who had ever been convicted of a felony from voting, even after the completion of their sentence. As of October 2017, Initiate Justice was preparing to gather the 585,407 signatures required to get the proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot at the November 2018 elections. If the proposal is passed by the voters of California, it could pave the way for a new bill proposed by the group - the Voting Restoration and Democracy Act of 2018, which would prohibit the stripping of voting rights from anyone imprisoned or on parole for a felony. So Brown has signed a law to allow felons in county jails to vote - a significant reform of California's electoral law, but one that still leaves a large cohort of felons (those in state or federal prisons) unable to vote while behind bars. Nationwide, only two states - Maine and Vermont - allow all individuals to vote regardless of whether they are serving a sentence for a felony, and regardless of the type of prison they're in, according to research by the National Conference of State Legislatures. In 14 states and the District of Columbia, convicted felons automatically have their voting rights restored as soon as their period of incarceration ends, and most states allow felons to vote once their sentence is completed (that is, including parole and probation.) In nine states, action is required by the governor or a court to restore a convicted felon's right to vote, even after they complete their sentence. | nan | [
"01337-proof-03-jerry_brown_prisoner_voting_law_fb.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Experts confirmed a computer server linked to Donald Trump 'was communicating with Russia. | Neutral | On 31 October 2016 Slate published an article with the headline 'Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?.' The inquisitive title introduced a lengthy article and a mish-mash of circumstantial details positing that Donald Trump maintained 'secretive' financial ties to Russia which came to light in the course of an unofficial investigation: In late spring, this community of malware hunters placed itself in a high state of alarm. Word arrived that Russian hackers had infiltrated the servers of the Democratic National Committee, an attack persuasively detailed by the respected cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. The computer scientists posited a logical hypothesis, which they set out to rigorously test: If the Russians were worming their way into the DNC, they might very well be attacking other entities central to the presidential campaign, including Donald Trump's many servers. 'We wanted to help defend both campaigns, because we wanted to preserve the integrity of the election,' says one of the academics, who works at a university that asked him not to speak with reporters because of the sensitive nature of his work. Earlier [in October 2016], the group of computer scientists passed [logs of the Trump server's DNS activity] to Paul Vixie. In the world of DNS experts, there's no higher authority. Vixie wrote central strands of the DNS code that makes the internet work. After studying the logs, he concluded, 'The parties were communicating in a secretive fashion. The operative word is secretive. This is more akin to what criminal syndicates do if they are putting together a project.' Put differently, the logs suggested that Trump and Alfa had configured something like a digital hotline connecting the two entities, shutting out the rest of the world, and designed to obscure its own existence. Over the summer, the scientists observed the communications trail from a distance ... While the researchers went about their work, the conventional wisdom about Russian interference in the campaign began to shift. There were reports that the Trump campaign had ordered the Republican Party to rewrite its platform position on Ukraine, maneuvering the GOP toward a policy preferred by Russia, though the Trump campaign denied having a hand in the change. Then Trump announced in an interview with the New York Times his unwillingness to spring to the defense of NATO allies in the face of a Russian invasion. Trump even invited Russian hackers to go hunting for Clinton's emails, then passed the comment off as a joke. The article held that a 'bank in Moscow kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue,' adding that through further research the investigating parties determined '[the activity] wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank' and contained several asides about the unquestionable credibility of the unnamed individuals party to the project for example: 'This [investigator] is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,' said [a computer scientist]. 'When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.' The independent research done by the unnamed 'community of malware hunters' purportedly commenced in mid-2016, shortly after rumors about Russian interference in that year's election began circulating. By September 2016, Slate reported that the self-appointed investigators had begun attempting to draw interest to their research (in one instance, by posting the information to a Reddit thread). After a New York Times reporter met with a U.S.-based representative from Alfa Bank for an unspecified related story, the Slate article asserted, a Trump domain purportedly under observation 'seemed to suddenly stop working.' The researchers came to a subsequent conclusion, which the piece built upon in a remarkably far reaching manner: The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. [Uninvolved computer scientist Nicholas] Weaver told me the Trump domain was 'very sloppily removed.' Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like 'the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.' What the scientists amassed wasn't a smoking gun. It's a suggestive body of evidence that doesn't absolutely preclude alternative explanations. But this evidence arrives in the broader context of the campaign and everything else that has come to light: The efforts of Donald Trump's former campaign manager to bring Ukraine into Vladimir Putin's orbit; the other Trump adviser whose communications with senior Russian officials have worried intelligence officials; the Russian hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email. The Slate article's appearance just one week prior to the November 2016 general election unsurprisingly turned heads, despite its speculative nature. On the same day, the partisan Occupy Democrats web site published an item claiming that in an 'October Surprise' development, ABC News had uncovered 'hundreds of millions of dollars' in payments from Russians to Trump: An ABC News investigation has found that Donald Trump has 'numerous ties' to Russian interests both here in the United States and in Russia. 'The level of business amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars - what he received as a result of interaction with Russian businessmen. They were happy to invest with him, and they were happy to work with Donald Trump. And they were happy to associate -[and] be associated with Donald Trump' says Sergei Millian, who heads a U.S.-Russia business group. Many social media users exposed only to the dueling headlines were left with the impression the two reports were linked and mutually substantiating. But Occupy Democrats' 'October Surprise' piece was originally reported by another news outlet more than one month earlier and pertained to purported business (not campaign) dealings Trump had with Russian business interests (some of whom were U.S.-based). Moreover, its editorial focus was whether Trump's potential business links to Russia would influence his foreign policy decisions; it did not suggest Trump's campaign was being bought by 'Russian payments.' The Trump campaign addressed and denied the allegations, while Hillary Clinton immediately tweeted twice about them: It's time for Trump to answer serious questions about his ties to Russia. https://t.co/D8oSmyVAR4 pic.twitter.com/07dRyEmPjX - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 31, 2016 Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016 Much of the content of the Slate piece came from persons unable or unwilling to disclose their identities and credentials (and were therefore unavailable for questions), but it wasn't long before cybersecurity expert Robert Graham of Errata Security tackled the claims. In a more concise and far less speculative blog post, Graham cast reams of doubt on the entire claim set and noted that a hotel marketing management company (Cendyn), not Trump, controlled the domains in question: According to this Slate article, Trump has a secret server for communicating with Russia. Even Hillary has piled onto this story ... This is nonsense. The evidence available on the Internet is that Trump neither (directly) controls the domain 'trump-email.com', nor has access to the server. Instead, the domain was set up and controlled by Cendyn, a company that does marketing/promotions for hotels, including many of Trump's hotels. Cendyn outsources the email portions of its campaigns to a company called Listrak, which actually owns/operates the physical server in a data center in [Philadelphia]. In other words, Trump's response is (minus the political bits) likely true, supported by the evidence. It's the conclusion I came to even before seeing [Trump's] response. When you view this 'secret' server in context, surrounded by the other email servers operated by Listrak on behalf of Cendyn, it becomes more obvious what's going on ... It's Cendyn that registered and who controls the trump-email.com domain, as seen in the WHOIS information. That the Trump Organization is the registrant, but not the admin, demonstrates that Trump doesn't have direct control over it ... When the domain information was changed last September 23, it was Cendyn who did the change, not the Trump Organization. This link lists a bunch of other hotel-related domains that Cendyn likewise controls, some Trump related, some related to Trump's hotel competitors, like Hyatt and Sheraton. Cendyn's claim they are reusing the server for some other purpose is likely true. If you are an enterprising journalist with $399 in your budget, you can find this out ... I've heard from other DNS malware researchers (names remain anonymous) who confirm they've seen lookups for 'mail1.trump-email.com' from all over the world, especially from tools like FireEye that process lots of spam email. One person claimed that lookups started failing for them back in late June - and thus the claim of successful responses until September are false. In other words, the 'change' after the NYTimes queried Alfa Bank may not be because Cendyn (or Trump) changed anything, but because that was the first they checked and noticed that lookup errors were happening. That this is just normal marketing business from Cendyn and Listrak is the overwhelming logical explanation for all this. People are tempted to pull nefarious explanations out of their imaginations for things they don't understand. But for those of us with experience in this sort of thing, what we see here is a normal messed up marketing (aka. spam) system that the Trump Organization doesn't have control over. Knowing who owns and controls these servers, it's unreasonable to believe that Trump is using them for secret emails. Far from 'secret' or 'private' servers as Hillary claims, these servers are wide open and obvious. Graham concluded by noting that experts consulted by Slate offered piecemeal confirmations, none adding up to a whole: But the article quotes several experts confirming the story, so how does that jibe with this blog post. The answer is that none of the experts confirmed the story. Read more carefully. None of the identified experts confirmed the story. Instead, the experts looked at pieces, and confirmed part of the story. Vixie rightly confirmed that the pattern of DNS requests came from humans, and not automated systems. Chris Davis rightly confirmed the server doesn't look like a normal email server. Neither of them, however, confirmed that Trump has a secret server for communicating with the Russians. Both of their statements are consistent with what I describe above - that's it's a Cendyn operated server for marketing campaigns independent of the Trump Organization. Those researchers violated their principles The big story isn't the conspiracy theory about Trump, but that these malware researchers exploited their privileged access for some purpose other than malware research. Graham (who concurrently affirmed on Twitter that he was supporting Clinton) supplemented his piece with several tweets providing ancillary information, as well as comment from peers in the field of cybersecurity: Because journalists are good at tricking 'experts' into give the desired answer, not the best answer. https://t.co/9wZr38B4eP - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @csoghoian and actively avoid agreeing with Rob Graham, but: yes. This is some shameful shit. https://t.co/EpohHWBpWQ - Thomas H. Ptacek (@tqbf) November 1, 2016 I rarely agree with @erratarob, but his analysis of the 'trump email server' non-scandal is spot on. https://t.co/C1SsiX2h19 pic.twitter.com/klJyE5gL9a - Christopher Soghoian (@csoghoian) November 1, 2016 Damn, all three of us agreeing on something is the first sign of the apocalypse. https://t.co/Vd5QGQgYSC - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 'But the peaks line up with campaign events' No, they really don't. It's just human tendency to find pattern out of noise pic.twitter.com/7CMt1T3kKV - Rob Zombie Graham? (@ErrataRob) November 1, 2016 On the same day Slate's piece appeared, the New York Times reporter it referenced published his own article about Trump's purported ties to Alfa Bank. The conclusion of that piece was more in line with Graham's take: In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin. F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages - a first step for one system's computers to talk to another - to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I. ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts. Alfa Bank also sent us a statement of their own, holding that no connection existed between that financial institution and Donald Trump: Alfa Bank wishes to make clear that there is no connection between Alfa Bank and Donald Trump, the Trump campaign or the Trump organization. Any suggestion to the contrary is false. Alfa Bank hired Mandiant, one of the world's foremost U.S. cyber security experts, to investigate allegations of a connection by the media and it has found nothing to support them. Mandiant found no substantive contact, email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Mandiant conducted a deep dive and investigated Alfa Bank's IT systems both remotely and on the ground in Moscow and there was no evidence of notable contact. Neither Alfa Bank nor its principals, including Mikhail Fridman and Petr Aven, have or have had any contact with Mr. Trump or his organizations. Fridman and Aven have never met Mr. Trump nor have they or Alfa Bank had any business dealings with him. Neither Alfa Bank nor its officers have sent Mr. Trump or his organisation any emails, information or money. Alfa Bank does not have and has never had any special or exclusive internet connection with Mr. Trump or his entities. The assertion of a special or private link is patently false. Mandiant's working hypothesis, echoing what the New York Times said was the FBI's conclusion, is that the alleged activity noticed by reporters was caused by an email marketing/spam campaign by a marketing server, which triggered security software. Commenting further on the allegations, Mandiant said: Mandiant, a FireEye company, has been retained by Alfa Bank to investigate information given to them by various media. The information that has been presented is a list of dates, times, IP Addresses and Domain Names. The list appears to be a scanned copy of a printed log. There is no information which indicates where the list has come from. The list contains approx. 2800 look ups of a Domain Name over a period of 90 days. The information presented is inconclusive and is not evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. The list presented does not contain enough information to show that there has been any actual activity opposed to simple DNS look ups, which can come from a variety of sources including anti-spam and other security software. As part of the ongoing investigation, Alfa Bank has opened its IT systems to Mandiant, which has investigated both remotely and on the ground in Moscow. We are continuing our investigation. Nothing we have or have found alters our view as described above that there isn't evidence of substantive contact or a direct email or financial link between Alfa Bank and the Trump Campaign or Organization. Rumors about Donald Trump's purported ties to Russia have circulated roughly since the July 2016 DNC Leaks and subsequent allegations that information dumped via WikiLeaks was an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton for the mutual benefit of those entities. But the Slate article (presented as a question in its title) simply strung together circumstantial details to suggest Trump had a server connection to Russia. A concurrent and a subsequent look at its conclusions (the latter by a cybersecurity expert who was not anonymous) asserted that the claims were unsubstantiated and likely amounted to nothing. In March 2017, CNN reported that the issue was still under investigation by the FBI, but nothing substantive had yet been turned up: Federal investigators and computer scientists continue to examine whether there was a computer server connection between the Trump Organization and a Russian bank, sources close to the investigation tell CNN. Questions about the possible connection were widely dismissed four months ago. But the FBI's investigation remains open, the sources said, and is in the hands of the FBI's counterintelligence team - the same one looking into Russia's suspected interference in the 2016 election. One U.S. official said investigators find the server relationship 'odd' and are not ignoring it. But the official said there is still more work for the FBI to do. Investigators have not yet determined whether a connection would be significant. | nan | [
"01472-proof-05-trumphack.jpg"
] |
Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, a former chairman and CEO of Nestlé, said that water is not a human right. | Neutral | According to a years-old meme, the CEO of Nestlé SA, a multinational food and beverage company that boasts worldwide sales of $7.7 billion in bottled water every year, once declared that water is not a human right: The statement is controversial not only because it stands in direct contradiction to the position taken by the United Nations and human rights organizations, but also because Nestlé, like other giant water bottlers, sources its product for pennies on the dollar, often in locations where water resources are scarce or challenged. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe served as Nestlé's CEO from 1997 to 2008 (he also served as chairman of the board for a time and is now chairman emeritus). Although he never uttered the exact words 'water is not a human right,' he seemed to say as much in a 2005 documentary called We Feed the World, in which he characterized the view that human beings have a right to water as 'extreme': 'Water is, of course, the most important raw material we have today in the world. It's a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That's an extreme solution. The other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally, I believe it's better to give a foodstuff a value so that we're all aware it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there.' The pushback from human rights advocates was instantaneous and strong. George McGraw, founder of the water rights nonprofit DIGDEEP, wrote: People were shocked at the inhumanity of Brabeck's statement, and rightly so. Taken at face value, the video appears to pit the world's largest seller of bottled water against the 783 million people struggling to access what little water they need to survive. That's after allegations and rebuttals regarding Nestlé's role in restricting water access to several poor communities. Fueling the controversy were instances in which large corporations privatized the water supplies of communities forced to sell or lease the resource due to economic hardship, only to raise the water rates of local residents to prices higher than many could afford, essentially cutting them off from their own resource. Nestlé ultimately responded to the criticism by releasing their own video in 2013 in which Brabeck-Letmathe tried to clarify his remarks by saying that his earlier statement was taken out of context. In the newer video, he attempted to re-contextualize his comments by saying that people do not have an inherent right to waste water or own swimming pools - despite the fact that in his original statement he made it clear he was advocating water privatization: He addressed the issue at more length in an 18 April 2013 blog post: From time to time on the internet a video clip from a TV programme made in 2005 about food is posted in which I am talking about whether water is a human right. It seems it has surfaced again, and people are using it to misrepresent my views on this important issue. Let me be very clear about this again here on the blog, because I think the video clip, which took my views out of context, isn't clear about the point I was trying to make. The water you need for survival is a human right, and must be made available to everyone, wherever they are, even if they cannot afford to pay for it. However I do also believe that water has a value. People using the water piped into their home to irrigate their lawn, or wash their car, should bear the cost of the infrastructure needed to supply it. In brief, Brabeck-Letmathe's more carefully stated position is that access to enough water for basic subsistence, and no more than that, is a human right. Albeit a welcome clarification to rights advocates like McGraw, it still falls short, in his view, of a full understanding of what constitutes a human right: The human right to water protects both the water we need to survive and the water we need to live in dignity. There's an important distinction between the two. The World Health Organization estimates that human beings need between 25-50 liters of water a day to maintain basic health and hygiene. This is called our Basic Water Requirement. But imagine living on list [sic] 25 liters of water a day and maintaining your dignity. For many of us, this would be difficult. States have an obligation to protect access to the water a person needs to survive (25-50 liters), while at the same time working to ensure that all persons have access to the amount of water they need to thrive. | nan | [
"01623-proof-08-Nestle-CEO.jpg",
"01623-proof-06-nestle_CEO_water_human_right_meme_fb.jpg"
] |
Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, a former chairman and CEO of Nestlé, said that water is not a human right. | Neutral | According to a years-old meme, the CEO of Nestlé SA, a multinational food and beverage company that boasts worldwide sales of $7.7 billion in bottled water every year, once declared that water is not a human right: The statement is controversial not only because it stands in direct contradiction to the position taken by the United Nations and human rights organizations, but also because Nestlé, like other giant water bottlers, sources its product for pennies on the dollar, often in locations where water resources are scarce or challenged. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe served as Nestlé's CEO from 1997 to 2008 (he also served as chairman of the board for a time and is now chairman emeritus). Although he never uttered the exact words 'water is not a human right,' he seemed to say as much in a 2005 documentary called We Feed the World, in which he characterized the view that human beings have a right to water as 'extreme': 'Water is, of course, the most important raw material we have today in the world. It's a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That's an extreme solution. The other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally, I believe it's better to give a foodstuff a value so that we're all aware it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there.' The pushback from human rights advocates was instantaneous and strong. George McGraw, founder of the water rights nonprofit DIGDEEP, wrote: People were shocked at the inhumanity of Brabeck's statement, and rightly so. Taken at face value, the video appears to pit the world's largest seller of bottled water against the 783 million people struggling to access what little water they need to survive. That's after allegations and rebuttals regarding Nestlé's role in restricting water access to several poor communities. Fueling the controversy were instances in which large corporations privatized the water supplies of communities forced to sell or lease the resource due to economic hardship, only to raise the water rates of local residents to prices higher than many could afford, essentially cutting them off from their own resource. Nestlé ultimately responded to the criticism by releasing their own video in 2013 in which Brabeck-Letmathe tried to clarify his remarks by saying that his earlier statement was taken out of context. In the newer video, he attempted to re-contextualize his comments by saying that people do not have an inherent right to waste water or own swimming pools - despite the fact that in his original statement he made it clear he was advocating water privatization: He addressed the issue at more length in an 18 April 2013 blog post: From time to time on the internet a video clip from a TV programme made in 2005 about food is posted in which I am talking about whether water is a human right. It seems it has surfaced again, and people are using it to misrepresent my views on this important issue. Let me be very clear about this again here on the blog, because I think the video clip, which took my views out of context, isn't clear about the point I was trying to make. The water you need for survival is a human right, and must be made available to everyone, wherever they are, even if they cannot afford to pay for it. However I do also believe that water has a value. People using the water piped into their home to irrigate their lawn, or wash their car, should bear the cost of the infrastructure needed to supply it. In brief, Brabeck-Letmathe's more carefully stated position is that access to enough water for basic subsistence, and no more than that, is a human right. Albeit a welcome clarification to rights advocates like McGraw, it still falls short, in his view, of a full understanding of what constitutes a human right: The human right to water protects both the water we need to survive and the water we need to live in dignity. There's an important distinction between the two. The World Health Organization estimates that human beings need between 25-50 liters of water a day to maintain basic health and hygiene. This is called our Basic Water Requirement. But imagine living on list [sic] 25 liters of water a day and maintaining your dignity. For many of us, this would be difficult. States have an obligation to protect access to the water a person needs to survive (25-50 liters), while at the same time working to ensure that all persons have access to the amount of water they need to thrive. | nan | [
"01623-proof-08-Nestle-CEO.jpg",
"01623-proof-06-nestle_CEO_water_human_right_meme_fb.jpg"
] |
Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, a former chairman and CEO of Nestlé, said that water is not a human right. | Neutral | According to a years-old meme, the CEO of Nestlé SA, a multinational food and beverage company that boasts worldwide sales of $7.7 billion in bottled water every year, once declared that water is not a human right: The statement is controversial not only because it stands in direct contradiction to the position taken by the United Nations and human rights organizations, but also because Nestlé, like other giant water bottlers, sources its product for pennies on the dollar, often in locations where water resources are scarce or challenged. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe served as Nestlé's CEO from 1997 to 2008 (he also served as chairman of the board for a time and is now chairman emeritus). Although he never uttered the exact words 'water is not a human right,' he seemed to say as much in a 2005 documentary called We Feed the World, in which he characterized the view that human beings have a right to water as 'extreme': 'Water is, of course, the most important raw material we have today in the world. It's a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That's an extreme solution. The other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally, I believe it's better to give a foodstuff a value so that we're all aware it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there.' The pushback from human rights advocates was instantaneous and strong. George McGraw, founder of the water rights nonprofit DIGDEEP, wrote: People were shocked at the inhumanity of Brabeck's statement, and rightly so. Taken at face value, the video appears to pit the world's largest seller of bottled water against the 783 million people struggling to access what little water they need to survive. That's after allegations and rebuttals regarding Nestlé's role in restricting water access to several poor communities. Fueling the controversy were instances in which large corporations privatized the water supplies of communities forced to sell or lease the resource due to economic hardship, only to raise the water rates of local residents to prices higher than many could afford, essentially cutting them off from their own resource. Nestlé ultimately responded to the criticism by releasing their own video in 2013 in which Brabeck-Letmathe tried to clarify his remarks by saying that his earlier statement was taken out of context. In the newer video, he attempted to re-contextualize his comments by saying that people do not have an inherent right to waste water or own swimming pools - despite the fact that in his original statement he made it clear he was advocating water privatization: He addressed the issue at more length in an 18 April 2013 blog post: From time to time on the internet a video clip from a TV programme made in 2005 about food is posted in which I am talking about whether water is a human right. It seems it has surfaced again, and people are using it to misrepresent my views on this important issue. Let me be very clear about this again here on the blog, because I think the video clip, which took my views out of context, isn't clear about the point I was trying to make. The water you need for survival is a human right, and must be made available to everyone, wherever they are, even if they cannot afford to pay for it. However I do also believe that water has a value. People using the water piped into their home to irrigate their lawn, or wash their car, should bear the cost of the infrastructure needed to supply it. In brief, Brabeck-Letmathe's more carefully stated position is that access to enough water for basic subsistence, and no more than that, is a human right. Albeit a welcome clarification to rights advocates like McGraw, it still falls short, in his view, of a full understanding of what constitutes a human right: The human right to water protects both the water we need to survive and the water we need to live in dignity. There's an important distinction between the two. The World Health Organization estimates that human beings need between 25-50 liters of water a day to maintain basic health and hygiene. This is called our Basic Water Requirement. But imagine living on list [sic] 25 liters of water a day and maintaining your dignity. For many of us, this would be difficult. States have an obligation to protect access to the water a person needs to survive (25-50 liters), while at the same time working to ensure that all persons have access to the amount of water they need to thrive. | nan | [
"01623-proof-08-Nestle-CEO.jpg",
"01623-proof-06-nestle_CEO_water_human_right_meme_fb.jpg"
] |
Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, a former chairman and CEO of Nestlé, said that water is not a human right. | Neutral | According to a years-old meme, the CEO of Nestlé SA, a multinational food and beverage company that boasts worldwide sales of $7.7 billion in bottled water every year, once declared that water is not a human right: The statement is controversial not only because it stands in direct contradiction to the position taken by the United Nations and human rights organizations, but also because Nestlé, like other giant water bottlers, sources its product for pennies on the dollar, often in locations where water resources are scarce or challenged. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe served as Nestlé's CEO from 1997 to 2008 (he also served as chairman of the board for a time and is now chairman emeritus). Although he never uttered the exact words 'water is not a human right,' he seemed to say as much in a 2005 documentary called We Feed the World, in which he characterized the view that human beings have a right to water as 'extreme': 'Water is, of course, the most important raw material we have today in the world. It's a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means that as a human being you should have a right to water. That's an extreme solution. The other view says that water is a foodstuff like any other, and like any other foodstuff it should have a market value. Personally, I believe it's better to give a foodstuff a value so that we're all aware it has its price, and then that one should take specific measures for the part of the population that has no access to this water, and there are many different possibilities there.' The pushback from human rights advocates was instantaneous and strong. George McGraw, founder of the water rights nonprofit DIGDEEP, wrote: People were shocked at the inhumanity of Brabeck's statement, and rightly so. Taken at face value, the video appears to pit the world's largest seller of bottled water against the 783 million people struggling to access what little water they need to survive. That's after allegations and rebuttals regarding Nestlé's role in restricting water access to several poor communities. Fueling the controversy were instances in which large corporations privatized the water supplies of communities forced to sell or lease the resource due to economic hardship, only to raise the water rates of local residents to prices higher than many could afford, essentially cutting them off from their own resource. Nestlé ultimately responded to the criticism by releasing their own video in 2013 in which Brabeck-Letmathe tried to clarify his remarks by saying that his earlier statement was taken out of context. In the newer video, he attempted to re-contextualize his comments by saying that people do not have an inherent right to waste water or own swimming pools - despite the fact that in his original statement he made it clear he was advocating water privatization: He addressed the issue at more length in an 18 April 2013 blog post: From time to time on the internet a video clip from a TV programme made in 2005 about food is posted in which I am talking about whether water is a human right. It seems it has surfaced again, and people are using it to misrepresent my views on this important issue. Let me be very clear about this again here on the blog, because I think the video clip, which took my views out of context, isn't clear about the point I was trying to make. The water you need for survival is a human right, and must be made available to everyone, wherever they are, even if they cannot afford to pay for it. However I do also believe that water has a value. People using the water piped into their home to irrigate their lawn, or wash their car, should bear the cost of the infrastructure needed to supply it. In brief, Brabeck-Letmathe's more carefully stated position is that access to enough water for basic subsistence, and no more than that, is a human right. Albeit a welcome clarification to rights advocates like McGraw, it still falls short, in his view, of a full understanding of what constitutes a human right: The human right to water protects both the water we need to survive and the water we need to live in dignity. There's an important distinction between the two. The World Health Organization estimates that human beings need between 25-50 liters of water a day to maintain basic health and hygiene. This is called our Basic Water Requirement. But imagine living on list [sic] 25 liters of water a day and maintaining your dignity. For many of us, this would be difficult. States have an obligation to protect access to the water a person needs to survive (25-50 liters), while at the same time working to ensure that all persons have access to the amount of water they need to thrive. | nan | [
"01623-proof-08-Nestle-CEO.jpg",
"01623-proof-06-nestle_CEO_water_human_right_meme_fb.jpg"
] |
Rep. Mike Kennedy claimed that access to hospitals kills at least a million Americans per year. | Neutral | In April 2018 Utah Republican Mike Kennedy made national headlines as he faced off against Mitt Romney for a Senate seat in that state, prompting the circulation of a meme asserting that the Kennedy had once made a statement about access to hospitals and patient deaths: Although the meme dated to at least 2015, its featured quote appeared in a 24 April 2018 Salt Lake Tribune article: 'Who is that guy who beat Mitt Romney at the GOP convention?' which reported that: At the top of the list is to 'repeal Obamacare.' [Kennedy] told delegates, 'I oppose Obamacare and any scheme that puts the government between doctor and patient.' Four years ago, Kennedy made national headlines when, during a legislative task force meeting, he said, 'Sometimes access to health care can be damaging and dangerous ... I've heard from National Institutes of Health and otherwise that we're killing up to a million, a million and a half people every year in our hospitals. And it's access to hospitals that's killing those people.' That piece referenced a report and video from Salt Lake station KSTU, but neither source provided complete context. Kennedy was quoted as arguing against Medicaid expansion, and as represented, his remarks were accurately transcribed: Representative Mike Kennedy, a Republican from Alpine, made the comments in a Health Reform Task Force meeting, in reaction to a story from another doctor. Doctor Kyle Jones told the legislature's Health Reform Task Force about a neighbor who was in a car crash. That neighbor suffered a rare response to pain medicine called toxic encephalopathy. The condition has caused memory loss, seizures and depression, according to Jones. 'Sometimes access actually can mean harm,' said Representative Mike Kennedy, a family physician. The Republican from Alpine repeated the argument more than once: 'Sometimes access to health care can be damaging and dangerous. And it's a perspective for the [Legislative] body to consider is that, I've heard from National Institutes of Health and otherwise that we're killing up to a million, a million and a half people every year in our hospitals. And it's access to hospitals that's killing those people.' We were unable to locate any information substantiating Kennedy's claim that access to hospitals killed between one and one-and-a-half million Americans per year. It's possible Kennedy was referencing an ongoing study of the effects of medical mistakes, a topic that was the subject of research published in The BMJ in May 2016, but those figures estimated only 250,000 deaths due to medical error per year at that time. Kennedy may also have been referencing research published in September 2013, in which researchers extrapolated between 210,000 and 400,000 deaths per year 'associated with preventable harm in hospitals.' Authors of that study concluded that 'engaging patients and their advocates during hospital care, systematically seeking the patients' voice in identifying harms, transparent accountability for harm, and intentional correction of root causes of harm will be necessary' to reduce preventable hospital deaths but did not recommend restricting access to medical care as a preventive measure.Kim LaCapria Health Care mike kennedy Mitt romney Sources Davidson, Lee. 'Who Is That Guy Who Beat Mitt Romney At The GOP Convention?' The Salt Lake Tribune. 23 April 2018. James, John T. PhD. 'A New, Evidence-Based Estimate Of Patient Harms Associated With Hospital Care.' Journal of Patient Safety. September 2013. Romboy, Dennis. 'Little-Known Mike Kennedy To Take On Mitt Romney In Utah GOP Primary.' Deseret News. 23 April 2018. Roth, Max. 'State Representative To Legislature: Hospitals Can Be Dangerous.' KSTU. 28 August 2014. Johns Hopkins Medicine. 'Study Suggests Medical Errors Now Third Leading Cause of Death In The U.S..' 3 May 2016. CBS News. 'Mitt Romney 'Probably Not Too Worried' After Second Place Finish At Utah Convention, Reporter Says.' 26 April 2018. | nan | [
"01635-proof-06-obamacare_deaths_meme.jpg"
] |
Rep. Mike Kennedy claimed that access to hospitals kills at least a million Americans per year. | Neutral | In April 2018 Utah Republican Mike Kennedy made national headlines as he faced off against Mitt Romney for a Senate seat in that state, prompting the circulation of a meme asserting that the Kennedy had once made a statement about access to hospitals and patient deaths: Although the meme dated to at least 2015, its featured quote appeared in a 24 April 2018 Salt Lake Tribune article: 'Who is that guy who beat Mitt Romney at the GOP convention?' which reported that: At the top of the list is to 'repeal Obamacare.' [Kennedy] told delegates, 'I oppose Obamacare and any scheme that puts the government between doctor and patient.' Four years ago, Kennedy made national headlines when, during a legislative task force meeting, he said, 'Sometimes access to health care can be damaging and dangerous ... I've heard from National Institutes of Health and otherwise that we're killing up to a million, a million and a half people every year in our hospitals. And it's access to hospitals that's killing those people.' That piece referenced a report and video from Salt Lake station KSTU, but neither source provided complete context. Kennedy was quoted as arguing against Medicaid expansion, and as represented, his remarks were accurately transcribed: Representative Mike Kennedy, a Republican from Alpine, made the comments in a Health Reform Task Force meeting, in reaction to a story from another doctor. Doctor Kyle Jones told the legislature's Health Reform Task Force about a neighbor who was in a car crash. That neighbor suffered a rare response to pain medicine called toxic encephalopathy. The condition has caused memory loss, seizures and depression, according to Jones. 'Sometimes access actually can mean harm,' said Representative Mike Kennedy, a family physician. The Republican from Alpine repeated the argument more than once: 'Sometimes access to health care can be damaging and dangerous. And it's a perspective for the [Legislative] body to consider is that, I've heard from National Institutes of Health and otherwise that we're killing up to a million, a million and a half people every year in our hospitals. And it's access to hospitals that's killing those people.' We were unable to locate any information substantiating Kennedy's claim that access to hospitals killed between one and one-and-a-half million Americans per year. It's possible Kennedy was referencing an ongoing study of the effects of medical mistakes, a topic that was the subject of research published in The BMJ in May 2016, but those figures estimated only 250,000 deaths due to medical error per year at that time. Kennedy may also have been referencing research published in September 2013, in which researchers extrapolated between 210,000 and 400,000 deaths per year 'associated with preventable harm in hospitals.' Authors of that study concluded that 'engaging patients and their advocates during hospital care, systematically seeking the patients' voice in identifying harms, transparent accountability for harm, and intentional correction of root causes of harm will be necessary' to reduce preventable hospital deaths but did not recommend restricting access to medical care as a preventive measure.Kim LaCapria Health Care mike kennedy Mitt romney Sources Davidson, Lee. 'Who Is That Guy Who Beat Mitt Romney At The GOP Convention?' The Salt Lake Tribune. 23 April 2018. James, John T. PhD. 'A New, Evidence-Based Estimate Of Patient Harms Associated With Hospital Care.' Journal of Patient Safety. September 2013. Romboy, Dennis. 'Little-Known Mike Kennedy To Take On Mitt Romney In Utah GOP Primary.' Deseret News. 23 April 2018. Roth, Max. 'State Representative To Legislature: Hospitals Can Be Dangerous.' KSTU. 28 August 2014. Johns Hopkins Medicine. 'Study Suggests Medical Errors Now Third Leading Cause of Death In The U.S..' 3 May 2016. CBS News. 'Mitt Romney 'Probably Not Too Worried' After Second Place Finish At Utah Convention, Reporter Says.' 26 April 2018. | nan | [
"01635-proof-06-obamacare_deaths_meme.jpg"
] |
Costco toilet paper damages septic tanks. | Neutral | In early February 2018, a Facebook post about Costco toilet paper and its purported effect on septic systems began recirculating: If you use Costco toilet paper then please read this! In addition to the burst pipe, we also found out that there was an issue with our septic tank today. When the guy looked in our septic tank, he said, 'You use Costco toilet paper.' We agreed that we did. He said it is not biodegradable and does not break down which is why our septic tank was full of white toilet paper that was still intact. He said even people who are on city services have issues because it clogs the pipe that takes their waste to the city pipe. Eventually, the sewage will back up into your house. I hope this helps someone else as it was an expensive lesson for us to learn. The original post appeared on 28 January 2016, and the reasons for its renewed popularity in February 2018 are unclear. At any rate, a distinction made in the original post (perhaps lost on subsequent sharers) was the poster's reference specifically to a septic tank. The most recent data indicate only about 20 percent of American homes rely on that system versus a public sewer connection: Nearly one-fifth of U.S. households are not connected to a public sewer ... The data is from 1990, which is the most recent state-level septic system assessment. The U.S. Census Bureau, which collected the data, stopped doing so for states and counties after 1990 because no federal agency regulates septic systems. A national estimate, from a much smaller sample size, is completed every two years as part of the American Housing Survey. The percentages are similar for Canada, where the post appears to have originated. The claims made, if accurate, would not be applicable to a majority of Facebook users in North America, whose homes are connected to a municipal system. Use of a septic tank in homes without sewer lines is a consideration for inhabitants, and certain products are designed and marketed to be safer for those less common systems. Plumbing chain Roto-Rooter's blog addressed the differences between septic tanks and public sewers in a comprehensive 2015 post. In a separate 2017 blog post, Roto-Rooter addressed the often-asked question of whether all toilet paper is truly 'septic safe': The truth is toilet paper is designed to be flushed, and there is no evidence that your septic tanks will have any difficulty filtering out standard toilet paper. You may continue to buy your favorite toilet paper and flush it with impunity, provided you don't try to flush too much all at once. However, if you are still concerned or skeptical that toilet paper cannot hurt your septic tank, there are a few steps you can take. Aside from one recirculating Facebook post from January 2016, we have found no evidence suggesting that Costco toilet paper behaves any differently in septic tanks than any other brand of standard toilet paper. Plumbers say that toilet paper was designed to be flushed, and does not advise against using Costco toilet paper or any other specific brand. We reached out to a representative for Roto-Rooter, and received a detailed response about whether specific toilet paper posed a risk to septic systems in particular: Having grown up in a house with a septic tank, I can understand the concern that homeowners with septic tanks have about using toilet paper that breaks down as quickly as possible. Most septic tanks are located less than ten feet from the house, so the toilet paper that is flushed doesn't travel very far down the pipe before arriving at its final destination. And septic tanks don't have an agitator to churn the waste and expedite the breakdown of toilet paper ... toilet paper itself cannot and will not damage drainpipes, sewers or septic tanks. No brand of toilet paper that Roto-Rooter is aware of can cause a clog inside a properly maintained, modern drainpipe or residential sewer. All brands of toilet paper are designed to break down quickly in agitated water, but it stands to reason that thinner single-ply paper breaks down faster than thicker 2-ply. A toilet flush begins the breakdown process and the paper continues to disintegrate as it travels through the turbulent waters of drain and sewer pipes. To provide comfort, luxury brands tend to be slightly thicker and so they may stay intact a little bit longer than very thin single-ply toilet paper. But again, no toilet paper can cause damage to your pipes. The real source of toilet backup trouble is usually with the drainpipes themselves. For instance, older homes built before the mid-1970s commonly have cast iron drainpipes. Over the years, the galvanized coating on the inside of the pipes wears away and exposes the iron, causing the pipe to gradually rust away. Over time, the iron oxide (rust) degrades the pipe from the inside crating a billowy, uneven surface that slowly decreases the inside diameter of the pipe, much like plaque in a human artery. When an iron pipe is at this life stage, toilet paper, wet wipes and even solid waste tend to get caught on the rusty uneven surface and form a clog, causing a toilet backup. Eventually, the rust will close off water flow completely, and the pipe must be replaced. But before such time, the homeowner is forced to deal with slow drains and more frequent backups.Recent Updates Updated [7 February 2018]: Added a response from Roto-Rooter. | nan | [
"01714-proof-06-toilet_paper_shopping_feature.jpg"
] |
Costco toilet paper damages septic tanks. | Neutral | In early February 2018, a Facebook post about Costco toilet paper and its purported effect on septic systems began recirculating: If you use Costco toilet paper then please read this! In addition to the burst pipe, we also found out that there was an issue with our septic tank today. When the guy looked in our septic tank, he said, 'You use Costco toilet paper.' We agreed that we did. He said it is not biodegradable and does not break down which is why our septic tank was full of white toilet paper that was still intact. He said even people who are on city services have issues because it clogs the pipe that takes their waste to the city pipe. Eventually, the sewage will back up into your house. I hope this helps someone else as it was an expensive lesson for us to learn. The original post appeared on 28 January 2016, and the reasons for its renewed popularity in February 2018 are unclear. At any rate, a distinction made in the original post (perhaps lost on subsequent sharers) was the poster's reference specifically to a septic tank. The most recent data indicate only about 20 percent of American homes rely on that system versus a public sewer connection: Nearly one-fifth of U.S. households are not connected to a public sewer ... The data is from 1990, which is the most recent state-level septic system assessment. The U.S. Census Bureau, which collected the data, stopped doing so for states and counties after 1990 because no federal agency regulates septic systems. A national estimate, from a much smaller sample size, is completed every two years as part of the American Housing Survey. The percentages are similar for Canada, where the post appears to have originated. The claims made, if accurate, would not be applicable to a majority of Facebook users in North America, whose homes are connected to a municipal system. Use of a septic tank in homes without sewer lines is a consideration for inhabitants, and certain products are designed and marketed to be safer for those less common systems. Plumbing chain Roto-Rooter's blog addressed the differences between septic tanks and public sewers in a comprehensive 2015 post. In a separate 2017 blog post, Roto-Rooter addressed the often-asked question of whether all toilet paper is truly 'septic safe': The truth is toilet paper is designed to be flushed, and there is no evidence that your septic tanks will have any difficulty filtering out standard toilet paper. You may continue to buy your favorite toilet paper and flush it with impunity, provided you don't try to flush too much all at once. However, if you are still concerned or skeptical that toilet paper cannot hurt your septic tank, there are a few steps you can take. Aside from one recirculating Facebook post from January 2016, we have found no evidence suggesting that Costco toilet paper behaves any differently in septic tanks than any other brand of standard toilet paper. Plumbers say that toilet paper was designed to be flushed, and does not advise against using Costco toilet paper or any other specific brand. We reached out to a representative for Roto-Rooter, and received a detailed response about whether specific toilet paper posed a risk to septic systems in particular: Having grown up in a house with a septic tank, I can understand the concern that homeowners with septic tanks have about using toilet paper that breaks down as quickly as possible. Most septic tanks are located less than ten feet from the house, so the toilet paper that is flushed doesn't travel very far down the pipe before arriving at its final destination. And septic tanks don't have an agitator to churn the waste and expedite the breakdown of toilet paper ... toilet paper itself cannot and will not damage drainpipes, sewers or septic tanks. No brand of toilet paper that Roto-Rooter is aware of can cause a clog inside a properly maintained, modern drainpipe or residential sewer. All brands of toilet paper are designed to break down quickly in agitated water, but it stands to reason that thinner single-ply paper breaks down faster than thicker 2-ply. A toilet flush begins the breakdown process and the paper continues to disintegrate as it travels through the turbulent waters of drain and sewer pipes. To provide comfort, luxury brands tend to be slightly thicker and so they may stay intact a little bit longer than very thin single-ply toilet paper. But again, no toilet paper can cause damage to your pipes. The real source of toilet backup trouble is usually with the drainpipes themselves. For instance, older homes built before the mid-1970s commonly have cast iron drainpipes. Over the years, the galvanized coating on the inside of the pipes wears away and exposes the iron, causing the pipe to gradually rust away. Over time, the iron oxide (rust) degrades the pipe from the inside crating a billowy, uneven surface that slowly decreases the inside diameter of the pipe, much like plaque in a human artery. When an iron pipe is at this life stage, toilet paper, wet wipes and even solid waste tend to get caught on the rusty uneven surface and form a clog, causing a toilet backup. Eventually, the rust will close off water flow completely, and the pipe must be replaced. But before such time, the homeowner is forced to deal with slow drains and more frequent backups.Recent Updates Updated [7 February 2018]: Added a response from Roto-Rooter. | nan | [
"01714-proof-06-toilet_paper_shopping_feature.jpg"
] |
Costco toilet paper damages septic tanks. | Neutral | In early February 2018, a Facebook post about Costco toilet paper and its purported effect on septic systems began recirculating: If you use Costco toilet paper then please read this! In addition to the burst pipe, we also found out that there was an issue with our septic tank today. When the guy looked in our septic tank, he said, 'You use Costco toilet paper.' We agreed that we did. He said it is not biodegradable and does not break down which is why our septic tank was full of white toilet paper that was still intact. He said even people who are on city services have issues because it clogs the pipe that takes their waste to the city pipe. Eventually, the sewage will back up into your house. I hope this helps someone else as it was an expensive lesson for us to learn. The original post appeared on 28 January 2016, and the reasons for its renewed popularity in February 2018 are unclear. At any rate, a distinction made in the original post (perhaps lost on subsequent sharers) was the poster's reference specifically to a septic tank. The most recent data indicate only about 20 percent of American homes rely on that system versus a public sewer connection: Nearly one-fifth of U.S. households are not connected to a public sewer ... The data is from 1990, which is the most recent state-level septic system assessment. The U.S. Census Bureau, which collected the data, stopped doing so for states and counties after 1990 because no federal agency regulates septic systems. A national estimate, from a much smaller sample size, is completed every two years as part of the American Housing Survey. The percentages are similar for Canada, where the post appears to have originated. The claims made, if accurate, would not be applicable to a majority of Facebook users in North America, whose homes are connected to a municipal system. Use of a septic tank in homes without sewer lines is a consideration for inhabitants, and certain products are designed and marketed to be safer for those less common systems. Plumbing chain Roto-Rooter's blog addressed the differences between septic tanks and public sewers in a comprehensive 2015 post. In a separate 2017 blog post, Roto-Rooter addressed the often-asked question of whether all toilet paper is truly 'septic safe': The truth is toilet paper is designed to be flushed, and there is no evidence that your septic tanks will have any difficulty filtering out standard toilet paper. You may continue to buy your favorite toilet paper and flush it with impunity, provided you don't try to flush too much all at once. However, if you are still concerned or skeptical that toilet paper cannot hurt your septic tank, there are a few steps you can take. Aside from one recirculating Facebook post from January 2016, we have found no evidence suggesting that Costco toilet paper behaves any differently in septic tanks than any other brand of standard toilet paper. Plumbers say that toilet paper was designed to be flushed, and does not advise against using Costco toilet paper or any other specific brand. We reached out to a representative for Roto-Rooter, and received a detailed response about whether specific toilet paper posed a risk to septic systems in particular: Having grown up in a house with a septic tank, I can understand the concern that homeowners with septic tanks have about using toilet paper that breaks down as quickly as possible. Most septic tanks are located less than ten feet from the house, so the toilet paper that is flushed doesn't travel very far down the pipe before arriving at its final destination. And septic tanks don't have an agitator to churn the waste and expedite the breakdown of toilet paper ... toilet paper itself cannot and will not damage drainpipes, sewers or septic tanks. No brand of toilet paper that Roto-Rooter is aware of can cause a clog inside a properly maintained, modern drainpipe or residential sewer. All brands of toilet paper are designed to break down quickly in agitated water, but it stands to reason that thinner single-ply paper breaks down faster than thicker 2-ply. A toilet flush begins the breakdown process and the paper continues to disintegrate as it travels through the turbulent waters of drain and sewer pipes. To provide comfort, luxury brands tend to be slightly thicker and so they may stay intact a little bit longer than very thin single-ply toilet paper. But again, no toilet paper can cause damage to your pipes. The real source of toilet backup trouble is usually with the drainpipes themselves. For instance, older homes built before the mid-1970s commonly have cast iron drainpipes. Over the years, the galvanized coating on the inside of the pipes wears away and exposes the iron, causing the pipe to gradually rust away. Over time, the iron oxide (rust) degrades the pipe from the inside crating a billowy, uneven surface that slowly decreases the inside diameter of the pipe, much like plaque in a human artery. When an iron pipe is at this life stage, toilet paper, wet wipes and even solid waste tend to get caught on the rusty uneven surface and form a clog, causing a toilet backup. Eventually, the rust will close off water flow completely, and the pipe must be replaced. But before such time, the homeowner is forced to deal with slow drains and more frequent backups.Recent Updates Updated [7 February 2018]: Added a response from Roto-Rooter. | nan | [
"01714-proof-06-toilet_paper_shopping_feature.jpg"
] |
Costco toilet paper damages septic tanks. | Neutral | In early February 2018, a Facebook post about Costco toilet paper and its purported effect on septic systems began recirculating: If you use Costco toilet paper then please read this! In addition to the burst pipe, we also found out that there was an issue with our septic tank today. When the guy looked in our septic tank, he said, 'You use Costco toilet paper.' We agreed that we did. He said it is not biodegradable and does not break down which is why our septic tank was full of white toilet paper that was still intact. He said even people who are on city services have issues because it clogs the pipe that takes their waste to the city pipe. Eventually, the sewage will back up into your house. I hope this helps someone else as it was an expensive lesson for us to learn. The original post appeared on 28 January 2016, and the reasons for its renewed popularity in February 2018 are unclear. At any rate, a distinction made in the original post (perhaps lost on subsequent sharers) was the poster's reference specifically to a septic tank. The most recent data indicate only about 20 percent of American homes rely on that system versus a public sewer connection: Nearly one-fifth of U.S. households are not connected to a public sewer ... The data is from 1990, which is the most recent state-level septic system assessment. The U.S. Census Bureau, which collected the data, stopped doing so for states and counties after 1990 because no federal agency regulates septic systems. A national estimate, from a much smaller sample size, is completed every two years as part of the American Housing Survey. The percentages are similar for Canada, where the post appears to have originated. The claims made, if accurate, would not be applicable to a majority of Facebook users in North America, whose homes are connected to a municipal system. Use of a septic tank in homes without sewer lines is a consideration for inhabitants, and certain products are designed and marketed to be safer for those less common systems. Plumbing chain Roto-Rooter's blog addressed the differences between septic tanks and public sewers in a comprehensive 2015 post. In a separate 2017 blog post, Roto-Rooter addressed the often-asked question of whether all toilet paper is truly 'septic safe': The truth is toilet paper is designed to be flushed, and there is no evidence that your septic tanks will have any difficulty filtering out standard toilet paper. You may continue to buy your favorite toilet paper and flush it with impunity, provided you don't try to flush too much all at once. However, if you are still concerned or skeptical that toilet paper cannot hurt your septic tank, there are a few steps you can take. Aside from one recirculating Facebook post from January 2016, we have found no evidence suggesting that Costco toilet paper behaves any differently in septic tanks than any other brand of standard toilet paper. Plumbers say that toilet paper was designed to be flushed, and does not advise against using Costco toilet paper or any other specific brand. We reached out to a representative for Roto-Rooter, and received a detailed response about whether specific toilet paper posed a risk to septic systems in particular: Having grown up in a house with a septic tank, I can understand the concern that homeowners with septic tanks have about using toilet paper that breaks down as quickly as possible. Most septic tanks are located less than ten feet from the house, so the toilet paper that is flushed doesn't travel very far down the pipe before arriving at its final destination. And septic tanks don't have an agitator to churn the waste and expedite the breakdown of toilet paper ... toilet paper itself cannot and will not damage drainpipes, sewers or septic tanks. No brand of toilet paper that Roto-Rooter is aware of can cause a clog inside a properly maintained, modern drainpipe or residential sewer. All brands of toilet paper are designed to break down quickly in agitated water, but it stands to reason that thinner single-ply paper breaks down faster than thicker 2-ply. A toilet flush begins the breakdown process and the paper continues to disintegrate as it travels through the turbulent waters of drain and sewer pipes. To provide comfort, luxury brands tend to be slightly thicker and so they may stay intact a little bit longer than very thin single-ply toilet paper. But again, no toilet paper can cause damage to your pipes. The real source of toilet backup trouble is usually with the drainpipes themselves. For instance, older homes built before the mid-1970s commonly have cast iron drainpipes. Over the years, the galvanized coating on the inside of the pipes wears away and exposes the iron, causing the pipe to gradually rust away. Over time, the iron oxide (rust) degrades the pipe from the inside crating a billowy, uneven surface that slowly decreases the inside diameter of the pipe, much like plaque in a human artery. When an iron pipe is at this life stage, toilet paper, wet wipes and even solid waste tend to get caught on the rusty uneven surface and form a clog, causing a toilet backup. Eventually, the rust will close off water flow completely, and the pipe must be replaced. But before such time, the homeowner is forced to deal with slow drains and more frequent backups.Recent Updates Updated [7 February 2018]: Added a response from Roto-Rooter. | nan | [
"01714-proof-06-toilet_paper_shopping_feature.jpg"
] |
It's common practice in Norway to give away surplus apples to help feed the hungry by hanging them in bags from a fence. | Neutral | A photograph showing several bags of apples hanging from a fence is frequently shared online along with messages claiming that this practice is common in Norway as a way to give away surplus fruit: This photograph was taken circa September 2018 and shows dozens of apples hanging from the fence around a home in Norway. The Norwegian news outlet Drammens Tidende spoke to the homeowner, Inger Garås, and found that she had given away more than 200 bags of apples this way: Here's an excerpt from the Drammens Tidende report (loosely translated via Google): Just today I hung out 30 bags with about one kilo of apples in each, and it was gone in an hour or two, Inger Garås tells Drammens Tidende. This past week she has hung apple bags on the white fence every day, and in total she has distributed around 200 bags of apples. About 200 kilos. But Inger points out that she hasn't counted all the bags every time ... ... 'There are so many apples this year. Nice, clean and large. I don't get to use everything, and it becomes too much to throw away. Then it is much better to give them away, says the generous mouth watering.' Drammens Tidende reported that Garås lives on a large property with several apple trees, some of which were planted as early as the 1850s. Garås said that she would keep hanging her apples from the fence so that less of them go to waste. While this picture does document one Norwegian woman's attempt to give away apples, this photograph is often shared as if it represents a common practice in the country. As far as we can tell, that simply isn't the case. Norwegians are not expected to give away their surplus fruit, and we haven't found anything (outside of this single image) to indicate that this practice is widespread in the country. In fact, the existence of this news report indicates that this was a rather rare occurrence. Drammens Tidende was not writing about a cultural phenomena in Norway. Rather, they were writing a story about one woman's kind act of giving away surplus apples for free. Furthermore, Norwegians frequently chime in when this image is shared online to dispute the idea that this is common practice. Some have noted that the premise of the meme was flawed because Norway doesn't have a large homeless population. Others noted that the word 'epleslang,' which means 'stealing apples from a neighbor's garden,' wouldn't exist if this was common practice. While it's certainly possible that other Norwegians have put out similar bags to get rid of surplus fruit, this doesn't appear to be a common, countrywide practice. | nan | [
"01917-proof-03-norway-apples.jpg",
"01917-proof-06-apples-norway-snopes.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump has asked his advisers about the feasibility of stopping hurricanes with nuclear bombs. | Neutral | On Aug. 25, 2019, Axios reported that 'President Trump has suggested multiple times to senior Homeland Security and national security officials that they explore using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the United States.' Citing 'sources who have heard the president's private remarks and been briefed on a National Security Council memorandum that recorded those comments,' Axios described two of those occasions in detail: During one hurricane briefing at the White House, Trump said, 'I got it. I got it. Why don't we nuke them?' according to one source who was there. 'They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?' the source added, paraphrasing the president's remarks ... Trump also raised the idea in another conversation with a senior administration official. A 2017 NSC memo describes that second conversation, in which Trump asked whether the administration should bomb hurricanes to stop them from hitting the homeland. A source briefed on the NSC memo said it does not contain the word 'nuclear'; it just says the president talked about bombing hurricanes. Reacting to the report, Trump declared it to be 'fake news,' suggesting the claim that he 'wanted to blow up large hurricanes with nuclear weapons prior to reaching shore' was 'ridiculous.' The story by Axios that President Trump wanted to blow up large hurricanes with nuclear weapons prior to reaching shore is ridiculous. I never said this. Just more FAKE NEWS! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 26, 2019 In response, Axios reporter Jonathan Swan, who reported the story with Margaret Talev, tweeted that he stood by what he wrote, reiterating Axios' sourcing: I stand by every word in the story. He said this in at least two meetings during the first year and a bit of the presidency, and one of the conversations was memorialized. https://t.co/5qs8o1k4QS - Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) August 26, 2019 Snopes cannot independently verify the claims of anonymous sources cited in the Axios story, or claims contained within documents we have not seen. As such, we rank the claim 'Unproven.' This rating could change if corroborating information becomes public. | nan | [
"02030-proof-02-nuclear_exposion_fb.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump has asked his advisers about the feasibility of stopping hurricanes with nuclear bombs. | Neutral | On Aug. 25, 2019, Axios reported that 'President Trump has suggested multiple times to senior Homeland Security and national security officials that they explore using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the United States.' Citing 'sources who have heard the president's private remarks and been briefed on a National Security Council memorandum that recorded those comments,' Axios described two of those occasions in detail: During one hurricane briefing at the White House, Trump said, 'I got it. I got it. Why don't we nuke them?' according to one source who was there. 'They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?' the source added, paraphrasing the president's remarks ... Trump also raised the idea in another conversation with a senior administration official. A 2017 NSC memo describes that second conversation, in which Trump asked whether the administration should bomb hurricanes to stop them from hitting the homeland. A source briefed on the NSC memo said it does not contain the word 'nuclear'; it just says the president talked about bombing hurricanes. Reacting to the report, Trump declared it to be 'fake news,' suggesting the claim that he 'wanted to blow up large hurricanes with nuclear weapons prior to reaching shore' was 'ridiculous.' The story by Axios that President Trump wanted to blow up large hurricanes with nuclear weapons prior to reaching shore is ridiculous. I never said this. Just more FAKE NEWS! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 26, 2019 In response, Axios reporter Jonathan Swan, who reported the story with Margaret Talev, tweeted that he stood by what he wrote, reiterating Axios' sourcing: I stand by every word in the story. He said this in at least two meetings during the first year and a bit of the presidency, and one of the conversations was memorialized. https://t.co/5qs8o1k4QS - Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) August 26, 2019 Snopes cannot independently verify the claims of anonymous sources cited in the Axios story, or claims contained within documents we have not seen. As such, we rank the claim 'Unproven.' This rating could change if corroborating information becomes public. | nan | [
"02030-proof-02-nuclear_exposion_fb.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump has asked his advisers about the feasibility of stopping hurricanes with nuclear bombs. | Neutral | On Aug. 25, 2019, Axios reported that 'President Trump has suggested multiple times to senior Homeland Security and national security officials that they explore using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the United States.' Citing 'sources who have heard the president's private remarks and been briefed on a National Security Council memorandum that recorded those comments,' Axios described two of those occasions in detail: During one hurricane briefing at the White House, Trump said, 'I got it. I got it. Why don't we nuke them?' according to one source who was there. 'They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can't we do that?' the source added, paraphrasing the president's remarks ... Trump also raised the idea in another conversation with a senior administration official. A 2017 NSC memo describes that second conversation, in which Trump asked whether the administration should bomb hurricanes to stop them from hitting the homeland. A source briefed on the NSC memo said it does not contain the word 'nuclear'; it just says the president talked about bombing hurricanes. Reacting to the report, Trump declared it to be 'fake news,' suggesting the claim that he 'wanted to blow up large hurricanes with nuclear weapons prior to reaching shore' was 'ridiculous.' The story by Axios that President Trump wanted to blow up large hurricanes with nuclear weapons prior to reaching shore is ridiculous. I never said this. Just more FAKE NEWS! - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 26, 2019 In response, Axios reporter Jonathan Swan, who reported the story with Margaret Talev, tweeted that he stood by what he wrote, reiterating Axios' sourcing: I stand by every word in the story. He said this in at least two meetings during the first year and a bit of the presidency, and one of the conversations was memorialized. https://t.co/5qs8o1k4QS - Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) August 26, 2019 Snopes cannot independently verify the claims of anonymous sources cited in the Axios story, or claims contained within documents we have not seen. As such, we rank the claim 'Unproven.' This rating could change if corroborating information becomes public. | nan | [
"02030-proof-02-nuclear_exposion_fb.jpg"
] |
Stone Age tunnels have been found that stretch thousands of miles all the way from Scotland to Turkey. | Neutral | Since at least 2011, web sites dedicated to spreading rumors about spirits and the underworld have been claiming that a connected 'network' of tunnels dating back to the Stone Age and stretching across Europe from Scotland to Turkey has been discovered. The yarn has wended its way across conspiracy theory sites and hubs of fiction such as Ancient-Code.com and SimpleCapactiy.com: Across the Europe there are thousands of underground tunnels from the north in Scotland leading all the way down to the Mediterranean. This 12,000-year-old massive underground network is very impressive. Some experts believe the network was a way of protecting man from predators while others suggest the idea that the linked tunnels were used like motorways are today, for people to travel safely regardless of wars or violence or even weather above ground. They could be described as a kind of ancient underground superhighway. Others think the tunnels can be seen as a gateway to the underworld. The story seems to have originated from a gross misinterpretation of a 2011 article in the German news magazine Der Spiegel that detailed mysterious tunnels found throughout parts of Europe known as 'Erdstall.' The myth version also references the work of a German prehistorian, Heinrich Kusch, who along with his wife Ingrid authored a 2009 German-language book about the Erdstall tunnels. The Kusches believed the tunnels were built 5,000 (not 12,000) years ago, and scientific evidence places Erdstall at an even more recent timeframe than the Kusches suspected: A few radiocarbon dating analyses have also been performed, and they indicate that the galleries date back to the 10th to the 13th century. Bits of charcoal recovered from the Erdstall tunnels in Höcherlmühle date back to the period between 950 and 1050 A.D. The Erdstall tunnels are not an interconnected highway between Scotland and Turkey (which would have required people with rudimentary tools to dig a tunnel under the North Sea or the English Channel to reach mainland Europe). The tunnels comprise multiple unconnected passageways that have been found mainly in Germany, Austria, France, Ireland and Scotland: As a result of the international cooperation of the Erdstall working group, new clues have come to light. The galleries are also concentrated in parts of Ireland and Scotland, and there are also clusters in central France. This distribution bears intriguing parallels to the routes of the Irish-Scottish traveling monks who, coming from the Celtic north in the 6th century, traveled across the continent as missionaries. The tattooed monks made the passage to the continent from the islands, carrying long staffs and wearing coarse habits. The legendary Kilian, born in Ireland around 640 A.D., preached in the southern German city of Würzburg. According to a hagiography, angry natives killed him and buried him in a stable. St. Gall (died 640 A.D.) made it as far as Lake Constance. Ahlborn speculates that these early Christian missionaries also brought along heathen ideas, the remnants of Druid scholarship or special Celtic concepts of the afterlife, which led to the construction of the subterranean galleries. While there isn't evidence that Erdstall tunnels have been discovered as far east as Turkey, large and sophisticated underground cities in that country's Cappadocia region have been unearthed and explored in recent years, perhaps the most famous of which is Derinkuyu: In 2013, construction workers demolishing low-income homes ringing [a Byzantine-era hilltop castle in Nevşehir] discovered entrances to a network of rooms and tunnels. The city halted the housing project, called in archaeologists and geophysicists, and began investigating ... In 2014, those tunnels led scientists to discover a multilevel settlement of living spaces, kitchens, wineries, chapels, staircases, and bezirhane-linseed presses for producing lamp oil to light the underground city. Artifacts including grindstones, stone crosses, and ceramics indicate the city was in use from the Byzantine era through the Ottoman conquest. Like Derinkuyu, the site appears to have been a large, self-sustaining complex with air shafts and water channels. When danger loomed, Cappadocians retreated underground, blocked the access tunnels with round stone doors, and sealed themselves in with livestock and supplies until the threat passed. While the underground labyrinths in Turkey were relatively advanced and were used to shelter residents from danger, the purpose of the European Erdstall tunnels is still mysterious. Unlike the underground structures in Turkey, where a 300-year old Ottoman paper trail guided modern researchers to key infrastructure, there are no written records about the Erdstall tunnels in Europe. According to Der Spiegel, there is disagreement as to whether they were shelters from marauders and robbers, spaces for perceived spirits or souls of the dead, or even toilets. Except for a few seemingly random items such as an iron plowshare and a few millstones, the tunnels are not just empty but 'swept clean,' which seems to add to the mystery of their purpose. While research on these archaeological phenomena is bound to continue and more answers may be forthcoming, we found no credible evidence of the existence of a 12,000-year-old subterranean highway system stretching from Scotland through mainland Europe, all the way to Turkey. | nan | [] |
Stone Age tunnels have been found that stretch thousands of miles all the way from Scotland to Turkey. | Neutral | Since at least 2011, web sites dedicated to spreading rumors about spirits and the underworld have been claiming that a connected 'network' of tunnels dating back to the Stone Age and stretching across Europe from Scotland to Turkey has been discovered. The yarn has wended its way across conspiracy theory sites and hubs of fiction such as Ancient-Code.com and SimpleCapactiy.com: Across the Europe there are thousands of underground tunnels from the north in Scotland leading all the way down to the Mediterranean. This 12,000-year-old massive underground network is very impressive. Some experts believe the network was a way of protecting man from predators while others suggest the idea that the linked tunnels were used like motorways are today, for people to travel safely regardless of wars or violence or even weather above ground. They could be described as a kind of ancient underground superhighway. Others think the tunnels can be seen as a gateway to the underworld. The story seems to have originated from a gross misinterpretation of a 2011 article in the German news magazine Der Spiegel that detailed mysterious tunnels found throughout parts of Europe known as 'Erdstall.' The myth version also references the work of a German prehistorian, Heinrich Kusch, who along with his wife Ingrid authored a 2009 German-language book about the Erdstall tunnels. The Kusches believed the tunnels were built 5,000 (not 12,000) years ago, and scientific evidence places Erdstall at an even more recent timeframe than the Kusches suspected: A few radiocarbon dating analyses have also been performed, and they indicate that the galleries date back to the 10th to the 13th century. Bits of charcoal recovered from the Erdstall tunnels in Höcherlmühle date back to the period between 950 and 1050 A.D. The Erdstall tunnels are not an interconnected highway between Scotland and Turkey (which would have required people with rudimentary tools to dig a tunnel under the North Sea or the English Channel to reach mainland Europe). The tunnels comprise multiple unconnected passageways that have been found mainly in Germany, Austria, France, Ireland and Scotland: As a result of the international cooperation of the Erdstall working group, new clues have come to light. The galleries are also concentrated in parts of Ireland and Scotland, and there are also clusters in central France. This distribution bears intriguing parallels to the routes of the Irish-Scottish traveling monks who, coming from the Celtic north in the 6th century, traveled across the continent as missionaries. The tattooed monks made the passage to the continent from the islands, carrying long staffs and wearing coarse habits. The legendary Kilian, born in Ireland around 640 A.D., preached in the southern German city of Würzburg. According to a hagiography, angry natives killed him and buried him in a stable. St. Gall (died 640 A.D.) made it as far as Lake Constance. Ahlborn speculates that these early Christian missionaries also brought along heathen ideas, the remnants of Druid scholarship or special Celtic concepts of the afterlife, which led to the construction of the subterranean galleries. While there isn't evidence that Erdstall tunnels have been discovered as far east as Turkey, large and sophisticated underground cities in that country's Cappadocia region have been unearthed and explored in recent years, perhaps the most famous of which is Derinkuyu: In 2013, construction workers demolishing low-income homes ringing [a Byzantine-era hilltop castle in Nevşehir] discovered entrances to a network of rooms and tunnels. The city halted the housing project, called in archaeologists and geophysicists, and began investigating ... In 2014, those tunnels led scientists to discover a multilevel settlement of living spaces, kitchens, wineries, chapels, staircases, and bezirhane-linseed presses for producing lamp oil to light the underground city. Artifacts including grindstones, stone crosses, and ceramics indicate the city was in use from the Byzantine era through the Ottoman conquest. Like Derinkuyu, the site appears to have been a large, self-sustaining complex with air shafts and water channels. When danger loomed, Cappadocians retreated underground, blocked the access tunnels with round stone doors, and sealed themselves in with livestock and supplies until the threat passed. While the underground labyrinths in Turkey were relatively advanced and were used to shelter residents from danger, the purpose of the European Erdstall tunnels is still mysterious. Unlike the underground structures in Turkey, where a 300-year old Ottoman paper trail guided modern researchers to key infrastructure, there are no written records about the Erdstall tunnels in Europe. According to Der Spiegel, there is disagreement as to whether they were shelters from marauders and robbers, spaces for perceived spirits or souls of the dead, or even toilets. Except for a few seemingly random items such as an iron plowshare and a few millstones, the tunnels are not just empty but 'swept clean,' which seems to add to the mystery of their purpose. While research on these archaeological phenomena is bound to continue and more answers may be forthcoming, we found no credible evidence of the existence of a 12,000-year-old subterranean highway system stretching from Scotland through mainland Europe, all the way to Turkey. | nan | [] |
Stone Age tunnels have been found that stretch thousands of miles all the way from Scotland to Turkey. | Neutral | Since at least 2011, web sites dedicated to spreading rumors about spirits and the underworld have been claiming that a connected 'network' of tunnels dating back to the Stone Age and stretching across Europe from Scotland to Turkey has been discovered. The yarn has wended its way across conspiracy theory sites and hubs of fiction such as Ancient-Code.com and SimpleCapactiy.com: Across the Europe there are thousands of underground tunnels from the north in Scotland leading all the way down to the Mediterranean. This 12,000-year-old massive underground network is very impressive. Some experts believe the network was a way of protecting man from predators while others suggest the idea that the linked tunnels were used like motorways are today, for people to travel safely regardless of wars or violence or even weather above ground. They could be described as a kind of ancient underground superhighway. Others think the tunnels can be seen as a gateway to the underworld. The story seems to have originated from a gross misinterpretation of a 2011 article in the German news magazine Der Spiegel that detailed mysterious tunnels found throughout parts of Europe known as 'Erdstall.' The myth version also references the work of a German prehistorian, Heinrich Kusch, who along with his wife Ingrid authored a 2009 German-language book about the Erdstall tunnels. The Kusches believed the tunnels were built 5,000 (not 12,000) years ago, and scientific evidence places Erdstall at an even more recent timeframe than the Kusches suspected: A few radiocarbon dating analyses have also been performed, and they indicate that the galleries date back to the 10th to the 13th century. Bits of charcoal recovered from the Erdstall tunnels in Höcherlmühle date back to the period between 950 and 1050 A.D. The Erdstall tunnels are not an interconnected highway between Scotland and Turkey (which would have required people with rudimentary tools to dig a tunnel under the North Sea or the English Channel to reach mainland Europe). The tunnels comprise multiple unconnected passageways that have been found mainly in Germany, Austria, France, Ireland and Scotland: As a result of the international cooperation of the Erdstall working group, new clues have come to light. The galleries are also concentrated in parts of Ireland and Scotland, and there are also clusters in central France. This distribution bears intriguing parallels to the routes of the Irish-Scottish traveling monks who, coming from the Celtic north in the 6th century, traveled across the continent as missionaries. The tattooed monks made the passage to the continent from the islands, carrying long staffs and wearing coarse habits. The legendary Kilian, born in Ireland around 640 A.D., preached in the southern German city of Würzburg. According to a hagiography, angry natives killed him and buried him in a stable. St. Gall (died 640 A.D.) made it as far as Lake Constance. Ahlborn speculates that these early Christian missionaries also brought along heathen ideas, the remnants of Druid scholarship or special Celtic concepts of the afterlife, which led to the construction of the subterranean galleries. While there isn't evidence that Erdstall tunnels have been discovered as far east as Turkey, large and sophisticated underground cities in that country's Cappadocia region have been unearthed and explored in recent years, perhaps the most famous of which is Derinkuyu: In 2013, construction workers demolishing low-income homes ringing [a Byzantine-era hilltop castle in Nevşehir] discovered entrances to a network of rooms and tunnels. The city halted the housing project, called in archaeologists and geophysicists, and began investigating ... In 2014, those tunnels led scientists to discover a multilevel settlement of living spaces, kitchens, wineries, chapels, staircases, and bezirhane-linseed presses for producing lamp oil to light the underground city. Artifacts including grindstones, stone crosses, and ceramics indicate the city was in use from the Byzantine era through the Ottoman conquest. Like Derinkuyu, the site appears to have been a large, self-sustaining complex with air shafts and water channels. When danger loomed, Cappadocians retreated underground, blocked the access tunnels with round stone doors, and sealed themselves in with livestock and supplies until the threat passed. While the underground labyrinths in Turkey were relatively advanced and were used to shelter residents from danger, the purpose of the European Erdstall tunnels is still mysterious. Unlike the underground structures in Turkey, where a 300-year old Ottoman paper trail guided modern researchers to key infrastructure, there are no written records about the Erdstall tunnels in Europe. According to Der Spiegel, there is disagreement as to whether they were shelters from marauders and robbers, spaces for perceived spirits or souls of the dead, or even toilets. Except for a few seemingly random items such as an iron plowshare and a few millstones, the tunnels are not just empty but 'swept clean,' which seems to add to the mystery of their purpose. While research on these archaeological phenomena is bound to continue and more answers may be forthcoming, we found no credible evidence of the existence of a 12,000-year-old subterranean highway system stretching from Scotland through mainland Europe, all the way to Turkey. | nan | [] |
Stone Age tunnels have been found that stretch thousands of miles all the way from Scotland to Turkey. | Neutral | Since at least 2011, web sites dedicated to spreading rumors about spirits and the underworld have been claiming that a connected 'network' of tunnels dating back to the Stone Age and stretching across Europe from Scotland to Turkey has been discovered. The yarn has wended its way across conspiracy theory sites and hubs of fiction such as Ancient-Code.com and SimpleCapactiy.com: Across the Europe there are thousands of underground tunnels from the north in Scotland leading all the way down to the Mediterranean. This 12,000-year-old massive underground network is very impressive. Some experts believe the network was a way of protecting man from predators while others suggest the idea that the linked tunnels were used like motorways are today, for people to travel safely regardless of wars or violence or even weather above ground. They could be described as a kind of ancient underground superhighway. Others think the tunnels can be seen as a gateway to the underworld. The story seems to have originated from a gross misinterpretation of a 2011 article in the German news magazine Der Spiegel that detailed mysterious tunnels found throughout parts of Europe known as 'Erdstall.' The myth version also references the work of a German prehistorian, Heinrich Kusch, who along with his wife Ingrid authored a 2009 German-language book about the Erdstall tunnels. The Kusches believed the tunnels were built 5,000 (not 12,000) years ago, and scientific evidence places Erdstall at an even more recent timeframe than the Kusches suspected: A few radiocarbon dating analyses have also been performed, and they indicate that the galleries date back to the 10th to the 13th century. Bits of charcoal recovered from the Erdstall tunnels in Höcherlmühle date back to the period between 950 and 1050 A.D. The Erdstall tunnels are not an interconnected highway between Scotland and Turkey (which would have required people with rudimentary tools to dig a tunnel under the North Sea or the English Channel to reach mainland Europe). The tunnels comprise multiple unconnected passageways that have been found mainly in Germany, Austria, France, Ireland and Scotland: As a result of the international cooperation of the Erdstall working group, new clues have come to light. The galleries are also concentrated in parts of Ireland and Scotland, and there are also clusters in central France. This distribution bears intriguing parallels to the routes of the Irish-Scottish traveling monks who, coming from the Celtic north in the 6th century, traveled across the continent as missionaries. The tattooed monks made the passage to the continent from the islands, carrying long staffs and wearing coarse habits. The legendary Kilian, born in Ireland around 640 A.D., preached in the southern German city of Würzburg. According to a hagiography, angry natives killed him and buried him in a stable. St. Gall (died 640 A.D.) made it as far as Lake Constance. Ahlborn speculates that these early Christian missionaries also brought along heathen ideas, the remnants of Druid scholarship or special Celtic concepts of the afterlife, which led to the construction of the subterranean galleries. While there isn't evidence that Erdstall tunnels have been discovered as far east as Turkey, large and sophisticated underground cities in that country's Cappadocia region have been unearthed and explored in recent years, perhaps the most famous of which is Derinkuyu: In 2013, construction workers demolishing low-income homes ringing [a Byzantine-era hilltop castle in Nevşehir] discovered entrances to a network of rooms and tunnels. The city halted the housing project, called in archaeologists and geophysicists, and began investigating ... In 2014, those tunnels led scientists to discover a multilevel settlement of living spaces, kitchens, wineries, chapels, staircases, and bezirhane-linseed presses for producing lamp oil to light the underground city. Artifacts including grindstones, stone crosses, and ceramics indicate the city was in use from the Byzantine era through the Ottoman conquest. Like Derinkuyu, the site appears to have been a large, self-sustaining complex with air shafts and water channels. When danger loomed, Cappadocians retreated underground, blocked the access tunnels with round stone doors, and sealed themselves in with livestock and supplies until the threat passed. While the underground labyrinths in Turkey were relatively advanced and were used to shelter residents from danger, the purpose of the European Erdstall tunnels is still mysterious. Unlike the underground structures in Turkey, where a 300-year old Ottoman paper trail guided modern researchers to key infrastructure, there are no written records about the Erdstall tunnels in Europe. According to Der Spiegel, there is disagreement as to whether they were shelters from marauders and robbers, spaces for perceived spirits or souls of the dead, or even toilets. Except for a few seemingly random items such as an iron plowshare and a few millstones, the tunnels are not just empty but 'swept clean,' which seems to add to the mystery of their purpose. While research on these archaeological phenomena is bound to continue and more answers may be forthcoming, we found no credible evidence of the existence of a 12,000-year-old subterranean highway system stretching from Scotland through mainland Europe, all the way to Turkey. | nan | [] |
Chick-fil-A sandwiches contain the anti-foaming agent dimethylpolysiloxane, which is Silly Putty. | Neutral | On Feb. 2, 2015, the Twitter account @EatThisNotThat tweeted: 'Chick-fil-A's Chicken Sandwich contains 'dimethylpolysiloxane,' an antifoaming agent also found in shampoo and Silly Putty!' Chick-fil-A's Chicken Sandwich contains 'dimethylpolysiloxane,' an antifoaming agent also found in shampoo and Silly Putty! - Eat This, Not That! (@EatThisNotThat) February 10, 2013 Can't decide if I'm more disgusted there's basically silly putty in Chick-Fil-A nuggets or impressed they're open about it on their website. - Molly (@ohhcohen) August 9, 2016 So apparently Chick-Fil-a uses a chemical in their chicken that's used in silly putty. - Nékia (@__pollypocket) March 14, 2015 The tweet was not the first time the claim about Chick-fil-A's use of dimethylpolysiloxane surfaced. In October 2013, an earlier version titled 'You Won't Believe Where Silly Putty Is Hiding in Your Food' targeted several large food companies for their use of dimethylpolysiloxane. I haven't had my serving of silly putty today. Have u? (You won't believe where silly putty is hiding in your food) http://t.co/jfYnXHhXGl - Tony Busko (@TonyBusko) October 23, 2013 While the focus narrowed to Chick-fil-A in later circulations, the pattern of the claim was similar to earlier food ingredient warnings. First, loudly warning that 'you won't believe' what various companies are 'hiding' from you in readily available ingredient lists. Then, petition for public pressure to 'shame' companies into using only pronounceable ingredients. The conflation of dimethylpolysiloxane with the elastic-like Silly Putty toy amplified the rumor. This is possibly because anyone who's attempted to remove the latter substance from a carpet knows it's virtually indestructible (particularly when the carpet is brightly colored). Folks have extrapolated that the notoriously difficult-to-extricate goop is not a health food and may not be fit for consumption at all. It is true that Silly Putty contains dimethylpolysiloxane at a concentration of roughly four percent. However, other polymers and silica are the toy's primary ingredients. Ninety-six percent of Silly Putty is composed of ingredients other than dimethylpolysiloxane, so the comparison is certainly overstated and inaccurate. Also notable is the frequency with which dimethylpolysiloxane appears in food products overall. Deemed safe in concentrations up to 250 parts per million by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and approved for international use by the World Health Organization (WHO), dimethylpolysiloxane is included on ingredient lists from a number of food manufacturers. McDonald's, Taco Bell, Whataburger, Coke, and KFC all use dimethylpolysiloxane in their menu items. Some versions of the rumor claim that the ingredient is banned in the United Kingdom for safety reasons, but that is not true. Ultimately, it is true that Silly Putty and Chick-fil-A products share a common ingredient, albeit both in small quantities. But the primary objection to dimethylpolysiloxane appears to hinge on the fact that the word itself is somewhat intimidating and sounded 'chemical-y.' Not only is it present in a number of foods widely available for sale, but no specific objections documenting a lack of safety have been raised in any of the circulated claims. In lieu of legitimate concerns about the safety of dimethylpolysiloxane, the rumors simply have targeted its use in a common household toy, which in and of itself does not constitute cause for alarm. | nan | [
"02264-proof-02-GettyImages-874536124-scaled.jpg"
] |
Chick-fil-A sandwiches contain the anti-foaming agent dimethylpolysiloxane, which is Silly Putty. | Neutral | On Feb. 2, 2015, the Twitter account @EatThisNotThat tweeted: 'Chick-fil-A's Chicken Sandwich contains 'dimethylpolysiloxane,' an antifoaming agent also found in shampoo and Silly Putty!' Chick-fil-A's Chicken Sandwich contains 'dimethylpolysiloxane,' an antifoaming agent also found in shampoo and Silly Putty! - Eat This, Not That! (@EatThisNotThat) February 10, 2013 Can't decide if I'm more disgusted there's basically silly putty in Chick-Fil-A nuggets or impressed they're open about it on their website. - Molly (@ohhcohen) August 9, 2016 So apparently Chick-Fil-a uses a chemical in their chicken that's used in silly putty. - Nékia (@__pollypocket) March 14, 2015 The tweet was not the first time the claim about Chick-fil-A's use of dimethylpolysiloxane surfaced. In October 2013, an earlier version titled 'You Won't Believe Where Silly Putty Is Hiding in Your Food' targeted several large food companies for their use of dimethylpolysiloxane. I haven't had my serving of silly putty today. Have u? (You won't believe where silly putty is hiding in your food) http://t.co/jfYnXHhXGl - Tony Busko (@TonyBusko) October 23, 2013 While the focus narrowed to Chick-fil-A in later circulations, the pattern of the claim was similar to earlier food ingredient warnings. First, loudly warning that 'you won't believe' what various companies are 'hiding' from you in readily available ingredient lists. Then, petition for public pressure to 'shame' companies into using only pronounceable ingredients. The conflation of dimethylpolysiloxane with the elastic-like Silly Putty toy amplified the rumor. This is possibly because anyone who's attempted to remove the latter substance from a carpet knows it's virtually indestructible (particularly when the carpet is brightly colored). Folks have extrapolated that the notoriously difficult-to-extricate goop is not a health food and may not be fit for consumption at all. It is true that Silly Putty contains dimethylpolysiloxane at a concentration of roughly four percent. However, other polymers and silica are the toy's primary ingredients. Ninety-six percent of Silly Putty is composed of ingredients other than dimethylpolysiloxane, so the comparison is certainly overstated and inaccurate. Also notable is the frequency with which dimethylpolysiloxane appears in food products overall. Deemed safe in concentrations up to 250 parts per million by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and approved for international use by the World Health Organization (WHO), dimethylpolysiloxane is included on ingredient lists from a number of food manufacturers. McDonald's, Taco Bell, Whataburger, Coke, and KFC all use dimethylpolysiloxane in their menu items. Some versions of the rumor claim that the ingredient is banned in the United Kingdom for safety reasons, but that is not true. Ultimately, it is true that Silly Putty and Chick-fil-A products share a common ingredient, albeit both in small quantities. But the primary objection to dimethylpolysiloxane appears to hinge on the fact that the word itself is somewhat intimidating and sounded 'chemical-y.' Not only is it present in a number of foods widely available for sale, but no specific objections documenting a lack of safety have been raised in any of the circulated claims. In lieu of legitimate concerns about the safety of dimethylpolysiloxane, the rumors simply have targeted its use in a common household toy, which in and of itself does not constitute cause for alarm. | nan | [
"02264-proof-02-GettyImages-874536124-scaled.jpg"
] |
Chick-fil-A sandwiches contain the anti-foaming agent dimethylpolysiloxane, which is Silly Putty. | Neutral | On Feb. 2, 2015, the Twitter account @EatThisNotThat tweeted: 'Chick-fil-A's Chicken Sandwich contains 'dimethylpolysiloxane,' an antifoaming agent also found in shampoo and Silly Putty!' Chick-fil-A's Chicken Sandwich contains 'dimethylpolysiloxane,' an antifoaming agent also found in shampoo and Silly Putty! - Eat This, Not That! (@EatThisNotThat) February 10, 2013 Can't decide if I'm more disgusted there's basically silly putty in Chick-Fil-A nuggets or impressed they're open about it on their website. - Molly (@ohhcohen) August 9, 2016 So apparently Chick-Fil-a uses a chemical in their chicken that's used in silly putty. - Nékia (@__pollypocket) March 14, 2015 The tweet was not the first time the claim about Chick-fil-A's use of dimethylpolysiloxane surfaced. In October 2013, an earlier version titled 'You Won't Believe Where Silly Putty Is Hiding in Your Food' targeted several large food companies for their use of dimethylpolysiloxane. I haven't had my serving of silly putty today. Have u? (You won't believe where silly putty is hiding in your food) http://t.co/jfYnXHhXGl - Tony Busko (@TonyBusko) October 23, 2013 While the focus narrowed to Chick-fil-A in later circulations, the pattern of the claim was similar to earlier food ingredient warnings. First, loudly warning that 'you won't believe' what various companies are 'hiding' from you in readily available ingredient lists. Then, petition for public pressure to 'shame' companies into using only pronounceable ingredients. The conflation of dimethylpolysiloxane with the elastic-like Silly Putty toy amplified the rumor. This is possibly because anyone who's attempted to remove the latter substance from a carpet knows it's virtually indestructible (particularly when the carpet is brightly colored). Folks have extrapolated that the notoriously difficult-to-extricate goop is not a health food and may not be fit for consumption at all. It is true that Silly Putty contains dimethylpolysiloxane at a concentration of roughly four percent. However, other polymers and silica are the toy's primary ingredients. Ninety-six percent of Silly Putty is composed of ingredients other than dimethylpolysiloxane, so the comparison is certainly overstated and inaccurate. Also notable is the frequency with which dimethylpolysiloxane appears in food products overall. Deemed safe in concentrations up to 250 parts per million by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and approved for international use by the World Health Organization (WHO), dimethylpolysiloxane is included on ingredient lists from a number of food manufacturers. McDonald's, Taco Bell, Whataburger, Coke, and KFC all use dimethylpolysiloxane in their menu items. Some versions of the rumor claim that the ingredient is banned in the United Kingdom for safety reasons, but that is not true. Ultimately, it is true that Silly Putty and Chick-fil-A products share a common ingredient, albeit both in small quantities. But the primary objection to dimethylpolysiloxane appears to hinge on the fact that the word itself is somewhat intimidating and sounded 'chemical-y.' Not only is it present in a number of foods widely available for sale, but no specific objections documenting a lack of safety have been raised in any of the circulated claims. In lieu of legitimate concerns about the safety of dimethylpolysiloxane, the rumors simply have targeted its use in a common household toy, which in and of itself does not constitute cause for alarm. | nan | [
"02264-proof-02-GettyImages-874536124-scaled.jpg"
] |
Chick-fil-A sandwiches contain the anti-foaming agent dimethylpolysiloxane, which is Silly Putty. | Neutral | On Feb. 2, 2015, the Twitter account @EatThisNotThat tweeted: 'Chick-fil-A's Chicken Sandwich contains 'dimethylpolysiloxane,' an antifoaming agent also found in shampoo and Silly Putty!' Chick-fil-A's Chicken Sandwich contains 'dimethylpolysiloxane,' an antifoaming agent also found in shampoo and Silly Putty! - Eat This, Not That! (@EatThisNotThat) February 10, 2013 Can't decide if I'm more disgusted there's basically silly putty in Chick-Fil-A nuggets or impressed they're open about it on their website. - Molly (@ohhcohen) August 9, 2016 So apparently Chick-Fil-a uses a chemical in their chicken that's used in silly putty. - Nékia (@__pollypocket) March 14, 2015 The tweet was not the first time the claim about Chick-fil-A's use of dimethylpolysiloxane surfaced. In October 2013, an earlier version titled 'You Won't Believe Where Silly Putty Is Hiding in Your Food' targeted several large food companies for their use of dimethylpolysiloxane. I haven't had my serving of silly putty today. Have u? (You won't believe where silly putty is hiding in your food) http://t.co/jfYnXHhXGl - Tony Busko (@TonyBusko) October 23, 2013 While the focus narrowed to Chick-fil-A in later circulations, the pattern of the claim was similar to earlier food ingredient warnings. First, loudly warning that 'you won't believe' what various companies are 'hiding' from you in readily available ingredient lists. Then, petition for public pressure to 'shame' companies into using only pronounceable ingredients. The conflation of dimethylpolysiloxane with the elastic-like Silly Putty toy amplified the rumor. This is possibly because anyone who's attempted to remove the latter substance from a carpet knows it's virtually indestructible (particularly when the carpet is brightly colored). Folks have extrapolated that the notoriously difficult-to-extricate goop is not a health food and may not be fit for consumption at all. It is true that Silly Putty contains dimethylpolysiloxane at a concentration of roughly four percent. However, other polymers and silica are the toy's primary ingredients. Ninety-six percent of Silly Putty is composed of ingredients other than dimethylpolysiloxane, so the comparison is certainly overstated and inaccurate. Also notable is the frequency with which dimethylpolysiloxane appears in food products overall. Deemed safe in concentrations up to 250 parts per million by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and approved for international use by the World Health Organization (WHO), dimethylpolysiloxane is included on ingredient lists from a number of food manufacturers. McDonald's, Taco Bell, Whataburger, Coke, and KFC all use dimethylpolysiloxane in their menu items. Some versions of the rumor claim that the ingredient is banned in the United Kingdom for safety reasons, but that is not true. Ultimately, it is true that Silly Putty and Chick-fil-A products share a common ingredient, albeit both in small quantities. But the primary objection to dimethylpolysiloxane appears to hinge on the fact that the word itself is somewhat intimidating and sounded 'chemical-y.' Not only is it present in a number of foods widely available for sale, but no specific objections documenting a lack of safety have been raised in any of the circulated claims. In lieu of legitimate concerns about the safety of dimethylpolysiloxane, the rumors simply have targeted its use in a common household toy, which in and of itself does not constitute cause for alarm. | nan | [
"02264-proof-02-GettyImages-874536124-scaled.jpg"
] |
The 2001 movie 'Legally Blonde' originally ended with Elle and Vivian getting involved romantically. | Neutral | On July 8, 2021, Decider, a website that reports on shows and movies offered through streaming services, posted a tweet that characterized a rumor about the 2001 film 'Legally Blonde' as a fact - namely that the movie originally ended with the main character Elle Woods becoming romantically involved with her rival. The source for the rumor above was a story published by the New York Times on the same date as the Decider story. The Times story commemorated the 20th anniversary of the release of the popular fish-out-of-water comedy that follows Elle, a Southern California sorority girl, on her journey to Harvard Law School. In the film she tries to wi her ex-boyfriend back but discovers he is dating Vivian, played by Selma Blair. But the Times story acknowledges that although two of the film's actors, Jessica Cauffiel and Alanna Ubach, recalled an ending to the film showing Elle and Vivian becoming involved, the movie's screenwriters said it's not true: CAUFFIEL The first ending was Elle and Vivian in Hawaii in beach chairs, drinking margaritas and holding hands. The insinuation was either they were best friends or they had gotten together romantically. [Ubach remembers this as well but the screenwriters say they never wrote that ending.] The movie's screenwriter Karen McCullah even took to Twitter to respond to Decider's tweet. This is not true. - Karen McCullah (@KarenMcCullah1) July 8, 2021 It's unclear why two people would recall the same thing, raising a number of possibilities: Was the alternate ending recounted by Cauffiel to the Times an unscripted pitch? Was it hearsay? We note that the two actors who remembered it were not the actors who would have been in the scene (that would have been Reese Witherspoon and Selma Blair). Whatever the case may be, it was never the work of the person who wrote the movie. | nan | [
"02317-proof-02-Copy-of-Rating-Overlay-Horizontal.jpg",
"02317-proof-03-Copy-of-Rating-Overlay-FEATURED-IMG-5.jpg"
] |
The 2001 movie 'Legally Blonde' originally ended with Elle and Vivian getting involved romantically. | Neutral | On July 8, 2021, Decider, a website that reports on shows and movies offered through streaming services, posted a tweet that characterized a rumor about the 2001 film 'Legally Blonde' as a fact - namely that the movie originally ended with the main character Elle Woods becoming romantically involved with her rival. The source for the rumor above was a story published by the New York Times on the same date as the Decider story. The Times story commemorated the 20th anniversary of the release of the popular fish-out-of-water comedy that follows Elle, a Southern California sorority girl, on her journey to Harvard Law School. In the film she tries to wi her ex-boyfriend back but discovers he is dating Vivian, played by Selma Blair. But the Times story acknowledges that although two of the film's actors, Jessica Cauffiel and Alanna Ubach, recalled an ending to the film showing Elle and Vivian becoming involved, the movie's screenwriters said it's not true: CAUFFIEL The first ending was Elle and Vivian in Hawaii in beach chairs, drinking margaritas and holding hands. The insinuation was either they were best friends or they had gotten together romantically. [Ubach remembers this as well but the screenwriters say they never wrote that ending.] The movie's screenwriter Karen McCullah even took to Twitter to respond to Decider's tweet. This is not true. - Karen McCullah (@KarenMcCullah1) July 8, 2021 It's unclear why two people would recall the same thing, raising a number of possibilities: Was the alternate ending recounted by Cauffiel to the Times an unscripted pitch? Was it hearsay? We note that the two actors who remembered it were not the actors who would have been in the scene (that would have been Reese Witherspoon and Selma Blair). Whatever the case may be, it was never the work of the person who wrote the movie. | nan | [
"02317-proof-02-Copy-of-Rating-Overlay-Horizontal.jpg",
"02317-proof-03-Copy-of-Rating-Overlay-FEATURED-IMG-5.jpg"
] |
Purchases of U.S. flags are exempt from sales taxes. | Neutral | Of all the taxes we pay for various levels of government and services (city, county, state, and federal), perhaps the one that affects us most in our daily lives is the sales tax. Save for those U.S. residents who live in the handful of states with no state sales tax (Oregon, Delaware, New Hampshire, Montana, and Alaska), the rest of us are typically paying sales taxes multiple times per day whenever we buy the necessities - and luxuries - of daily life: everything from food, clothing, and gasoline to hotel rooms, airline tickets, and automobiles. One thing many of us feel we shouldn't have to pay any taxes to purchase is the American flag. Most of us already contribute a good chunk of our incomes in the form of income tax (and other federal taxes) to support our country's government, so it just seems unfair that those who want to display their love for the United States by proudly flying Old Glory should have to shell out even more in taxes to do so. This feeling has fostered a widespread belief that not only are U.S. flag purchases exempt from all sales taxes, but that some manufacturers label them as something other than flags (e.g., 'decorative banners'), thus requiring the collection of taxes for their purchase: A couple years back I went to one of the big box stores to buy an American flag. When I cashed out, they charged me tax. I objected, saying there is NO sales tax on US flags. The cashier got the manager, who was just as ignorant, and said it was in the computer so they had to charge it. I ended up writing the state's attorney general and eventually got my money back, the store was all apologies and IIRC they gave me some extra store credit. Fast forward to just recently, the wife was at a local garden store and bought a bunch of plants etc. Since our flag was getting ratty looking she bought a new one. When she got home we looked at the receipt and noticed tax was charged. So she called the store and eventually was given to a manager. Well guess what? This thing is 3 x 5 feet, cloth, red and white stripes, field of blue with white stars, a pole to hang it on etc, etc. BUT!!! The package clearly says 'Decorative Banner', NOT US flag. So in a very technical way, they were 'correct' in saying tax applies. Later on we were discussing it and she remarked what she should have said to the guy was 'I guess if it's not a flag, I can walk on it, burn it, pee on it or whatever, and since it's 'not a flag' that would be OK?'. We probably should have taken it back, asked for our money back and said we wanted an American flag, not a banner. So for what it's worth, look your flag purchase over carefully, and if you live in a state which has sales tax remember NOT to pay tax on the American flag. And be sure they don't pull some sort of 'decorative banner' crap. Much as we think it should be so, there is no blanket exemption of sales taxes on U.S. flag purchases. Sales taxes are primarily enacted at the state (rather than federal) level, so it's up to each state to set their own policy in that regard. Some states do exempt American flag purchases from state sales taxes, but only a minority of states (14 in all) have such exemptions in place. Moreover, those exemptions may only apply to a subset of flag sales, such as those made by government organizations or non-profit groups. | nan | [] |
Former president Barack Obama referred to himself 75 times during his farewell speech, compared to just 3 self-references by President Donald Trump in his inaugural address. | Neutral | Shortly after Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, a meme appeared comparing the self-referential language used by Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama: In his farewell address, Barack Obama referred to himself 75 times. In his inaugural address, Donald Trump referred to himself 3 times. He referred to 'We, the American people' 45 times. Before we get to the numbers, we would like to point out that these two speeches are not really comparable. Trump's inaugural address clocked in at about 16 minutes, whereas Obama's farewell address was more than 50 minutes long, making it unsurprising that Obama used more words (and more references to himself) during his speech. In addition to the different lengths, a farewell address and an inaugural address are fundamentally different speeches. However, it is easy to take a closer look at the claim presented in this meme. Transcripts of both Obama's farewell address and Trump's inaugural address are available online. We searched both transcripts for the words 'I' and 'me,' as well as the contractions 'I've' and 'I'm,' and here is what we found. Claim: Obama referred to himself 75 times. Obama used the word 'I' 40 times, 'me' 13 times, 'I've' 12 times, and 'I'm' twice, adding up to a total of 67 self-references. While this is lower than the number of claimed self-references, the difference is negligible. Claim: Trump referred to himself 3 times and 'we, the American people,' 45 times. Trump used the word 'I' 3 times and never used the terms 'me,' 'I've,' or 'I'm.' However, Trump never said 'We, the American people,' either. It's possible that the meme was only referring to the word 'we.' If that's the case, Trump did use the word 'we' 46 times. While this meme is mostly accurate as it is presented (although the numbers are slightly off), the difference in references to oneself is not nearly as stark when comparing Obama and Trump's inaugural addresses. Self-references in Obama's inaugural speeches. In 2009, Obama used the word 'I' 3 times during his speech, and never used 'me,' 'I've' or 'I'm.' In 2013, Obama used the word 'I' twice, and never used 'me,' 'I've' or 'I'm.' His 'we' count in both speeches was more than sixty. A comparison of the inaugural addresses delivered by both Obama and Trump shows the number of self-references was nearly identical. The claim expressed here, while technically accurate, compares two fundamentally different speeches: an inaugural address is generally a formal speech delivered by incoming presidents expressing common hopes, expectations, and dreams for the country, while a farewell address is a more personal and informal talk given by outgoing presidents about their view of the world scene, their time in office, and their departure from the national stage. The latter thus naturally tends to be more personal and self-referential in nature. | nan | [
"02457-proof-09-obama_farewell_speech_fb.jpg"
] |
A photograph shows a rhinoceros saving a zebra foal. | Neutral | A photograph purportedly showing a rhinoceros lifting a zebra foal out of the mud has been circulating around the internet since at least February 2015, when it was shared by photographer Roel van Muiden of RvM Wildlife Photography. While the above-displayed photograph is frequently shared along with the claim that the rhino had saved the zebra foal, the real story isn't as uplifting. Muiden shared several additional photos of the unique interaction on the web site African Geographic, as well as a detailed explanation about what was happening when the photographs were taken. Muiden said that he was taking pictures of a group of rhinos in South Africa's Madikwe Game Reserve when he noticed a floundering zebra foal: ...it took me awhile to notice the tiny zebra foal stuck in the mud. The herd was nowhere in sight so the foal must have been there for quite some time. It's true that one of the rhinos attempted to lift the zebra from the mud, but this was most likely an act of curiosity, not a gesture of goodwill. Additionally, the rhino accidentally killed the foal during its investigation: The rhino bull, after being rebuffed by the cows numerous times, made his way down to the water and near to the muddy patch the foal was stuck in. The rhino started to prod the zebra with his horn out of curiosity. After a while he grew impatient and lifted the body out. The foal, still being alive but very weak, could only lift its head out of the mud. The rhino lifted the foal so quickly that it had no time to react. The rhino then dropped the foal and moved off. He then came back for another prod and look-see. This time he lifted the zebra in a different position and his horn disemboweled the foal. Finally, after dropping the zebra again, the bull laid in the mud to roll around and almost crushed the baby zebra. While the above-displayed photographs are real, they do not depict the heartwarming story of a rhino rescuing a zebra - instead, they depict the less inspirational (but no less interesting) story of a hapless baby zebra accidentally killed by a curious rhino. | nan | [] |
A photograph shows a rhinoceros saving a zebra foal. | Neutral | A photograph purportedly showing a rhinoceros lifting a zebra foal out of the mud has been circulating around the internet since at least February 2015, when it was shared by photographer Roel van Muiden of RvM Wildlife Photography. While the above-displayed photograph is frequently shared along with the claim that the rhino had saved the zebra foal, the real story isn't as uplifting. Muiden shared several additional photos of the unique interaction on the web site African Geographic, as well as a detailed explanation about what was happening when the photographs were taken. Muiden said that he was taking pictures of a group of rhinos in South Africa's Madikwe Game Reserve when he noticed a floundering zebra foal: ...it took me awhile to notice the tiny zebra foal stuck in the mud. The herd was nowhere in sight so the foal must have been there for quite some time. It's true that one of the rhinos attempted to lift the zebra from the mud, but this was most likely an act of curiosity, not a gesture of goodwill. Additionally, the rhino accidentally killed the foal during its investigation: The rhino bull, after being rebuffed by the cows numerous times, made his way down to the water and near to the muddy patch the foal was stuck in. The rhino started to prod the zebra with his horn out of curiosity. After a while he grew impatient and lifted the body out. The foal, still being alive but very weak, could only lift its head out of the mud. The rhino lifted the foal so quickly that it had no time to react. The rhino then dropped the foal and moved off. He then came back for another prod and look-see. This time he lifted the zebra in a different position and his horn disemboweled the foal. Finally, after dropping the zebra again, the bull laid in the mud to roll around and almost crushed the baby zebra. While the above-displayed photographs are real, they do not depict the heartwarming story of a rhino rescuing a zebra - instead, they depict the less inspirational (but no less interesting) story of a hapless baby zebra accidentally killed by a curious rhino. | nan | [] |
Donald Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson was arrested for shoplifting and continued to collect unemployment benefits while working. | Neutral | On 13 August 2016 Donald Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson was the focus of the viral hashtag #KatrinaPiersonHistory over inaccurate statements she made during an appearance on CNN, prompting a groundswell of interest in resurrected rumors that Pierson was a 'shoplifter' and a 'welfare cheat.' Pierson's rise to social media infamy prompted intense interest into the longtime Texas tea party activist's work history, which was often condensed to reports that she'd once been arrested for stealing from a Texas J.C. Penney store, and that she collected unemployment insurance benefits while she was on the payroll of Senator Ted Cruz. The rumor about shoplifting was relatively well-established: Pierson herself openly discussed the incident during her early 2014 primary challenge for a U.S. House seat against incumbent Republican Rep. Pete Sessions: On and off the campaign trail, congressional candidate Katrina Pierson sometimes discusses the hardscrabble background that she says ultimately made her a conservative firebrand. The troubles in her youth, records show, included an arrest for shoplifting. In 1997, five days before her 21st birthday, Katrina Pierson, then named Katrina Lanette Shaddix, was arrested on a charge of theft of greater than $50 and less than $500. Pierson, who is running against Dallas Rep. Pete Sessions in the March 4 Republican primary, acknowledges the mistake. She told police then, and repeated recently, that she was talked into shoplifting by a friend. 'Like an idiot, I went along for the ride,' Pierson said in a recent interview. According to a Plano police report, Pierson said she and the woman with her, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, told police they needed the clothes for jobs they were trying to obtain. Pierson told police she was 'scared at first and did not want to go through with it.' Pierson exited the store with four items of clothing in a shoe box inside her shopping bag. They were valued at $168. The report said Pierson had her young son with her when the incident occurred ... Pierson, a tea party leader from Garland, said she knew her background would be open for scrutiny if she decided to take on Sessions, the powerful incumbent. The unemployment aspect of the rumor is harder to authenticate. Supposedly, Pierson was paid for working on Ted Cruz's 2012 U.S. Senate re-election campaign as an 'organizer' or 'spokeswoman' yet was also collecting unemployment benefits at that time. Pierson filed financial disclosure forms [PDF] covering the period from January 2012 to November 2013 and state that she received $11,440 from the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) during that time. Pierson played some role in Senator Ted Cruz's 2012 U.S. Senate re-election bid (she was variously described as 'campaigning with' Ted Cruz, being a campaign 'organizer,' or serving as a campaign 'spokeswman'), but it's unclear whether she received any compensation for that effort. Pierson's 2013 financial disclosure forms report no income obviously related to the Cruz campaign for 2012, and the listing of the $11,440 amount in the 'current year' column suggests that she received the unemployment insurance compensation in 2013 (and not while working for the Cruz campaign in 2012). Pierson's LinkedIn profile shows that she worked at Florida-based ASG Software Solutions until December 2012, and her disclosure form states that she received over $100,000 in salary from that company in 2012, so presumably the loss of that employment (for which Pierson blamed Obamacare) was what qualified her for unemployment insurance benefits: 'Not sure what the scandal is here,' [Pierson] told the Austin news website Quorum Report, which first reported the [unemployment] payments. 'A single mom getting child support loses her job because of Obamacare and had unemployment.' ASG did not respond to calls to confirm whether it laid off anyone because of potential costs under the Affordable Care Act. A few weeks before the 2012 elections, owner David Siegel, a Florida billionaire, warned employees by email that he would have to consider layoffs if President Barack Obama were re-elected. Pierson lost her House bid against Sessions in March 2014 and began work for a Tea Party Super PAC in August 2014: After Pierson lost her primary challenge, she took a job as a spokeswoman for the Tea Party Leadership Fund, which has been described in media reports as a 'scam PAC' for tactics that include spending unusually high percentages of its funding on overhead. 'We all have to pay the bills, but for Katrina, there is no principle that she isn't willing to abandon for the right price,' complained Matt Mackowiak, an unaligned Republican consultant from Texas. 'What price is that?' responded Pierson. 'Is there a price we can talk about, because I have worked my ass off at the grass roots since 2009 for zero dollars. It wasn't until I started working for the PAC that I was being paid for my time.' One Cruz ally, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid alienating Pierson, pointed to her work for the PAC as the sort of affiliation that would make her unappealing to the senator's campaign. In December 2015, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump signed Pierson as his new national spokeswoman. It's true that Katrina Pierson was arrested for shoplifting in 1997, but she hasn't attempted to hide that information, openly discussing it in multiple interviews as an example of her dealing with difficult circumstances in her early life. Allegations that Pierson was a 'welfare cheat' stem from claims that she was performing compensated work for Senator Ted Cruz's campaign while simultaneously receiving unemployment benefits in 2012, but we've found no evidence documenting such an overlap. | nan | [] |
Donald Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson was arrested for shoplifting and continued to collect unemployment benefits while working. | Neutral | On 13 August 2016 Donald Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson was the focus of the viral hashtag #KatrinaPiersonHistory over inaccurate statements she made during an appearance on CNN, prompting a groundswell of interest in resurrected rumors that Pierson was a 'shoplifter' and a 'welfare cheat.' Pierson's rise to social media infamy prompted intense interest into the longtime Texas tea party activist's work history, which was often condensed to reports that she'd once been arrested for stealing from a Texas J.C. Penney store, and that she collected unemployment insurance benefits while she was on the payroll of Senator Ted Cruz. The rumor about shoplifting was relatively well-established: Pierson herself openly discussed the incident during her early 2014 primary challenge for a U.S. House seat against incumbent Republican Rep. Pete Sessions: On and off the campaign trail, congressional candidate Katrina Pierson sometimes discusses the hardscrabble background that she says ultimately made her a conservative firebrand. The troubles in her youth, records show, included an arrest for shoplifting. In 1997, five days before her 21st birthday, Katrina Pierson, then named Katrina Lanette Shaddix, was arrested on a charge of theft of greater than $50 and less than $500. Pierson, who is running against Dallas Rep. Pete Sessions in the March 4 Republican primary, acknowledges the mistake. She told police then, and repeated recently, that she was talked into shoplifting by a friend. 'Like an idiot, I went along for the ride,' Pierson said in a recent interview. According to a Plano police report, Pierson said she and the woman with her, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, told police they needed the clothes for jobs they were trying to obtain. Pierson told police she was 'scared at first and did not want to go through with it.' Pierson exited the store with four items of clothing in a shoe box inside her shopping bag. They were valued at $168. The report said Pierson had her young son with her when the incident occurred ... Pierson, a tea party leader from Garland, said she knew her background would be open for scrutiny if she decided to take on Sessions, the powerful incumbent. The unemployment aspect of the rumor is harder to authenticate. Supposedly, Pierson was paid for working on Ted Cruz's 2012 U.S. Senate re-election campaign as an 'organizer' or 'spokeswoman' yet was also collecting unemployment benefits at that time. Pierson filed financial disclosure forms [PDF] covering the period from January 2012 to November 2013 and state that she received $11,440 from the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) during that time. Pierson played some role in Senator Ted Cruz's 2012 U.S. Senate re-election bid (she was variously described as 'campaigning with' Ted Cruz, being a campaign 'organizer,' or serving as a campaign 'spokeswman'), but it's unclear whether she received any compensation for that effort. Pierson's 2013 financial disclosure forms report no income obviously related to the Cruz campaign for 2012, and the listing of the $11,440 amount in the 'current year' column suggests that she received the unemployment insurance compensation in 2013 (and not while working for the Cruz campaign in 2012). Pierson's LinkedIn profile shows that she worked at Florida-based ASG Software Solutions until December 2012, and her disclosure form states that she received over $100,000 in salary from that company in 2012, so presumably the loss of that employment (for which Pierson blamed Obamacare) was what qualified her for unemployment insurance benefits: 'Not sure what the scandal is here,' [Pierson] told the Austin news website Quorum Report, which first reported the [unemployment] payments. 'A single mom getting child support loses her job because of Obamacare and had unemployment.' ASG did not respond to calls to confirm whether it laid off anyone because of potential costs under the Affordable Care Act. A few weeks before the 2012 elections, owner David Siegel, a Florida billionaire, warned employees by email that he would have to consider layoffs if President Barack Obama were re-elected. Pierson lost her House bid against Sessions in March 2014 and began work for a Tea Party Super PAC in August 2014: After Pierson lost her primary challenge, she took a job as a spokeswoman for the Tea Party Leadership Fund, which has been described in media reports as a 'scam PAC' for tactics that include spending unusually high percentages of its funding on overhead. 'We all have to pay the bills, but for Katrina, there is no principle that she isn't willing to abandon for the right price,' complained Matt Mackowiak, an unaligned Republican consultant from Texas. 'What price is that?' responded Pierson. 'Is there a price we can talk about, because I have worked my ass off at the grass roots since 2009 for zero dollars. It wasn't until I started working for the PAC that I was being paid for my time.' One Cruz ally, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid alienating Pierson, pointed to her work for the PAC as the sort of affiliation that would make her unappealing to the senator's campaign. In December 2015, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump signed Pierson as his new national spokeswoman. It's true that Katrina Pierson was arrested for shoplifting in 1997, but she hasn't attempted to hide that information, openly discussing it in multiple interviews as an example of her dealing with difficult circumstances in her early life. Allegations that Pierson was a 'welfare cheat' stem from claims that she was performing compensated work for Senator Ted Cruz's campaign while simultaneously receiving unemployment benefits in 2012, but we've found no evidence documenting such an overlap. | nan | [] |
Donald Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson was arrested for shoplifting and continued to collect unemployment benefits while working. | Neutral | On 13 August 2016 Donald Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson was the focus of the viral hashtag #KatrinaPiersonHistory over inaccurate statements she made during an appearance on CNN, prompting a groundswell of interest in resurrected rumors that Pierson was a 'shoplifter' and a 'welfare cheat.' Pierson's rise to social media infamy prompted intense interest into the longtime Texas tea party activist's work history, which was often condensed to reports that she'd once been arrested for stealing from a Texas J.C. Penney store, and that she collected unemployment insurance benefits while she was on the payroll of Senator Ted Cruz. The rumor about shoplifting was relatively well-established: Pierson herself openly discussed the incident during her early 2014 primary challenge for a U.S. House seat against incumbent Republican Rep. Pete Sessions: On and off the campaign trail, congressional candidate Katrina Pierson sometimes discusses the hardscrabble background that she says ultimately made her a conservative firebrand. The troubles in her youth, records show, included an arrest for shoplifting. In 1997, five days before her 21st birthday, Katrina Pierson, then named Katrina Lanette Shaddix, was arrested on a charge of theft of greater than $50 and less than $500. Pierson, who is running against Dallas Rep. Pete Sessions in the March 4 Republican primary, acknowledges the mistake. She told police then, and repeated recently, that she was talked into shoplifting by a friend. 'Like an idiot, I went along for the ride,' Pierson said in a recent interview. According to a Plano police report, Pierson said she and the woman with her, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, told police they needed the clothes for jobs they were trying to obtain. Pierson told police she was 'scared at first and did not want to go through with it.' Pierson exited the store with four items of clothing in a shoe box inside her shopping bag. They were valued at $168. The report said Pierson had her young son with her when the incident occurred ... Pierson, a tea party leader from Garland, said she knew her background would be open for scrutiny if she decided to take on Sessions, the powerful incumbent. The unemployment aspect of the rumor is harder to authenticate. Supposedly, Pierson was paid for working on Ted Cruz's 2012 U.S. Senate re-election campaign as an 'organizer' or 'spokeswoman' yet was also collecting unemployment benefits at that time. Pierson filed financial disclosure forms [PDF] covering the period from January 2012 to November 2013 and state that she received $11,440 from the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) during that time. Pierson played some role in Senator Ted Cruz's 2012 U.S. Senate re-election bid (she was variously described as 'campaigning with' Ted Cruz, being a campaign 'organizer,' or serving as a campaign 'spokeswman'), but it's unclear whether she received any compensation for that effort. Pierson's 2013 financial disclosure forms report no income obviously related to the Cruz campaign for 2012, and the listing of the $11,440 amount in the 'current year' column suggests that she received the unemployment insurance compensation in 2013 (and not while working for the Cruz campaign in 2012). Pierson's LinkedIn profile shows that she worked at Florida-based ASG Software Solutions until December 2012, and her disclosure form states that she received over $100,000 in salary from that company in 2012, so presumably the loss of that employment (for which Pierson blamed Obamacare) was what qualified her for unemployment insurance benefits: 'Not sure what the scandal is here,' [Pierson] told the Austin news website Quorum Report, which first reported the [unemployment] payments. 'A single mom getting child support loses her job because of Obamacare and had unemployment.' ASG did not respond to calls to confirm whether it laid off anyone because of potential costs under the Affordable Care Act. A few weeks before the 2012 elections, owner David Siegel, a Florida billionaire, warned employees by email that he would have to consider layoffs if President Barack Obama were re-elected. Pierson lost her House bid against Sessions in March 2014 and began work for a Tea Party Super PAC in August 2014: After Pierson lost her primary challenge, she took a job as a spokeswoman for the Tea Party Leadership Fund, which has been described in media reports as a 'scam PAC' for tactics that include spending unusually high percentages of its funding on overhead. 'We all have to pay the bills, but for Katrina, there is no principle that she isn't willing to abandon for the right price,' complained Matt Mackowiak, an unaligned Republican consultant from Texas. 'What price is that?' responded Pierson. 'Is there a price we can talk about, because I have worked my ass off at the grass roots since 2009 for zero dollars. It wasn't until I started working for the PAC that I was being paid for my time.' One Cruz ally, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid alienating Pierson, pointed to her work for the PAC as the sort of affiliation that would make her unappealing to the senator's campaign. In December 2015, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump signed Pierson as his new national spokeswoman. It's true that Katrina Pierson was arrested for shoplifting in 1997, but she hasn't attempted to hide that information, openly discussing it in multiple interviews as an example of her dealing with difficult circumstances in her early life. Allegations that Pierson was a 'welfare cheat' stem from claims that she was performing compensated work for Senator Ted Cruz's campaign while simultaneously receiving unemployment benefits in 2012, but we've found no evidence documenting such an overlap. | nan | [] |
The Obama administration disinvited Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer from the Marine Corps' 241st birthday ball in Kabul, Afghanistan, because he criticized the President. | Neutral | On 12 November 2016, the Tribunist web site reported that Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer (who is also the son-in-law of former Alaska governor Sarah Palin) had been invited to the Marine Corps' 241st birthday celebration at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, but his invitation was revoked by the Obama administration (or, at least, by a U.S. ambassador) at the last minute for political reasons: As arrangements were being finalized, however, the Medal of Honor recipient was told that he would not be able to come. Why? Because Meyer has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration. Ambassador P. Michael McKinley ordered his chief of mission to 'look into' the Medal of Honor recipient and, based on the report he was given about Meyer's political views, decided he would not allow Meyer to attend the ball inside the embassy. Meyer told us in a phone interview that 'I was told he doesn't like my position and comments on the administration, but those views are my right. Blocking access to the American embassy is his right as the ambassador.' Meyer, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for saving the lives of dozens of ambushed U.S. and Afghan soldiers in Kunar Province in 2009, was honorably discharged from the Marines in 2010. He co-wrote a book about his combat experiences, Into the Fire: A Firsthand Account of the Most Extraordinary Battle in the Afghan War, in 2012, and currently travels doing speaking engagements. Through a spokesperson, Meyer told snopes.com that the Tribunist account is accurate, though he would not reveal who told him that the decision against his attendance was based on political considerations to prevent retaliation against them. An official at the U.S. State Dept. gave us a different explanation, however, stating that the decision was taken for safety reasons. Embassy security officers felt that such a high-profile visitor would have put everyone in attendance at higher risk of attack (and, in fact, the Embassy was shut down a few days later after a suicide bomb attack on Bagram Airfield). The same official told snopes.com that the U.S. Mission in Kabul has the highest respect for Sgt. Meyer and would welcome a visit from him in the future under better security conditions. | nan | [] |
Temptations cat treats are causing renal failure in cats. | Neutral | On 29 February 2016, Punkin' Pawz Palace Cat Sanctuary published a since-deleted status update warning to Facebook, claiming: Mama Jo here, We've got a serious issue going on here and we want to get the word out. 12 of our babies have been basically poisoned by Temptations cat treats. They are vomiting, and 2 of them have bloody stools. They vet said they are all in various stages of renal failure, but said thankfully because we're so diligent in watching them, that we caught it early and they should recover, although 2 of them may develop chronic renal failure as a result. We arent out of the woods yet, but things seems to be looking up for all of them. I'm going to post a picture of the package these treats were in. Our vet said we arent the first to have issues with this treats, and because the FDA refuses to do anything, we wont be the last. We consider ourselves very lucky. Several cats have died as a result of the renal failure caused by these treats. Please keep a very close eye on your furbabies if you feed them Temptations cat treats. Please keep our babies in your thoughts and prayers. We still have a hard road a head of us in their recovery. The warning garnered tens of thousands of shares in a few days, causing alarm among cat owners. Several worried and angry users posted to the Facebook wall of Temptations and in response to one such comment, the brand stated they became aware of the claim on 2 March 2016: Thank you for sharing this link Sarah. This post was shared with us this morning by other consumers like you who are concerned. We've reached out to the sanctuary hoping to get a phone number so our pet health team can reach out directly. Rest assured our treats undergo hundreds of quality checks in our own facility before being shipped out for your cat to eat. We take all concerns seriously and encourage consumers to reach out to us at 800-525-5273 with any concerns or questions. The brand also addressed the claims on Twitter: @SethKateOutlaws @11kdk This site is not affiliated w/us. We encourage anyone w/concerns to contact us @ 800-525-5273 so we can learn more. - TemptationsTreats (@TemptationsCats) March 2, 2016 We checked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Animal & Veterinary Recalls & Withdrawals database for any information about Temptations cat treats, but were unable to locate any matching entries; a similar veterinarians' database of pet-related recalls listed no entries related to the product. Anecdotal reports of renal failure attributed to Temptations appeared on consumer complaint sites and were reproduced on cat owners' message boards, but those reports were unsubstantiated. When pets suddenly fall ill, their owners can be quick to blame the last food consumed or product to which they were exposed, but it's often difficult to figure out whether other factors were definitively ruled out, or how such a conclusion was reached. It's also not uncommon for claims to be repeated across multiple platforms, creating the impression of myriad reports based upon a single source rumor. When that happens, suspicious pet owners who turned to Google will infer that their concerns reflected a widespread pattern, rather than reiterations of widely repeated rumors. On 2 March 2016, the page deleted the Temptations cat treats warning and stated: UPDATE: Due to the overwhelming response to my post about what happened to MY cats, and just simply trying to share information from MY vet, I've decided to take down the original post. I cannot keep up with the thread and my babies care comes first. I will update here when the analysis comes back for those who are interested. The original posts intention was to share information about what I had learned from my vet about my cats and what had happened to them. I was hoping that people would see that sharing information is supposed to be just that:informative. All I asked was to watch your babies closely and for well wishes for my babies. I NEVER said to stop feeding them Temptations treats. I left that decision to other pet parents to decide for themselves. Thank you to those who have voiced concern for my cats. They are all showing improvement. We were unable to turn up any substantiated complaints of renal failure in cats attributed to (or deemed likely caused by) Temptations treats. On 3 March 2016, Temptations responded to our query, noting that the pet snacks were manufactured in Canada (not China, as many Facebook users speculated) and thus subject to stringent oversight: Thank you for the message. We believe that pets are family, and the safety of all pets is our first priority. We are confident that our Temptations Treats are 100% safe to feed. Temptations Treats are made in our own facility in Canada where they undergo hundreds of safety and quality checks each day. We have reached out directly to Punkin' Pawz Palace Cat Sanctuary. Our high safety and quality standards give us full confidence that Temptations Treats are safe and nutritious to feed. We encourage consumers with questions to contact us at 1-800-525-5273. | nan | [] |
Temptations cat treats are causing renal failure in cats. | Neutral | On 29 February 2016, Punkin' Pawz Palace Cat Sanctuary published a since-deleted status update warning to Facebook, claiming: Mama Jo here, We've got a serious issue going on here and we want to get the word out. 12 of our babies have been basically poisoned by Temptations cat treats. They are vomiting, and 2 of them have bloody stools. They vet said they are all in various stages of renal failure, but said thankfully because we're so diligent in watching them, that we caught it early and they should recover, although 2 of them may develop chronic renal failure as a result. We arent out of the woods yet, but things seems to be looking up for all of them. I'm going to post a picture of the package these treats were in. Our vet said we arent the first to have issues with this treats, and because the FDA refuses to do anything, we wont be the last. We consider ourselves very lucky. Several cats have died as a result of the renal failure caused by these treats. Please keep a very close eye on your furbabies if you feed them Temptations cat treats. Please keep our babies in your thoughts and prayers. We still have a hard road a head of us in their recovery. The warning garnered tens of thousands of shares in a few days, causing alarm among cat owners. Several worried and angry users posted to the Facebook wall of Temptations and in response to one such comment, the brand stated they became aware of the claim on 2 March 2016: Thank you for sharing this link Sarah. This post was shared with us this morning by other consumers like you who are concerned. We've reached out to the sanctuary hoping to get a phone number so our pet health team can reach out directly. Rest assured our treats undergo hundreds of quality checks in our own facility before being shipped out for your cat to eat. We take all concerns seriously and encourage consumers to reach out to us at 800-525-5273 with any concerns or questions. The brand also addressed the claims on Twitter: @SethKateOutlaws @11kdk This site is not affiliated w/us. We encourage anyone w/concerns to contact us @ 800-525-5273 so we can learn more. - TemptationsTreats (@TemptationsCats) March 2, 2016 We checked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Animal & Veterinary Recalls & Withdrawals database for any information about Temptations cat treats, but were unable to locate any matching entries; a similar veterinarians' database of pet-related recalls listed no entries related to the product. Anecdotal reports of renal failure attributed to Temptations appeared on consumer complaint sites and were reproduced on cat owners' message boards, but those reports were unsubstantiated. When pets suddenly fall ill, their owners can be quick to blame the last food consumed or product to which they were exposed, but it's often difficult to figure out whether other factors were definitively ruled out, or how such a conclusion was reached. It's also not uncommon for claims to be repeated across multiple platforms, creating the impression of myriad reports based upon a single source rumor. When that happens, suspicious pet owners who turned to Google will infer that their concerns reflected a widespread pattern, rather than reiterations of widely repeated rumors. On 2 March 2016, the page deleted the Temptations cat treats warning and stated: UPDATE: Due to the overwhelming response to my post about what happened to MY cats, and just simply trying to share information from MY vet, I've decided to take down the original post. I cannot keep up with the thread and my babies care comes first. I will update here when the analysis comes back for those who are interested. The original posts intention was to share information about what I had learned from my vet about my cats and what had happened to them. I was hoping that people would see that sharing information is supposed to be just that:informative. All I asked was to watch your babies closely and for well wishes for my babies. I NEVER said to stop feeding them Temptations treats. I left that decision to other pet parents to decide for themselves. Thank you to those who have voiced concern for my cats. They are all showing improvement. We were unable to turn up any substantiated complaints of renal failure in cats attributed to (or deemed likely caused by) Temptations treats. On 3 March 2016, Temptations responded to our query, noting that the pet snacks were manufactured in Canada (not China, as many Facebook users speculated) and thus subject to stringent oversight: Thank you for the message. We believe that pets are family, and the safety of all pets is our first priority. We are confident that our Temptations Treats are 100% safe to feed. Temptations Treats are made in our own facility in Canada where they undergo hundreds of safety and quality checks each day. We have reached out directly to Punkin' Pawz Palace Cat Sanctuary. Our high safety and quality standards give us full confidence that Temptations Treats are safe and nutritious to feed. We encourage consumers with questions to contact us at 1-800-525-5273. | nan | [] |
Temptations cat treats are causing renal failure in cats. | Neutral | On 29 February 2016, Punkin' Pawz Palace Cat Sanctuary published a since-deleted status update warning to Facebook, claiming: Mama Jo here, We've got a serious issue going on here and we want to get the word out. 12 of our babies have been basically poisoned by Temptations cat treats. They are vomiting, and 2 of them have bloody stools. They vet said they are all in various stages of renal failure, but said thankfully because we're so diligent in watching them, that we caught it early and they should recover, although 2 of them may develop chronic renal failure as a result. We arent out of the woods yet, but things seems to be looking up for all of them. I'm going to post a picture of the package these treats were in. Our vet said we arent the first to have issues with this treats, and because the FDA refuses to do anything, we wont be the last. We consider ourselves very lucky. Several cats have died as a result of the renal failure caused by these treats. Please keep a very close eye on your furbabies if you feed them Temptations cat treats. Please keep our babies in your thoughts and prayers. We still have a hard road a head of us in their recovery. The warning garnered tens of thousands of shares in a few days, causing alarm among cat owners. Several worried and angry users posted to the Facebook wall of Temptations and in response to one such comment, the brand stated they became aware of the claim on 2 March 2016: Thank you for sharing this link Sarah. This post was shared with us this morning by other consumers like you who are concerned. We've reached out to the sanctuary hoping to get a phone number so our pet health team can reach out directly. Rest assured our treats undergo hundreds of quality checks in our own facility before being shipped out for your cat to eat. We take all concerns seriously and encourage consumers to reach out to us at 800-525-5273 with any concerns or questions. The brand also addressed the claims on Twitter: @SethKateOutlaws @11kdk This site is not affiliated w/us. We encourage anyone w/concerns to contact us @ 800-525-5273 so we can learn more. - TemptationsTreats (@TemptationsCats) March 2, 2016 We checked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Animal & Veterinary Recalls & Withdrawals database for any information about Temptations cat treats, but were unable to locate any matching entries; a similar veterinarians' database of pet-related recalls listed no entries related to the product. Anecdotal reports of renal failure attributed to Temptations appeared on consumer complaint sites and were reproduced on cat owners' message boards, but those reports were unsubstantiated. When pets suddenly fall ill, their owners can be quick to blame the last food consumed or product to which they were exposed, but it's often difficult to figure out whether other factors were definitively ruled out, or how such a conclusion was reached. It's also not uncommon for claims to be repeated across multiple platforms, creating the impression of myriad reports based upon a single source rumor. When that happens, suspicious pet owners who turned to Google will infer that their concerns reflected a widespread pattern, rather than reiterations of widely repeated rumors. On 2 March 2016, the page deleted the Temptations cat treats warning and stated: UPDATE: Due to the overwhelming response to my post about what happened to MY cats, and just simply trying to share information from MY vet, I've decided to take down the original post. I cannot keep up with the thread and my babies care comes first. I will update here when the analysis comes back for those who are interested. The original posts intention was to share information about what I had learned from my vet about my cats and what had happened to them. I was hoping that people would see that sharing information is supposed to be just that:informative. All I asked was to watch your babies closely and for well wishes for my babies. I NEVER said to stop feeding them Temptations treats. I left that decision to other pet parents to decide for themselves. Thank you to those who have voiced concern for my cats. They are all showing improvement. We were unable to turn up any substantiated complaints of renal failure in cats attributed to (or deemed likely caused by) Temptations treats. On 3 March 2016, Temptations responded to our query, noting that the pet snacks were manufactured in Canada (not China, as many Facebook users speculated) and thus subject to stringent oversight: Thank you for the message. We believe that pets are family, and the safety of all pets is our first priority. We are confident that our Temptations Treats are 100% safe to feed. Temptations Treats are made in our own facility in Canada where they undergo hundreds of safety and quality checks each day. We have reached out directly to Punkin' Pawz Palace Cat Sanctuary. Our high safety and quality standards give us full confidence that Temptations Treats are safe and nutritious to feed. We encourage consumers with questions to contact us at 1-800-525-5273. | nan | [] |
Temptations cat treats are causing renal failure in cats. | Neutral | On 29 February 2016, Punkin' Pawz Palace Cat Sanctuary published a since-deleted status update warning to Facebook, claiming: Mama Jo here, We've got a serious issue going on here and we want to get the word out. 12 of our babies have been basically poisoned by Temptations cat treats. They are vomiting, and 2 of them have bloody stools. They vet said they are all in various stages of renal failure, but said thankfully because we're so diligent in watching them, that we caught it early and they should recover, although 2 of them may develop chronic renal failure as a result. We arent out of the woods yet, but things seems to be looking up for all of them. I'm going to post a picture of the package these treats were in. Our vet said we arent the first to have issues with this treats, and because the FDA refuses to do anything, we wont be the last. We consider ourselves very lucky. Several cats have died as a result of the renal failure caused by these treats. Please keep a very close eye on your furbabies if you feed them Temptations cat treats. Please keep our babies in your thoughts and prayers. We still have a hard road a head of us in their recovery. The warning garnered tens of thousands of shares in a few days, causing alarm among cat owners. Several worried and angry users posted to the Facebook wall of Temptations and in response to one such comment, the brand stated they became aware of the claim on 2 March 2016: Thank you for sharing this link Sarah. This post was shared with us this morning by other consumers like you who are concerned. We've reached out to the sanctuary hoping to get a phone number so our pet health team can reach out directly. Rest assured our treats undergo hundreds of quality checks in our own facility before being shipped out for your cat to eat. We take all concerns seriously and encourage consumers to reach out to us at 800-525-5273 with any concerns or questions. The brand also addressed the claims on Twitter: @SethKateOutlaws @11kdk This site is not affiliated w/us. We encourage anyone w/concerns to contact us @ 800-525-5273 so we can learn more. - TemptationsTreats (@TemptationsCats) March 2, 2016 We checked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Animal & Veterinary Recalls & Withdrawals database for any information about Temptations cat treats, but were unable to locate any matching entries; a similar veterinarians' database of pet-related recalls listed no entries related to the product. Anecdotal reports of renal failure attributed to Temptations appeared on consumer complaint sites and were reproduced on cat owners' message boards, but those reports were unsubstantiated. When pets suddenly fall ill, their owners can be quick to blame the last food consumed or product to which they were exposed, but it's often difficult to figure out whether other factors were definitively ruled out, or how such a conclusion was reached. It's also not uncommon for claims to be repeated across multiple platforms, creating the impression of myriad reports based upon a single source rumor. When that happens, suspicious pet owners who turned to Google will infer that their concerns reflected a widespread pattern, rather than reiterations of widely repeated rumors. On 2 March 2016, the page deleted the Temptations cat treats warning and stated: UPDATE: Due to the overwhelming response to my post about what happened to MY cats, and just simply trying to share information from MY vet, I've decided to take down the original post. I cannot keep up with the thread and my babies care comes first. I will update here when the analysis comes back for those who are interested. The original posts intention was to share information about what I had learned from my vet about my cats and what had happened to them. I was hoping that people would see that sharing information is supposed to be just that:informative. All I asked was to watch your babies closely and for well wishes for my babies. I NEVER said to stop feeding them Temptations treats. I left that decision to other pet parents to decide for themselves. Thank you to those who have voiced concern for my cats. They are all showing improvement. We were unable to turn up any substantiated complaints of renal failure in cats attributed to (or deemed likely caused by) Temptations treats. On 3 March 2016, Temptations responded to our query, noting that the pet snacks were manufactured in Canada (not China, as many Facebook users speculated) and thus subject to stringent oversight: Thank you for the message. We believe that pets are family, and the safety of all pets is our first priority. We are confident that our Temptations Treats are 100% safe to feed. Temptations Treats are made in our own facility in Canada where they undergo hundreds of safety and quality checks each day. We have reached out directly to Punkin' Pawz Palace Cat Sanctuary. Our high safety and quality standards give us full confidence that Temptations Treats are safe and nutritious to feed. We encourage consumers with questions to contact us at 1-800-525-5273. | nan | [] |
Temptations cat treats are causing renal failure in cats. | Neutral | On 29 February 2016, Punkin' Pawz Palace Cat Sanctuary published a since-deleted status update warning to Facebook, claiming: Mama Jo here, We've got a serious issue going on here and we want to get the word out. 12 of our babies have been basically poisoned by Temptations cat treats. They are vomiting, and 2 of them have bloody stools. They vet said they are all in various stages of renal failure, but said thankfully because we're so diligent in watching them, that we caught it early and they should recover, although 2 of them may develop chronic renal failure as a result. We arent out of the woods yet, but things seems to be looking up for all of them. I'm going to post a picture of the package these treats were in. Our vet said we arent the first to have issues with this treats, and because the FDA refuses to do anything, we wont be the last. We consider ourselves very lucky. Several cats have died as a result of the renal failure caused by these treats. Please keep a very close eye on your furbabies if you feed them Temptations cat treats. Please keep our babies in your thoughts and prayers. We still have a hard road a head of us in their recovery. The warning garnered tens of thousands of shares in a few days, causing alarm among cat owners. Several worried and angry users posted to the Facebook wall of Temptations and in response to one such comment, the brand stated they became aware of the claim on 2 March 2016: Thank you for sharing this link Sarah. This post was shared with us this morning by other consumers like you who are concerned. We've reached out to the sanctuary hoping to get a phone number so our pet health team can reach out directly. Rest assured our treats undergo hundreds of quality checks in our own facility before being shipped out for your cat to eat. We take all concerns seriously and encourage consumers to reach out to us at 800-525-5273 with any concerns or questions. The brand also addressed the claims on Twitter: @SethKateOutlaws @11kdk This site is not affiliated w/us. We encourage anyone w/concerns to contact us @ 800-525-5273 so we can learn more. - TemptationsTreats (@TemptationsCats) March 2, 2016 We checked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Animal & Veterinary Recalls & Withdrawals database for any information about Temptations cat treats, but were unable to locate any matching entries; a similar veterinarians' database of pet-related recalls listed no entries related to the product. Anecdotal reports of renal failure attributed to Temptations appeared on consumer complaint sites and were reproduced on cat owners' message boards, but those reports were unsubstantiated. When pets suddenly fall ill, their owners can be quick to blame the last food consumed or product to which they were exposed, but it's often difficult to figure out whether other factors were definitively ruled out, or how such a conclusion was reached. It's also not uncommon for claims to be repeated across multiple platforms, creating the impression of myriad reports based upon a single source rumor. When that happens, suspicious pet owners who turned to Google will infer that their concerns reflected a widespread pattern, rather than reiterations of widely repeated rumors. On 2 March 2016, the page deleted the Temptations cat treats warning and stated: UPDATE: Due to the overwhelming response to my post about what happened to MY cats, and just simply trying to share information from MY vet, I've decided to take down the original post. I cannot keep up with the thread and my babies care comes first. I will update here when the analysis comes back for those who are interested. The original posts intention was to share information about what I had learned from my vet about my cats and what had happened to them. I was hoping that people would see that sharing information is supposed to be just that:informative. All I asked was to watch your babies closely and for well wishes for my babies. I NEVER said to stop feeding them Temptations treats. I left that decision to other pet parents to decide for themselves. Thank you to those who have voiced concern for my cats. They are all showing improvement. We were unable to turn up any substantiated complaints of renal failure in cats attributed to (or deemed likely caused by) Temptations treats. On 3 March 2016, Temptations responded to our query, noting that the pet snacks were manufactured in Canada (not China, as many Facebook users speculated) and thus subject to stringent oversight: Thank you for the message. We believe that pets are family, and the safety of all pets is our first priority. We are confident that our Temptations Treats are 100% safe to feed. Temptations Treats are made in our own facility in Canada where they undergo hundreds of safety and quality checks each day. We have reached out directly to Punkin' Pawz Palace Cat Sanctuary. Our high safety and quality standards give us full confidence that Temptations Treats are safe and nutritious to feed. We encourage consumers with questions to contact us at 1-800-525-5273. | nan | [] |
A CVS drug store refused a customer's Puerto Rican driver's license when he was asked to show ID and demanded immigration papers. | Neutral | Drug store chain CVS apologized after employees in West Lafayette, Indiana, mistakenly refused to accept a college student's Puerto Rican driver's license when he tried to purchase cold medicine in late October 2019, prompting snowballing internet outrage that became national news. The incident resulted from pervasive ignorance of the fact that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and its residents are Americans. In an impassioned Facebook post that went viral, the student's mother lashed out, writing, 'For those of you who don't know, we are a United States Territory,' Arlene Payano Burgos wrote in frustration on Oct. 25, 2019. 'Everyone born in Puerto Rico is born a United States Citizen. Puerto Rican men and women have served in every major war that the United States has fought in, including the American Revolution. Puerto Rican soldiers have served and died fighting for 'The great American Nation.'' That post went viral and has been seen and shared thousands of times, prompting CVS to both apologize and state that employees will be reminded that identifications issued in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico are valid. The incident started when Purdue University junior Jose Guzman Payano, an engineering major, fell ill and went to CVS in search of the cold medication Mucinex on Oct. 25, 2019. Because some cold medicines like Mucinex contain dextromethorphan, which can be abused, CVS requires that anyone seeking to purchase the product must provide identification. When Guzman Payano did so, the CVS employee mistakenly refused his driver's license because it was issued in Puerto Rico. When he asked to speak to a store manager, he got the same response. CVS took responsibility for the employees' error, apologized, stated the incident was isolated, and noted that all employees will be reminded that valid forms of ID include licenses issued in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico. After investigating the incident, CVS stated it found no evidence that its employees interrogated Guzman Payano about his immigration status but rather that, that aspect of the accusation was the result of a misunderstanding. The chain of events was as follows: In an emotional Facebook post on Oct. 25, 2019, Burgos wrote that her son called her after attempting to buy cold medicine at CVS, telling her his Puerto Rico-issued identification was refused. Burgos wrote, 'When [the cashier] saw the license she then asked him for his visa, and started confronting him about his immigration status.' Burgos continued, 'I guess I should be thankful that he wasn't thrown in the back of an ICE van and interrogated, or worse. I can't help to be ANGRY, OUTRAGED, and DISGUSTED. The current issues we are experiencing in the United States related to immigration, ICE raids, and rampant racism are directly fueled disgracefully by President Trump. What happened to my son today is not unlike what many other families have had to face since Trump was sworn into office and it's completely unacceptable. Enough is enough. The men that signed the Declaration of Independence stated that all men are created equal. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves.' After going viral the story was picked up by the local news media and before long it became national news. Dystopian headlines reported a chilling event in which a routine trip to the drugstore turned into a 'show-me-your-papers' nightmare, playing on underlying societal anxiety and anger over President Donald Trump's hostile stance on immigration. The story sparked such headlines as, 'CVS rejects Purdue student's Puerto Rican ID, asks for immigration papers to buy cold medicine.' Another read, 'Student: CVS workers rejected Puerto Rico ID, asked for visa.' Speaking to the Lafayette Journal & Courier, Guzman Payano said he ended up with a case of bronchitis and was only able to get medicine for it when a friend drove him to another drugstore. Guzman Payano, who has been in West Lafayette since the start of the fall 2017 semester, said he was a weekly customer at the CVS store at 720 Northwestern Ave., on the ground floor for the Fuse building. It was close to campus, he said, and he'd be able to pick up a few other things while he was there. He said he rang up the items in a self-scan checkout and waited for a store clerk when the machine's screen noted that an ID check was required for the cold medicine. When he showed his ID - one that met the Real ID criteria - a clerk told him it wasn't enough. 'She said I needed a visa,' Guzman Payano said. 'I tried to explain that Puerto Rico was part of the United States. I didn't need a visa or anything. She just said the same thing three times.' He said he had his U.S. passport, so he showed that, with no luck. He said the store employee told him he still needed to see some sort of immigration status before he could buy the cold medicine. 'That's when I realized what was happening,' he said. 'It wasn't worth talking anymore.' When questioned about this aspect of the story, CVS sent Snopes a follow-up statement acknowledging that U.S. passports are also valid forms of identification. But employees typically don't handle customers' passports and will instead ask the customer to locate the page with the needed information, the store said, which may have been interpreted by Guzman Payano as the employee demanding his immigration information. 'CVS accepts US passports as valid identification,' the CVS statement said. 'Our employees will typically ask a customer using a US passport to open it to the page showing date of birth so that employees are not opening it themselves and viewing other personal information. We regret the reason for this request may have been misunderstood by our customer in West Lafayette.' Burgos seemed to put a close to the affair with a Nov. 3 Facebook post thanking people for their support but also admonishing others not to take their anger out on CVS employees: My family and I are so grateful for the outpouring of support and love we have received following my post regarding the incident that happened with my son at CVS. I can't thank everyone enough for that but we would like to ask that we all remember to treat each other with respect. Furthermore I ask that no one harass or threaten any CVS staff in relation to this incident. Let's all be the better person in this situation. Thank you all again for the support and love for my family. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but a 2017 poll found that almost half of Americans were unaware of that fact. | nan | [
"02659-proof-02-GettyImages-1146666396.jpg"
] |
A CVS drug store refused a customer's Puerto Rican driver's license when he was asked to show ID and demanded immigration papers. | Neutral | Drug store chain CVS apologized after employees in West Lafayette, Indiana, mistakenly refused to accept a college student's Puerto Rican driver's license when he tried to purchase cold medicine in late October 2019, prompting snowballing internet outrage that became national news. The incident resulted from pervasive ignorance of the fact that Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and its residents are Americans. In an impassioned Facebook post that went viral, the student's mother lashed out, writing, 'For those of you who don't know, we are a United States Territory,' Arlene Payano Burgos wrote in frustration on Oct. 25, 2019. 'Everyone born in Puerto Rico is born a United States Citizen. Puerto Rican men and women have served in every major war that the United States has fought in, including the American Revolution. Puerto Rican soldiers have served and died fighting for 'The great American Nation.'' That post went viral and has been seen and shared thousands of times, prompting CVS to both apologize and state that employees will be reminded that identifications issued in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico are valid. The incident started when Purdue University junior Jose Guzman Payano, an engineering major, fell ill and went to CVS in search of the cold medication Mucinex on Oct. 25, 2019. Because some cold medicines like Mucinex contain dextromethorphan, which can be abused, CVS requires that anyone seeking to purchase the product must provide identification. When Guzman Payano did so, the CVS employee mistakenly refused his driver's license because it was issued in Puerto Rico. When he asked to speak to a store manager, he got the same response. CVS took responsibility for the employees' error, apologized, stated the incident was isolated, and noted that all employees will be reminded that valid forms of ID include licenses issued in U.S. territories like Puerto Rico. After investigating the incident, CVS stated it found no evidence that its employees interrogated Guzman Payano about his immigration status but rather that, that aspect of the accusation was the result of a misunderstanding. The chain of events was as follows: In an emotional Facebook post on Oct. 25, 2019, Burgos wrote that her son called her after attempting to buy cold medicine at CVS, telling her his Puerto Rico-issued identification was refused. Burgos wrote, 'When [the cashier] saw the license she then asked him for his visa, and started confronting him about his immigration status.' Burgos continued, 'I guess I should be thankful that he wasn't thrown in the back of an ICE van and interrogated, or worse. I can't help to be ANGRY, OUTRAGED, and DISGUSTED. The current issues we are experiencing in the United States related to immigration, ICE raids, and rampant racism are directly fueled disgracefully by President Trump. What happened to my son today is not unlike what many other families have had to face since Trump was sworn into office and it's completely unacceptable. Enough is enough. The men that signed the Declaration of Independence stated that all men are created equal. Our founding fathers must be rolling over in their graves.' After going viral the story was picked up by the local news media and before long it became national news. Dystopian headlines reported a chilling event in which a routine trip to the drugstore turned into a 'show-me-your-papers' nightmare, playing on underlying societal anxiety and anger over President Donald Trump's hostile stance on immigration. The story sparked such headlines as, 'CVS rejects Purdue student's Puerto Rican ID, asks for immigration papers to buy cold medicine.' Another read, 'Student: CVS workers rejected Puerto Rico ID, asked for visa.' Speaking to the Lafayette Journal & Courier, Guzman Payano said he ended up with a case of bronchitis and was only able to get medicine for it when a friend drove him to another drugstore. Guzman Payano, who has been in West Lafayette since the start of the fall 2017 semester, said he was a weekly customer at the CVS store at 720 Northwestern Ave., on the ground floor for the Fuse building. It was close to campus, he said, and he'd be able to pick up a few other things while he was there. He said he rang up the items in a self-scan checkout and waited for a store clerk when the machine's screen noted that an ID check was required for the cold medicine. When he showed his ID - one that met the Real ID criteria - a clerk told him it wasn't enough. 'She said I needed a visa,' Guzman Payano said. 'I tried to explain that Puerto Rico was part of the United States. I didn't need a visa or anything. She just said the same thing three times.' He said he had his U.S. passport, so he showed that, with no luck. He said the store employee told him he still needed to see some sort of immigration status before he could buy the cold medicine. 'That's when I realized what was happening,' he said. 'It wasn't worth talking anymore.' When questioned about this aspect of the story, CVS sent Snopes a follow-up statement acknowledging that U.S. passports are also valid forms of identification. But employees typically don't handle customers' passports and will instead ask the customer to locate the page with the needed information, the store said, which may have been interpreted by Guzman Payano as the employee demanding his immigration information. 'CVS accepts US passports as valid identification,' the CVS statement said. 'Our employees will typically ask a customer using a US passport to open it to the page showing date of birth so that employees are not opening it themselves and viewing other personal information. We regret the reason for this request may have been misunderstood by our customer in West Lafayette.' Burgos seemed to put a close to the affair with a Nov. 3 Facebook post thanking people for their support but also admonishing others not to take their anger out on CVS employees: My family and I are so grateful for the outpouring of support and love we have received following my post regarding the incident that happened with my son at CVS. I can't thank everyone enough for that but we would like to ask that we all remember to treat each other with respect. Furthermore I ask that no one harass or threaten any CVS staff in relation to this incident. Let's all be the better person in this situation. Thank you all again for the support and love for my family. Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since 1917, but a 2017 poll found that almost half of Americans were unaware of that fact. | nan | [
"02659-proof-02-GettyImages-1146666396.jpg"
] |
The current term of U.S. President Donald Trump will end when the Electoral College votes on Dec. 14, 2020, a day marked in some parts of the world that coincided with a comet, meteor shower, and total eclipse of the sun. | Neutral | 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. As electors in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia vote to formally certify Joe Biden as the next president of the United States, a number of celestial events are expected to occur in skies around the world. In particular, it was reported in Forbes that U.S. President Donald Trump's first and only term was expected to end on the same day that a comet, a meteor shower and a total eclipse of the sun would occur. The idea took off on the internet when social media users on both sides of the political aisle made jabs at the serendipitous timing. Watching @Timcast tonight December 14th: Electors vote Geminid Meteor shower Solar eclipse Erasmus Comet December 21st- The 'Great Conjuction of 2020' when Jupiter and Saturn appear to merge and form the Christmas Star Me: pic.twitter.com/wq97QvA26d - ΣGΛП (@EganFerg) December 12, 2020 While there is some truth to this claim, there are important nuances worth noting. Namely, Trump's presidency does not technically end on Dec. 14, 2020. And while these sky events are expected to coincide with the electoral college vote in parts of the world, it is unlikely that U.S. viewers will be able to capture a glimpse of all three. The Transfer of Power From Trump to Biden According to a report compiled by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) outlining the 2020 presidential election and its requirements under the U.S. Constitution and Code, Dec. 14 does not officially mark the transition of power from Trump to Biden. Rather, Dec. 14 marks the day electors will hold meetings in their respective states to vote for the president and vice president, after which they will seal Certificates of Votes to the Office of the Federal Register and Congress. Following the electoral vote on Dec. 14, the governors of each state are required to certify the election results and send them to Congress, with a deadline of Dec. 23. On Jan. 6, 2021, Congress will meet to count the electoral votes - a winner must have at least 270 - and officially announce the newly elected president and vice president of the United States. At noon on Jan. 20, 2021, Biden, the president-elect, and Harris, the vice-president-elect, are expected to be sworn into office. Three 'Rare' Sky Events The Forbes article referred to the Dec. 14 sky events as 'rare,' which is only partly true. With an annual peak in mid-December, the Geminids meteor shower is considered one of the best and most reliable such displays, according to NASA. In 2020, the Geminids are active between Dec. 4 and 17 with an estimated 120 meteors seen each hour under perfect conditions. Because these showers are visible around the planet, skygazers can expect to see their bright, yellowish colors dashing through the sky beginning around 9 or 10 p.m. local time and lasting until dawn. A second event mentioned in the article is the appearance of Comet C/2020 S3, also known as Erasmus, a comet discovered by astronomer Nicolas Erasmus in September 2020. Erasmus had a high elevation from mid-October to mid-November, which would have been the best time to view the comet. However, it lost elevation into mid-December, making it difficult to see, according to the space and astronomy news site Universe Today. The comet does reach its closest point to the sun on Dec. 14, a phenomenon known as perihelion, and is considered visible around the world until the early morning hours of Dec. 15. So, while there is a chance that sky-watchers might catch a glimpse of Erasmus, those chances are slim. Finally, the last solar eclipse of 2020 does, in fact, occur on Dec. 14, but it is only visible in its entirety in select parts of Chile and Argentina in the afternoon. Partial phases can also be seen in parts of southern South America, southwestern Africa, and Antarctica - weather permitting. A solar eclipse happens during the daytime and takes place when the moon passes directly between the sun and Earth, blocking the light of the sun. Solar eclipses are relatively uncommon, but they're not rare. According to NASA, a solar eclipse occurs once every 18 months in a specific region and lasts for just a few minutes. The next total solar eclipse will occur on Dec. 4, 2021, but you'll have to travel to Antarctica to view it. | nan | [
"02674-proof-09-GettyImages-836436498.jpg"
] |
U.S. President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett said that women should not be able to own, buy, or sell property without the permission of their husband or a male relative. | Neutral | In the wake of the September 2020 death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon described as a pioneer for women's rights, U.S. President Donald Trump rushed to fill her vacant Supreme Court seat less than two months shy of the 2020 general election. Trump's Sept. 26 nomination of conservative-leaning Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic professor of law at the University of Notre Dame who sat on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, sparked controversy and ignited the internet rumor mills. Among those rumors was the claim that 48-year-old Barrett (who is inexplicably referred to as 'Amy Barrett Cohen' in memes such as the one below) said women should not be able to own, buy or sell property without the permission of their husband or male relative. Barrett is affiliated with People of Praise, a self-described 'charismatic Christian community' whose teachings include the notion that 'husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority over the family.' Since her widely publicized nomination, memes and social media reports of Barrett's membership in the group sparked concern on social media over whether her religious leanings would influence her judicial rulings. A September 2017 article in The New York Times first reported that Barrett was one of 1,700 members in the small, tight-knit group, whose practices include swearing a 'lifelong oath of loyalty' - or covenant - to one another, which some legal scholars argued could raise questions about independence and impartiality in the courtroom. Despite evidence indicating longstanding ties between Barrett, her family, and People of Praise, neither she nor the group has publicly commented on their reported affiliation. In September 2020, People of Praise website noted that the commitment is one made freely by its members: Our community life is grounded in a lifelong promise of love and service to fellow community members. This covenant commitment, which establishes our relationships as members of the People of Praise community, is made freely and only after a period of discernment lasting several years. Our covenant is neither an oath nor a vow, but it is an important personal commitment. We teach that People of Praise members should always follow their consciences, as formed by the light of reason, and by the experience and the teachings of their churches. A Sept. 29 investigation conducted by The Associated Press found that the faith group had scrubbed all mention and photographs of Barrett from its website in advance of her anticipated meetings with lawmakers. Sean Connolly, communications director of People of Praise, confirmed in an email to the publication that information had been wiped from the website. 'Recent changes to our website were made in consultation with members and nonmembers from around the country who raised concerns about their and their families' privacy due to heightened media attention,' Connolly said. Snopes contacted Connolly, who agreed to an interview over email but did not respond to our questions at the time of publication. We also contacted the University of Notre Dame and were redirected to the White House Communications Office, but our interview request there also went unanswered. If we receive a response, we will update this article. A story written by The Guardian went one step further when it speculated that the implications of a pro-life, conservative, and religious judge could be 'far-reaching,' and may threaten a 'life free of discrimination at work and school, or when buying property,' particularly for women. A journal article that was co-written by Barrett in 1997 titled Catholic Judges in Capital Cases compared abortion to euthanasia, a process often used in the death penalty, in particular, noting that the 'Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind.' The paper further argued that prohibitions on abortion and euthanasia are 'absolute' because they 'take away innocent life.' In 2012, Barrett signed a petition condemning the Obama administration's requirement of employers to provide employees birth control regardless of religious affiliation, according to a profile written by SCOTUSblog, a non-biased blog devoted to covering the U.S. Supreme Court. Supporters of Barrett have called her a 'model of the fair, impartial and sympathetic judge' while those who oppose her viewpoints argue that her religious affiliation will influence her legal decisions, particularly those regarding abortion and the speculated reversal of Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act. Barrett has contended that her religious affiliations will not influence her court decisions, and during her nomination acceptance speech on Sept. 26 in the White House Rose Garden (see video below), she acknowledged the parallels between her application of law with former Justice Antonin Scalia, whom she spent two decades clerking for. 'His judicial philosophy is mine too: A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold,' Barrett said, adding that she 'would discharge the judicial oath, which requires me to administer justice without respect to persons, do equal right to the poor and rich, and faithfully and impartially discharge my duties under the United States Constitution.' The Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary of the American Bar Association conducted its independent and comprehensive peer review of Barrett and determined that she was a 'well qualified' fit for the lifelong position of Supreme Court justice. The Republican-majority Senate began four days of confirmation hearings on Oct. 12 and confirmed Barrett to the position on Oct. 26.Recent Updates Update [Oct. 27, 2020]: This article was updated to reflect the ABA's rating of Barrett, as well as the new justice's confirmation to the Supreme Court. | nan | [] |
A male penguin searches an entire beach for the 'perfect pebble' to lay at the feet of his chosen female penguin. | Neutral | A popular 'Did you know?'-style assertion holds that penguin mating rituals closely mimic human courtship, in that the male's finding just the right symbolic gift to present to his female of choice is of the utmost importance: When a male penguin falls in love with a female penguin, he searches the entire beach to find the perfect pebble to present her. When he finally finds it, he waddles over to her and places the pebble right in front of her. It is like a proposal. According to the story (which can be found on multiple amusing, if not very credible, fact-based social media accounts as well in the 2007 film Good Luck, Chuck), when male penguins fall in love, they search an entire beach for the 'perfect pebble.' (No specific criteria determine what makes a pebble 'perfect' by penguin standards, such as size or color.) After evaluating every pebble on the beach, the courting male penguin then lays the prize at the feet of his selected mate, a rite that is typically framed as an avian version of the human custom of engagement rings. Marine life theme park franchise SeaWorld maintains a virtual exhibit on penguins, part of which chronicles their mating habits. While pebbles do get a mention in that exhibit, it does not describe the stones' supposed perfection as having much to do with the process of wooing a mate: [Adélie penguins] build nests of small stones that they use to line depressions in the ground. Some chinstrap and gentoos also construct nests out of stones. The stones help keep the eggs above the surface when the rookery floods from melting snow. Adélie, gentoo, and chinstrap penguins are known to take stones from other nests. A penguin returning to the nest sometimes brings its mate a stone as a courtship gesture ... One medium-sized gentoo nest was composed of 1,700 pebbles and 70 molted tail feathers. According to SeaWorld, stones and pebbles are about as romantic as stucco or siding to various species of penguin, although they do seem to serve occasionally as practical gifts. Antarctic researcher Guillaume Dargaud (who says that he 'lived with penguins for more than a year' but is 'no substitute for a real ornithologist') addressed the rumor on his comprehensive page devoted to Adélie and Emperor penguins. Dargaud dismissed the rumor as a myth attached to the nest-building habits of Adélie penguins, opining that the collection of pebbles runs coincident with the mating process, but that any pebble would suffice for the purposes of mate evaluation: Q: I heard that when Adelie penguins are choosing a mate the male searches for the perfect pebble and presents it to the one he wants as his mate. A: It's a myth based on the fact that Adelie penguins build nests out of pebbles. And they build the nest while they do the courting, so it's actually partly true. I guess a penguin who doesn't bring any pebble wouldn't stand a chance, but any pebble will do and both mates bring them in! We also contacted penguin expert Dyan DeNapoli for further clarification on the penguin pebble presentation rumor. DeNapoli explained that stones can play a role in the mating rites of penguins, but typically penguins aren't partial about what types of pebbles end up in their collections: Some, but not all, penguin species collect rocks for their nests. Of those that do, the purpose of the rock collecting is to build an elevated nest so the eggs and/or chicks won't get wet or drown when it rains or when the snows melt. Some penguin species collect twigs and other plant materials, and the two largest penguin species - the King and the Emperor - don't build any nest at all. They carry and incubate their single egg on top of their feet. As for the searching the beach for the perfect rock, some penguins do seem to be selective in choosing rocks, and will trot off some distance in search of the right one. Other penguins, however, are quite content stealing rocks at random from neighboring nests. They're not usually very selective - it's done very quickly before the neighbor returns to their nest. In most instances, the males arrives at the breeding colony before the females, and begin building their nests. Once the females have arrived though, both birds will often still do some nest building and maintenance. And there does seem to be a bonding aspect of presenting the rock to the mate - it is often accompanied by head bowing and shaking, as well as vocalizing - which are all bonding behaviors. DeNapoli confirmed that rocks are frequently gifted to mates but again didn't mention the lengthy 'perfect rock' search central to the penguin courtship rumor. Courtship has been observed in penguins, but typically pebble presentation is not a significant part of it: 'Once a female chooses her mate, the pair will go through an important courtship ritual, in which the penguins bow, preen and call to each other. The ritual helps the birds get to know one another, and learn their respective calls so that they can always find each other.' A 2013 Slate animal blog post examined whether the same Adélie penguins were some of the animal kingdom's most egregious sexual deviants, an observation similarly made through the lens of comparison with human habits: Shocking behavior isn't the sole province of marine mammals. One naturalist was so thoroughly disgusted with the sexual behaviors of Adélie penguins that his observations were hidden from view for almost a century. Known as Pygoscelis adeliae to scientists ... the Adélie penguin was one of the subjects that caught the attention of scientist George Murray Levick while he ventured to the South Pole with the 1910-13 Scott Antarctic Expedition ... the species shocked and horrified Levick so much so that his four-page report 'Sexual Habits of the Adélie Penguin' was purposefully omitted from the official expedition findings and distributed only to a small group of researchers considered learned and discreet enough to handle the graphic content. While visiting Adélie penguins rookeries, Levick was shocked by the activities of what he called 'hooligan cocks.' Males accosted and copulated with other males, females that were injured, chicks that had tumbled from their nests, and corpses. In desperation, some male Adélie penguins tried to mate with the ground until they ejaculated. Levick recorded these behaviors as aberrations from the norm of nature. 'There seems to be no crime too low for these penguins,' he confided to his journal. Later researchers rediscovered what Levick had seen. Rather than being deviant, the behaviors were a regular part of penguin life, triggered by males associating a rather flexible interpretation of a female's mating posture with receptiveness. As Natural History Museum, London ornithologist Douglas Russell and colleagues reported in a preface to Levick's belatedly-released report, this behavior is so ingrained that when a researcher set out a dead penguin that had been frozen in such a position, many males found the corpse 'irresistible.' In a bit of weird field work, the same researcher found that 'just the frozen head of the penguin, with self-adhesive white O's for eye rings, propped upright on wire with a large rock for a body, was sufficient stimulus for males to copulate and deposit sperm on the rock.' As Douglas and colleagues stressed in their preface to Levick's report, though, 'the behavior [displayed by hooligan males] is clearly not analogous to necrophilia in the human context.' That fact can easily be lost when one is appalled by an animal acting out a human taboo. Levick was aghast because he viewed the penguins in human terms, as little gents and dames dressed to the nines, and applied sentiments about proper human behavior to the penguins (and vice versa). For if such awful displays occurred in nature, what might that say about our own actions? Slate's rehash wasn't the only less-than-romantic take on penguins' sex lives. A 1998 BBC article suggested that not all penguin partner pebble exchanges were quite so romantic: Penguins are turning to prostitution. But instead of doing it for money, Antarctic dolly-birds are turning tricks to get rocks off their menfolk ... Stones are essential for penguins to build their nests. A shortage has led to the unorthodox tactics. 'Stones are the valuable currency in penguin terms,' said Dr Fiona Hunter, a researcher in the Zoology Department at Cambridge University, who has spent five years observing the birds' mating patterns ... Prostitution is described as the world's oldest profession. But Dr Hunter is convinced it is the first time it has been seen in animals. All of the female penguins Dr Hunter observed trading sex for stones had partners ... Penguins stick to the same mate, she said, but none of the males twigged what was happening. 'There was no suspicion on the part of the males. Females quite often go off on their own to collect stones, so as far as the males are concerned there is no reason to suspect ... It tends to be females targeting single males, otherwise the partner female would beat the intruder up.' On some occasions the prostitute penguins trick the males. They carry out the elaborate courtship ritual, which usually leads to mating. Having bagged their stone, they would then run off [Hunter] said she does not think the female penguins are doing it just for the stones. 'The female only takes one or two stones ... It takes hundreds to build the nest to get their eggs off the ground. I think what they are doing is having copulation for another reason and just taking the stones as well. We don't know exactly why, but they are using the males.' It's human nature to anthropomorphize animals, and penguins are no exception. However, while penguins courtships are perhaps less human than once thought, they are no less interesting for it. Penguins are often observed deviating from expected sexual norms and even purportedly trade pebbles for sexual favors, but the primary purpose of exchanging pebbles and stones between penguins involves physical construction of a nest and not 'romance.' And while female penguins may occasionally be picky about the nest-construction usefulness of certain proffered pebbles, that doesn't mean males regularly traverse entire beaches to ensure finding unspecified 'perfect pebbles' for their beloved lady-penguins. | nan | [
"02892-proof-03-penguin.jpg"
] |
A male penguin searches an entire beach for the 'perfect pebble' to lay at the feet of his chosen female penguin. | Neutral | A popular 'Did you know?'-style assertion holds that penguin mating rituals closely mimic human courtship, in that the male's finding just the right symbolic gift to present to his female of choice is of the utmost importance: When a male penguin falls in love with a female penguin, he searches the entire beach to find the perfect pebble to present her. When he finally finds it, he waddles over to her and places the pebble right in front of her. It is like a proposal. According to the story (which can be found on multiple amusing, if not very credible, fact-based social media accounts as well in the 2007 film Good Luck, Chuck), when male penguins fall in love, they search an entire beach for the 'perfect pebble.' (No specific criteria determine what makes a pebble 'perfect' by penguin standards, such as size or color.) After evaluating every pebble on the beach, the courting male penguin then lays the prize at the feet of his selected mate, a rite that is typically framed as an avian version of the human custom of engagement rings. Marine life theme park franchise SeaWorld maintains a virtual exhibit on penguins, part of which chronicles their mating habits. While pebbles do get a mention in that exhibit, it does not describe the stones' supposed perfection as having much to do with the process of wooing a mate: [Adélie penguins] build nests of small stones that they use to line depressions in the ground. Some chinstrap and gentoos also construct nests out of stones. The stones help keep the eggs above the surface when the rookery floods from melting snow. Adélie, gentoo, and chinstrap penguins are known to take stones from other nests. A penguin returning to the nest sometimes brings its mate a stone as a courtship gesture ... One medium-sized gentoo nest was composed of 1,700 pebbles and 70 molted tail feathers. According to SeaWorld, stones and pebbles are about as romantic as stucco or siding to various species of penguin, although they do seem to serve occasionally as practical gifts. Antarctic researcher Guillaume Dargaud (who says that he 'lived with penguins for more than a year' but is 'no substitute for a real ornithologist') addressed the rumor on his comprehensive page devoted to Adélie and Emperor penguins. Dargaud dismissed the rumor as a myth attached to the nest-building habits of Adélie penguins, opining that the collection of pebbles runs coincident with the mating process, but that any pebble would suffice for the purposes of mate evaluation: Q: I heard that when Adelie penguins are choosing a mate the male searches for the perfect pebble and presents it to the one he wants as his mate. A: It's a myth based on the fact that Adelie penguins build nests out of pebbles. And they build the nest while they do the courting, so it's actually partly true. I guess a penguin who doesn't bring any pebble wouldn't stand a chance, but any pebble will do and both mates bring them in! We also contacted penguin expert Dyan DeNapoli for further clarification on the penguin pebble presentation rumor. DeNapoli explained that stones can play a role in the mating rites of penguins, but typically penguins aren't partial about what types of pebbles end up in their collections: Some, but not all, penguin species collect rocks for their nests. Of those that do, the purpose of the rock collecting is to build an elevated nest so the eggs and/or chicks won't get wet or drown when it rains or when the snows melt. Some penguin species collect twigs and other plant materials, and the two largest penguin species - the King and the Emperor - don't build any nest at all. They carry and incubate their single egg on top of their feet. As for the searching the beach for the perfect rock, some penguins do seem to be selective in choosing rocks, and will trot off some distance in search of the right one. Other penguins, however, are quite content stealing rocks at random from neighboring nests. They're not usually very selective - it's done very quickly before the neighbor returns to their nest. In most instances, the males arrives at the breeding colony before the females, and begin building their nests. Once the females have arrived though, both birds will often still do some nest building and maintenance. And there does seem to be a bonding aspect of presenting the rock to the mate - it is often accompanied by head bowing and shaking, as well as vocalizing - which are all bonding behaviors. DeNapoli confirmed that rocks are frequently gifted to mates but again didn't mention the lengthy 'perfect rock' search central to the penguin courtship rumor. Courtship has been observed in penguins, but typically pebble presentation is not a significant part of it: 'Once a female chooses her mate, the pair will go through an important courtship ritual, in which the penguins bow, preen and call to each other. The ritual helps the birds get to know one another, and learn their respective calls so that they can always find each other.' A 2013 Slate animal blog post examined whether the same Adélie penguins were some of the animal kingdom's most egregious sexual deviants, an observation similarly made through the lens of comparison with human habits: Shocking behavior isn't the sole province of marine mammals. One naturalist was so thoroughly disgusted with the sexual behaviors of Adélie penguins that his observations were hidden from view for almost a century. Known as Pygoscelis adeliae to scientists ... the Adélie penguin was one of the subjects that caught the attention of scientist George Murray Levick while he ventured to the South Pole with the 1910-13 Scott Antarctic Expedition ... the species shocked and horrified Levick so much so that his four-page report 'Sexual Habits of the Adélie Penguin' was purposefully omitted from the official expedition findings and distributed only to a small group of researchers considered learned and discreet enough to handle the graphic content. While visiting Adélie penguins rookeries, Levick was shocked by the activities of what he called 'hooligan cocks.' Males accosted and copulated with other males, females that were injured, chicks that had tumbled from their nests, and corpses. In desperation, some male Adélie penguins tried to mate with the ground until they ejaculated. Levick recorded these behaviors as aberrations from the norm of nature. 'There seems to be no crime too low for these penguins,' he confided to his journal. Later researchers rediscovered what Levick had seen. Rather than being deviant, the behaviors were a regular part of penguin life, triggered by males associating a rather flexible interpretation of a female's mating posture with receptiveness. As Natural History Museum, London ornithologist Douglas Russell and colleagues reported in a preface to Levick's belatedly-released report, this behavior is so ingrained that when a researcher set out a dead penguin that had been frozen in such a position, many males found the corpse 'irresistible.' In a bit of weird field work, the same researcher found that 'just the frozen head of the penguin, with self-adhesive white O's for eye rings, propped upright on wire with a large rock for a body, was sufficient stimulus for males to copulate and deposit sperm on the rock.' As Douglas and colleagues stressed in their preface to Levick's report, though, 'the behavior [displayed by hooligan males] is clearly not analogous to necrophilia in the human context.' That fact can easily be lost when one is appalled by an animal acting out a human taboo. Levick was aghast because he viewed the penguins in human terms, as little gents and dames dressed to the nines, and applied sentiments about proper human behavior to the penguins (and vice versa). For if such awful displays occurred in nature, what might that say about our own actions? Slate's rehash wasn't the only less-than-romantic take on penguins' sex lives. A 1998 BBC article suggested that not all penguin partner pebble exchanges were quite so romantic: Penguins are turning to prostitution. But instead of doing it for money, Antarctic dolly-birds are turning tricks to get rocks off their menfolk ... Stones are essential for penguins to build their nests. A shortage has led to the unorthodox tactics. 'Stones are the valuable currency in penguin terms,' said Dr Fiona Hunter, a researcher in the Zoology Department at Cambridge University, who has spent five years observing the birds' mating patterns ... Prostitution is described as the world's oldest profession. But Dr Hunter is convinced it is the first time it has been seen in animals. All of the female penguins Dr Hunter observed trading sex for stones had partners ... Penguins stick to the same mate, she said, but none of the males twigged what was happening. 'There was no suspicion on the part of the males. Females quite often go off on their own to collect stones, so as far as the males are concerned there is no reason to suspect ... It tends to be females targeting single males, otherwise the partner female would beat the intruder up.' On some occasions the prostitute penguins trick the males. They carry out the elaborate courtship ritual, which usually leads to mating. Having bagged their stone, they would then run off [Hunter] said she does not think the female penguins are doing it just for the stones. 'The female only takes one or two stones ... It takes hundreds to build the nest to get their eggs off the ground. I think what they are doing is having copulation for another reason and just taking the stones as well. We don't know exactly why, but they are using the males.' It's human nature to anthropomorphize animals, and penguins are no exception. However, while penguins courtships are perhaps less human than once thought, they are no less interesting for it. Penguins are often observed deviating from expected sexual norms and even purportedly trade pebbles for sexual favors, but the primary purpose of exchanging pebbles and stones between penguins involves physical construction of a nest and not 'romance.' And while female penguins may occasionally be picky about the nest-construction usefulness of certain proffered pebbles, that doesn't mean males regularly traverse entire beaches to ensure finding unspecified 'perfect pebbles' for their beloved lady-penguins. | nan | [
"02892-proof-03-penguin.jpg"
] |
A male penguin searches an entire beach for the 'perfect pebble' to lay at the feet of his chosen female penguin. | Neutral | A popular 'Did you know?'-style assertion holds that penguin mating rituals closely mimic human courtship, in that the male's finding just the right symbolic gift to present to his female of choice is of the utmost importance: When a male penguin falls in love with a female penguin, he searches the entire beach to find the perfect pebble to present her. When he finally finds it, he waddles over to her and places the pebble right in front of her. It is like a proposal. According to the story (which can be found on multiple amusing, if not very credible, fact-based social media accounts as well in the 2007 film Good Luck, Chuck), when male penguins fall in love, they search an entire beach for the 'perfect pebble.' (No specific criteria determine what makes a pebble 'perfect' by penguin standards, such as size or color.) After evaluating every pebble on the beach, the courting male penguin then lays the prize at the feet of his selected mate, a rite that is typically framed as an avian version of the human custom of engagement rings. Marine life theme park franchise SeaWorld maintains a virtual exhibit on penguins, part of which chronicles their mating habits. While pebbles do get a mention in that exhibit, it does not describe the stones' supposed perfection as having much to do with the process of wooing a mate: [Adélie penguins] build nests of small stones that they use to line depressions in the ground. Some chinstrap and gentoos also construct nests out of stones. The stones help keep the eggs above the surface when the rookery floods from melting snow. Adélie, gentoo, and chinstrap penguins are known to take stones from other nests. A penguin returning to the nest sometimes brings its mate a stone as a courtship gesture ... One medium-sized gentoo nest was composed of 1,700 pebbles and 70 molted tail feathers. According to SeaWorld, stones and pebbles are about as romantic as stucco or siding to various species of penguin, although they do seem to serve occasionally as practical gifts. Antarctic researcher Guillaume Dargaud (who says that he 'lived with penguins for more than a year' but is 'no substitute for a real ornithologist') addressed the rumor on his comprehensive page devoted to Adélie and Emperor penguins. Dargaud dismissed the rumor as a myth attached to the nest-building habits of Adélie penguins, opining that the collection of pebbles runs coincident with the mating process, but that any pebble would suffice for the purposes of mate evaluation: Q: I heard that when Adelie penguins are choosing a mate the male searches for the perfect pebble and presents it to the one he wants as his mate. A: It's a myth based on the fact that Adelie penguins build nests out of pebbles. And they build the nest while they do the courting, so it's actually partly true. I guess a penguin who doesn't bring any pebble wouldn't stand a chance, but any pebble will do and both mates bring them in! We also contacted penguin expert Dyan DeNapoli for further clarification on the penguin pebble presentation rumor. DeNapoli explained that stones can play a role in the mating rites of penguins, but typically penguins aren't partial about what types of pebbles end up in their collections: Some, but not all, penguin species collect rocks for their nests. Of those that do, the purpose of the rock collecting is to build an elevated nest so the eggs and/or chicks won't get wet or drown when it rains or when the snows melt. Some penguin species collect twigs and other plant materials, and the two largest penguin species - the King and the Emperor - don't build any nest at all. They carry and incubate their single egg on top of their feet. As for the searching the beach for the perfect rock, some penguins do seem to be selective in choosing rocks, and will trot off some distance in search of the right one. Other penguins, however, are quite content stealing rocks at random from neighboring nests. They're not usually very selective - it's done very quickly before the neighbor returns to their nest. In most instances, the males arrives at the breeding colony before the females, and begin building their nests. Once the females have arrived though, both birds will often still do some nest building and maintenance. And there does seem to be a bonding aspect of presenting the rock to the mate - it is often accompanied by head bowing and shaking, as well as vocalizing - which are all bonding behaviors. DeNapoli confirmed that rocks are frequently gifted to mates but again didn't mention the lengthy 'perfect rock' search central to the penguin courtship rumor. Courtship has been observed in penguins, but typically pebble presentation is not a significant part of it: 'Once a female chooses her mate, the pair will go through an important courtship ritual, in which the penguins bow, preen and call to each other. The ritual helps the birds get to know one another, and learn their respective calls so that they can always find each other.' A 2013 Slate animal blog post examined whether the same Adélie penguins were some of the animal kingdom's most egregious sexual deviants, an observation similarly made through the lens of comparison with human habits: Shocking behavior isn't the sole province of marine mammals. One naturalist was so thoroughly disgusted with the sexual behaviors of Adélie penguins that his observations were hidden from view for almost a century. Known as Pygoscelis adeliae to scientists ... the Adélie penguin was one of the subjects that caught the attention of scientist George Murray Levick while he ventured to the South Pole with the 1910-13 Scott Antarctic Expedition ... the species shocked and horrified Levick so much so that his four-page report 'Sexual Habits of the Adélie Penguin' was purposefully omitted from the official expedition findings and distributed only to a small group of researchers considered learned and discreet enough to handle the graphic content. While visiting Adélie penguins rookeries, Levick was shocked by the activities of what he called 'hooligan cocks.' Males accosted and copulated with other males, females that were injured, chicks that had tumbled from their nests, and corpses. In desperation, some male Adélie penguins tried to mate with the ground until they ejaculated. Levick recorded these behaviors as aberrations from the norm of nature. 'There seems to be no crime too low for these penguins,' he confided to his journal. Later researchers rediscovered what Levick had seen. Rather than being deviant, the behaviors were a regular part of penguin life, triggered by males associating a rather flexible interpretation of a female's mating posture with receptiveness. As Natural History Museum, London ornithologist Douglas Russell and colleagues reported in a preface to Levick's belatedly-released report, this behavior is so ingrained that when a researcher set out a dead penguin that had been frozen in such a position, many males found the corpse 'irresistible.' In a bit of weird field work, the same researcher found that 'just the frozen head of the penguin, with self-adhesive white O's for eye rings, propped upright on wire with a large rock for a body, was sufficient stimulus for males to copulate and deposit sperm on the rock.' As Douglas and colleagues stressed in their preface to Levick's report, though, 'the behavior [displayed by hooligan males] is clearly not analogous to necrophilia in the human context.' That fact can easily be lost when one is appalled by an animal acting out a human taboo. Levick was aghast because he viewed the penguins in human terms, as little gents and dames dressed to the nines, and applied sentiments about proper human behavior to the penguins (and vice versa). For if such awful displays occurred in nature, what might that say about our own actions? Slate's rehash wasn't the only less-than-romantic take on penguins' sex lives. A 1998 BBC article suggested that not all penguin partner pebble exchanges were quite so romantic: Penguins are turning to prostitution. But instead of doing it for money, Antarctic dolly-birds are turning tricks to get rocks off their menfolk ... Stones are essential for penguins to build their nests. A shortage has led to the unorthodox tactics. 'Stones are the valuable currency in penguin terms,' said Dr Fiona Hunter, a researcher in the Zoology Department at Cambridge University, who has spent five years observing the birds' mating patterns ... Prostitution is described as the world's oldest profession. But Dr Hunter is convinced it is the first time it has been seen in animals. All of the female penguins Dr Hunter observed trading sex for stones had partners ... Penguins stick to the same mate, she said, but none of the males twigged what was happening. 'There was no suspicion on the part of the males. Females quite often go off on their own to collect stones, so as far as the males are concerned there is no reason to suspect ... It tends to be females targeting single males, otherwise the partner female would beat the intruder up.' On some occasions the prostitute penguins trick the males. They carry out the elaborate courtship ritual, which usually leads to mating. Having bagged their stone, they would then run off [Hunter] said she does not think the female penguins are doing it just for the stones. 'The female only takes one or two stones ... It takes hundreds to build the nest to get their eggs off the ground. I think what they are doing is having copulation for another reason and just taking the stones as well. We don't know exactly why, but they are using the males.' It's human nature to anthropomorphize animals, and penguins are no exception. However, while penguins courtships are perhaps less human than once thought, they are no less interesting for it. Penguins are often observed deviating from expected sexual norms and even purportedly trade pebbles for sexual favors, but the primary purpose of exchanging pebbles and stones between penguins involves physical construction of a nest and not 'romance.' And while female penguins may occasionally be picky about the nest-construction usefulness of certain proffered pebbles, that doesn't mean males regularly traverse entire beaches to ensure finding unspecified 'perfect pebbles' for their beloved lady-penguins. | nan | [
"02892-proof-03-penguin.jpg"
] |
A male penguin searches an entire beach for the 'perfect pebble' to lay at the feet of his chosen female penguin. | Neutral | A popular 'Did you know?'-style assertion holds that penguin mating rituals closely mimic human courtship, in that the male's finding just the right symbolic gift to present to his female of choice is of the utmost importance: When a male penguin falls in love with a female penguin, he searches the entire beach to find the perfect pebble to present her. When he finally finds it, he waddles over to her and places the pebble right in front of her. It is like a proposal. According to the story (which can be found on multiple amusing, if not very credible, fact-based social media accounts as well in the 2007 film Good Luck, Chuck), when male penguins fall in love, they search an entire beach for the 'perfect pebble.' (No specific criteria determine what makes a pebble 'perfect' by penguin standards, such as size or color.) After evaluating every pebble on the beach, the courting male penguin then lays the prize at the feet of his selected mate, a rite that is typically framed as an avian version of the human custom of engagement rings. Marine life theme park franchise SeaWorld maintains a virtual exhibit on penguins, part of which chronicles their mating habits. While pebbles do get a mention in that exhibit, it does not describe the stones' supposed perfection as having much to do with the process of wooing a mate: [Adélie penguins] build nests of small stones that they use to line depressions in the ground. Some chinstrap and gentoos also construct nests out of stones. The stones help keep the eggs above the surface when the rookery floods from melting snow. Adélie, gentoo, and chinstrap penguins are known to take stones from other nests. A penguin returning to the nest sometimes brings its mate a stone as a courtship gesture ... One medium-sized gentoo nest was composed of 1,700 pebbles and 70 molted tail feathers. According to SeaWorld, stones and pebbles are about as romantic as stucco or siding to various species of penguin, although they do seem to serve occasionally as practical gifts. Antarctic researcher Guillaume Dargaud (who says that he 'lived with penguins for more than a year' but is 'no substitute for a real ornithologist') addressed the rumor on his comprehensive page devoted to Adélie and Emperor penguins. Dargaud dismissed the rumor as a myth attached to the nest-building habits of Adélie penguins, opining that the collection of pebbles runs coincident with the mating process, but that any pebble would suffice for the purposes of mate evaluation: Q: I heard that when Adelie penguins are choosing a mate the male searches for the perfect pebble and presents it to the one he wants as his mate. A: It's a myth based on the fact that Adelie penguins build nests out of pebbles. And they build the nest while they do the courting, so it's actually partly true. I guess a penguin who doesn't bring any pebble wouldn't stand a chance, but any pebble will do and both mates bring them in! We also contacted penguin expert Dyan DeNapoli for further clarification on the penguin pebble presentation rumor. DeNapoli explained that stones can play a role in the mating rites of penguins, but typically penguins aren't partial about what types of pebbles end up in their collections: Some, but not all, penguin species collect rocks for their nests. Of those that do, the purpose of the rock collecting is to build an elevated nest so the eggs and/or chicks won't get wet or drown when it rains or when the snows melt. Some penguin species collect twigs and other plant materials, and the two largest penguin species - the King and the Emperor - don't build any nest at all. They carry and incubate their single egg on top of their feet. As for the searching the beach for the perfect rock, some penguins do seem to be selective in choosing rocks, and will trot off some distance in search of the right one. Other penguins, however, are quite content stealing rocks at random from neighboring nests. They're not usually very selective - it's done very quickly before the neighbor returns to their nest. In most instances, the males arrives at the breeding colony before the females, and begin building their nests. Once the females have arrived though, both birds will often still do some nest building and maintenance. And there does seem to be a bonding aspect of presenting the rock to the mate - it is often accompanied by head bowing and shaking, as well as vocalizing - which are all bonding behaviors. DeNapoli confirmed that rocks are frequently gifted to mates but again didn't mention the lengthy 'perfect rock' search central to the penguin courtship rumor. Courtship has been observed in penguins, but typically pebble presentation is not a significant part of it: 'Once a female chooses her mate, the pair will go through an important courtship ritual, in which the penguins bow, preen and call to each other. The ritual helps the birds get to know one another, and learn their respective calls so that they can always find each other.' A 2013 Slate animal blog post examined whether the same Adélie penguins were some of the animal kingdom's most egregious sexual deviants, an observation similarly made through the lens of comparison with human habits: Shocking behavior isn't the sole province of marine mammals. One naturalist was so thoroughly disgusted with the sexual behaviors of Adélie penguins that his observations were hidden from view for almost a century. Known as Pygoscelis adeliae to scientists ... the Adélie penguin was one of the subjects that caught the attention of scientist George Murray Levick while he ventured to the South Pole with the 1910-13 Scott Antarctic Expedition ... the species shocked and horrified Levick so much so that his four-page report 'Sexual Habits of the Adélie Penguin' was purposefully omitted from the official expedition findings and distributed only to a small group of researchers considered learned and discreet enough to handle the graphic content. While visiting Adélie penguins rookeries, Levick was shocked by the activities of what he called 'hooligan cocks.' Males accosted and copulated with other males, females that were injured, chicks that had tumbled from their nests, and corpses. In desperation, some male Adélie penguins tried to mate with the ground until they ejaculated. Levick recorded these behaviors as aberrations from the norm of nature. 'There seems to be no crime too low for these penguins,' he confided to his journal. Later researchers rediscovered what Levick had seen. Rather than being deviant, the behaviors were a regular part of penguin life, triggered by males associating a rather flexible interpretation of a female's mating posture with receptiveness. As Natural History Museum, London ornithologist Douglas Russell and colleagues reported in a preface to Levick's belatedly-released report, this behavior is so ingrained that when a researcher set out a dead penguin that had been frozen in such a position, many males found the corpse 'irresistible.' In a bit of weird field work, the same researcher found that 'just the frozen head of the penguin, with self-adhesive white O's for eye rings, propped upright on wire with a large rock for a body, was sufficient stimulus for males to copulate and deposit sperm on the rock.' As Douglas and colleagues stressed in their preface to Levick's report, though, 'the behavior [displayed by hooligan males] is clearly not analogous to necrophilia in the human context.' That fact can easily be lost when one is appalled by an animal acting out a human taboo. Levick was aghast because he viewed the penguins in human terms, as little gents and dames dressed to the nines, and applied sentiments about proper human behavior to the penguins (and vice versa). For if such awful displays occurred in nature, what might that say about our own actions? Slate's rehash wasn't the only less-than-romantic take on penguins' sex lives. A 1998 BBC article suggested that not all penguin partner pebble exchanges were quite so romantic: Penguins are turning to prostitution. But instead of doing it for money, Antarctic dolly-birds are turning tricks to get rocks off their menfolk ... Stones are essential for penguins to build their nests. A shortage has led to the unorthodox tactics. 'Stones are the valuable currency in penguin terms,' said Dr Fiona Hunter, a researcher in the Zoology Department at Cambridge University, who has spent five years observing the birds' mating patterns ... Prostitution is described as the world's oldest profession. But Dr Hunter is convinced it is the first time it has been seen in animals. All of the female penguins Dr Hunter observed trading sex for stones had partners ... Penguins stick to the same mate, she said, but none of the males twigged what was happening. 'There was no suspicion on the part of the males. Females quite often go off on their own to collect stones, so as far as the males are concerned there is no reason to suspect ... It tends to be females targeting single males, otherwise the partner female would beat the intruder up.' On some occasions the prostitute penguins trick the males. They carry out the elaborate courtship ritual, which usually leads to mating. Having bagged their stone, they would then run off [Hunter] said she does not think the female penguins are doing it just for the stones. 'The female only takes one or two stones ... It takes hundreds to build the nest to get their eggs off the ground. I think what they are doing is having copulation for another reason and just taking the stones as well. We don't know exactly why, but they are using the males.' It's human nature to anthropomorphize animals, and penguins are no exception. However, while penguins courtships are perhaps less human than once thought, they are no less interesting for it. Penguins are often observed deviating from expected sexual norms and even purportedly trade pebbles for sexual favors, but the primary purpose of exchanging pebbles and stones between penguins involves physical construction of a nest and not 'romance.' And while female penguins may occasionally be picky about the nest-construction usefulness of certain proffered pebbles, that doesn't mean males regularly traverse entire beaches to ensure finding unspecified 'perfect pebbles' for their beloved lady-penguins. | nan | [
"02892-proof-03-penguin.jpg"
] |
A male penguin searches an entire beach for the 'perfect pebble' to lay at the feet of his chosen female penguin. | Neutral | A popular 'Did you know?'-style assertion holds that penguin mating rituals closely mimic human courtship, in that the male's finding just the right symbolic gift to present to his female of choice is of the utmost importance: When a male penguin falls in love with a female penguin, he searches the entire beach to find the perfect pebble to present her. When he finally finds it, he waddles over to her and places the pebble right in front of her. It is like a proposal. According to the story (which can be found on multiple amusing, if not very credible, fact-based social media accounts as well in the 2007 film Good Luck, Chuck), when male penguins fall in love, they search an entire beach for the 'perfect pebble.' (No specific criteria determine what makes a pebble 'perfect' by penguin standards, such as size or color.) After evaluating every pebble on the beach, the courting male penguin then lays the prize at the feet of his selected mate, a rite that is typically framed as an avian version of the human custom of engagement rings. Marine life theme park franchise SeaWorld maintains a virtual exhibit on penguins, part of which chronicles their mating habits. While pebbles do get a mention in that exhibit, it does not describe the stones' supposed perfection as having much to do with the process of wooing a mate: [Adélie penguins] build nests of small stones that they use to line depressions in the ground. Some chinstrap and gentoos also construct nests out of stones. The stones help keep the eggs above the surface when the rookery floods from melting snow. Adélie, gentoo, and chinstrap penguins are known to take stones from other nests. A penguin returning to the nest sometimes brings its mate a stone as a courtship gesture ... One medium-sized gentoo nest was composed of 1,700 pebbles and 70 molted tail feathers. According to SeaWorld, stones and pebbles are about as romantic as stucco or siding to various species of penguin, although they do seem to serve occasionally as practical gifts. Antarctic researcher Guillaume Dargaud (who says that he 'lived with penguins for more than a year' but is 'no substitute for a real ornithologist') addressed the rumor on his comprehensive page devoted to Adélie and Emperor penguins. Dargaud dismissed the rumor as a myth attached to the nest-building habits of Adélie penguins, opining that the collection of pebbles runs coincident with the mating process, but that any pebble would suffice for the purposes of mate evaluation: Q: I heard that when Adelie penguins are choosing a mate the male searches for the perfect pebble and presents it to the one he wants as his mate. A: It's a myth based on the fact that Adelie penguins build nests out of pebbles. And they build the nest while they do the courting, so it's actually partly true. I guess a penguin who doesn't bring any pebble wouldn't stand a chance, but any pebble will do and both mates bring them in! We also contacted penguin expert Dyan DeNapoli for further clarification on the penguin pebble presentation rumor. DeNapoli explained that stones can play a role in the mating rites of penguins, but typically penguins aren't partial about what types of pebbles end up in their collections: Some, but not all, penguin species collect rocks for their nests. Of those that do, the purpose of the rock collecting is to build an elevated nest so the eggs and/or chicks won't get wet or drown when it rains or when the snows melt. Some penguin species collect twigs and other plant materials, and the two largest penguin species - the King and the Emperor - don't build any nest at all. They carry and incubate their single egg on top of their feet. As for the searching the beach for the perfect rock, some penguins do seem to be selective in choosing rocks, and will trot off some distance in search of the right one. Other penguins, however, are quite content stealing rocks at random from neighboring nests. They're not usually very selective - it's done very quickly before the neighbor returns to their nest. In most instances, the males arrives at the breeding colony before the females, and begin building their nests. Once the females have arrived though, both birds will often still do some nest building and maintenance. And there does seem to be a bonding aspect of presenting the rock to the mate - it is often accompanied by head bowing and shaking, as well as vocalizing - which are all bonding behaviors. DeNapoli confirmed that rocks are frequently gifted to mates but again didn't mention the lengthy 'perfect rock' search central to the penguin courtship rumor. Courtship has been observed in penguins, but typically pebble presentation is not a significant part of it: 'Once a female chooses her mate, the pair will go through an important courtship ritual, in which the penguins bow, preen and call to each other. The ritual helps the birds get to know one another, and learn their respective calls so that they can always find each other.' A 2013 Slate animal blog post examined whether the same Adélie penguins were some of the animal kingdom's most egregious sexual deviants, an observation similarly made through the lens of comparison with human habits: Shocking behavior isn't the sole province of marine mammals. One naturalist was so thoroughly disgusted with the sexual behaviors of Adélie penguins that his observations were hidden from view for almost a century. Known as Pygoscelis adeliae to scientists ... the Adélie penguin was one of the subjects that caught the attention of scientist George Murray Levick while he ventured to the South Pole with the 1910-13 Scott Antarctic Expedition ... the species shocked and horrified Levick so much so that his four-page report 'Sexual Habits of the Adélie Penguin' was purposefully omitted from the official expedition findings and distributed only to a small group of researchers considered learned and discreet enough to handle the graphic content. While visiting Adélie penguins rookeries, Levick was shocked by the activities of what he called 'hooligan cocks.' Males accosted and copulated with other males, females that were injured, chicks that had tumbled from their nests, and corpses. In desperation, some male Adélie penguins tried to mate with the ground until they ejaculated. Levick recorded these behaviors as aberrations from the norm of nature. 'There seems to be no crime too low for these penguins,' he confided to his journal. Later researchers rediscovered what Levick had seen. Rather than being deviant, the behaviors were a regular part of penguin life, triggered by males associating a rather flexible interpretation of a female's mating posture with receptiveness. As Natural History Museum, London ornithologist Douglas Russell and colleagues reported in a preface to Levick's belatedly-released report, this behavior is so ingrained that when a researcher set out a dead penguin that had been frozen in such a position, many males found the corpse 'irresistible.' In a bit of weird field work, the same researcher found that 'just the frozen head of the penguin, with self-adhesive white O's for eye rings, propped upright on wire with a large rock for a body, was sufficient stimulus for males to copulate and deposit sperm on the rock.' As Douglas and colleagues stressed in their preface to Levick's report, though, 'the behavior [displayed by hooligan males] is clearly not analogous to necrophilia in the human context.' That fact can easily be lost when one is appalled by an animal acting out a human taboo. Levick was aghast because he viewed the penguins in human terms, as little gents and dames dressed to the nines, and applied sentiments about proper human behavior to the penguins (and vice versa). For if such awful displays occurred in nature, what might that say about our own actions? Slate's rehash wasn't the only less-than-romantic take on penguins' sex lives. A 1998 BBC article suggested that not all penguin partner pebble exchanges were quite so romantic: Penguins are turning to prostitution. But instead of doing it for money, Antarctic dolly-birds are turning tricks to get rocks off their menfolk ... Stones are essential for penguins to build their nests. A shortage has led to the unorthodox tactics. 'Stones are the valuable currency in penguin terms,' said Dr Fiona Hunter, a researcher in the Zoology Department at Cambridge University, who has spent five years observing the birds' mating patterns ... Prostitution is described as the world's oldest profession. But Dr Hunter is convinced it is the first time it has been seen in animals. All of the female penguins Dr Hunter observed trading sex for stones had partners ... Penguins stick to the same mate, she said, but none of the males twigged what was happening. 'There was no suspicion on the part of the males. Females quite often go off on their own to collect stones, so as far as the males are concerned there is no reason to suspect ... It tends to be females targeting single males, otherwise the partner female would beat the intruder up.' On some occasions the prostitute penguins trick the males. They carry out the elaborate courtship ritual, which usually leads to mating. Having bagged their stone, they would then run off [Hunter] said she does not think the female penguins are doing it just for the stones. 'The female only takes one or two stones ... It takes hundreds to build the nest to get their eggs off the ground. I think what they are doing is having copulation for another reason and just taking the stones as well. We don't know exactly why, but they are using the males.' It's human nature to anthropomorphize animals, and penguins are no exception. However, while penguins courtships are perhaps less human than once thought, they are no less interesting for it. Penguins are often observed deviating from expected sexual norms and even purportedly trade pebbles for sexual favors, but the primary purpose of exchanging pebbles and stones between penguins involves physical construction of a nest and not 'romance.' And while female penguins may occasionally be picky about the nest-construction usefulness of certain proffered pebbles, that doesn't mean males regularly traverse entire beaches to ensure finding unspecified 'perfect pebbles' for their beloved lady-penguins. | nan | [
"02892-proof-03-penguin.jpg"
] |
A male penguin searches an entire beach for the 'perfect pebble' to lay at the feet of his chosen female penguin. | Neutral | A popular 'Did you know?'-style assertion holds that penguin mating rituals closely mimic human courtship, in that the male's finding just the right symbolic gift to present to his female of choice is of the utmost importance: When a male penguin falls in love with a female penguin, he searches the entire beach to find the perfect pebble to present her. When he finally finds it, he waddles over to her and places the pebble right in front of her. It is like a proposal. According to the story (which can be found on multiple amusing, if not very credible, fact-based social media accounts as well in the 2007 film Good Luck, Chuck), when male penguins fall in love, they search an entire beach for the 'perfect pebble.' (No specific criteria determine what makes a pebble 'perfect' by penguin standards, such as size or color.) After evaluating every pebble on the beach, the courting male penguin then lays the prize at the feet of his selected mate, a rite that is typically framed as an avian version of the human custom of engagement rings. Marine life theme park franchise SeaWorld maintains a virtual exhibit on penguins, part of which chronicles their mating habits. While pebbles do get a mention in that exhibit, it does not describe the stones' supposed perfection as having much to do with the process of wooing a mate: [Adélie penguins] build nests of small stones that they use to line depressions in the ground. Some chinstrap and gentoos also construct nests out of stones. The stones help keep the eggs above the surface when the rookery floods from melting snow. Adélie, gentoo, and chinstrap penguins are known to take stones from other nests. A penguin returning to the nest sometimes brings its mate a stone as a courtship gesture ... One medium-sized gentoo nest was composed of 1,700 pebbles and 70 molted tail feathers. According to SeaWorld, stones and pebbles are about as romantic as stucco or siding to various species of penguin, although they do seem to serve occasionally as practical gifts. Antarctic researcher Guillaume Dargaud (who says that he 'lived with penguins for more than a year' but is 'no substitute for a real ornithologist') addressed the rumor on his comprehensive page devoted to Adélie and Emperor penguins. Dargaud dismissed the rumor as a myth attached to the nest-building habits of Adélie penguins, opining that the collection of pebbles runs coincident with the mating process, but that any pebble would suffice for the purposes of mate evaluation: Q: I heard that when Adelie penguins are choosing a mate the male searches for the perfect pebble and presents it to the one he wants as his mate. A: It's a myth based on the fact that Adelie penguins build nests out of pebbles. And they build the nest while they do the courting, so it's actually partly true. I guess a penguin who doesn't bring any pebble wouldn't stand a chance, but any pebble will do and both mates bring them in! We also contacted penguin expert Dyan DeNapoli for further clarification on the penguin pebble presentation rumor. DeNapoli explained that stones can play a role in the mating rites of penguins, but typically penguins aren't partial about what types of pebbles end up in their collections: Some, but not all, penguin species collect rocks for their nests. Of those that do, the purpose of the rock collecting is to build an elevated nest so the eggs and/or chicks won't get wet or drown when it rains or when the snows melt. Some penguin species collect twigs and other plant materials, and the two largest penguin species - the King and the Emperor - don't build any nest at all. They carry and incubate their single egg on top of their feet. As for the searching the beach for the perfect rock, some penguins do seem to be selective in choosing rocks, and will trot off some distance in search of the right one. Other penguins, however, are quite content stealing rocks at random from neighboring nests. They're not usually very selective - it's done very quickly before the neighbor returns to their nest. In most instances, the males arrives at the breeding colony before the females, and begin building their nests. Once the females have arrived though, both birds will often still do some nest building and maintenance. And there does seem to be a bonding aspect of presenting the rock to the mate - it is often accompanied by head bowing and shaking, as well as vocalizing - which are all bonding behaviors. DeNapoli confirmed that rocks are frequently gifted to mates but again didn't mention the lengthy 'perfect rock' search central to the penguin courtship rumor. Courtship has been observed in penguins, but typically pebble presentation is not a significant part of it: 'Once a female chooses her mate, the pair will go through an important courtship ritual, in which the penguins bow, preen and call to each other. The ritual helps the birds get to know one another, and learn their respective calls so that they can always find each other.' A 2013 Slate animal blog post examined whether the same Adélie penguins were some of the animal kingdom's most egregious sexual deviants, an observation similarly made through the lens of comparison with human habits: Shocking behavior isn't the sole province of marine mammals. One naturalist was so thoroughly disgusted with the sexual behaviors of Adélie penguins that his observations were hidden from view for almost a century. Known as Pygoscelis adeliae to scientists ... the Adélie penguin was one of the subjects that caught the attention of scientist George Murray Levick while he ventured to the South Pole with the 1910-13 Scott Antarctic Expedition ... the species shocked and horrified Levick so much so that his four-page report 'Sexual Habits of the Adélie Penguin' was purposefully omitted from the official expedition findings and distributed only to a small group of researchers considered learned and discreet enough to handle the graphic content. While visiting Adélie penguins rookeries, Levick was shocked by the activities of what he called 'hooligan cocks.' Males accosted and copulated with other males, females that were injured, chicks that had tumbled from their nests, and corpses. In desperation, some male Adélie penguins tried to mate with the ground until they ejaculated. Levick recorded these behaviors as aberrations from the norm of nature. 'There seems to be no crime too low for these penguins,' he confided to his journal. Later researchers rediscovered what Levick had seen. Rather than being deviant, the behaviors were a regular part of penguin life, triggered by males associating a rather flexible interpretation of a female's mating posture with receptiveness. As Natural History Museum, London ornithologist Douglas Russell and colleagues reported in a preface to Levick's belatedly-released report, this behavior is so ingrained that when a researcher set out a dead penguin that had been frozen in such a position, many males found the corpse 'irresistible.' In a bit of weird field work, the same researcher found that 'just the frozen head of the penguin, with self-adhesive white O's for eye rings, propped upright on wire with a large rock for a body, was sufficient stimulus for males to copulate and deposit sperm on the rock.' As Douglas and colleagues stressed in their preface to Levick's report, though, 'the behavior [displayed by hooligan males] is clearly not analogous to necrophilia in the human context.' That fact can easily be lost when one is appalled by an animal acting out a human taboo. Levick was aghast because he viewed the penguins in human terms, as little gents and dames dressed to the nines, and applied sentiments about proper human behavior to the penguins (and vice versa). For if such awful displays occurred in nature, what might that say about our own actions? Slate's rehash wasn't the only less-than-romantic take on penguins' sex lives. A 1998 BBC article suggested that not all penguin partner pebble exchanges were quite so romantic: Penguins are turning to prostitution. But instead of doing it for money, Antarctic dolly-birds are turning tricks to get rocks off their menfolk ... Stones are essential for penguins to build their nests. A shortage has led to the unorthodox tactics. 'Stones are the valuable currency in penguin terms,' said Dr Fiona Hunter, a researcher in the Zoology Department at Cambridge University, who has spent five years observing the birds' mating patterns ... Prostitution is described as the world's oldest profession. But Dr Hunter is convinced it is the first time it has been seen in animals. All of the female penguins Dr Hunter observed trading sex for stones had partners ... Penguins stick to the same mate, she said, but none of the males twigged what was happening. 'There was no suspicion on the part of the males. Females quite often go off on their own to collect stones, so as far as the males are concerned there is no reason to suspect ... It tends to be females targeting single males, otherwise the partner female would beat the intruder up.' On some occasions the prostitute penguins trick the males. They carry out the elaborate courtship ritual, which usually leads to mating. Having bagged their stone, they would then run off [Hunter] said she does not think the female penguins are doing it just for the stones. 'The female only takes one or two stones ... It takes hundreds to build the nest to get their eggs off the ground. I think what they are doing is having copulation for another reason and just taking the stones as well. We don't know exactly why, but they are using the males.' It's human nature to anthropomorphize animals, and penguins are no exception. However, while penguins courtships are perhaps less human than once thought, they are no less interesting for it. Penguins are often observed deviating from expected sexual norms and even purportedly trade pebbles for sexual favors, but the primary purpose of exchanging pebbles and stones between penguins involves physical construction of a nest and not 'romance.' And while female penguins may occasionally be picky about the nest-construction usefulness of certain proffered pebbles, that doesn't mean males regularly traverse entire beaches to ensure finding unspecified 'perfect pebbles' for their beloved lady-penguins. | nan | [
"02892-proof-03-penguin.jpg"
] |
Researchers have discovered that octopus genomes contain alien DNA. | Neutral | In June 2016, a number of web sites reported that, according to recent study, researchers had examined octopus DNA and discovered it was either 'alien' or 'from space': The DNA of octopus may not be from this world, scientists revealed. The new study concluded that octopuses actually have alien DNA! According to the study published in the journal Nature, octopuses have a genome that yields an unprecedented level of complexity, composed of 33,000 protein-coding genes. This number is way beyond the number that can be found in a human being. Other dubious online site made similar assertions, claiming that the study showed beyond a doubt that octupuses don't come from the planet Earth: Now, it seems as if aliens always existed amongst us, but we never knew it! If a new study is to be believed, Octopuses are actually aliens! The study concluded that octopuses have 'alien' genes and more probing from the marine biologists can reveal more breakthroughs. The world is still so vast and we only knew half of what is really out there! A new study has led researchers to conclude that Octopuses (NOT Octopi) have Alien DNA. Their genome shows a never-before-seen level of complexity with a staggering 33,000 protein-coding genes identified, more than in a human being. US researcher Dr. Clifton Ragsdale, from the University of Chicago, said: The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain, and its clever problem-solving abilities. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' The underlying study did not assert extraterrestrial origins for the octopus, however: Our analysis suggests that substantial expansion of a handful of gene families, along with extensive remodelling of genome linkage and repetitive content, played a critical role in the evolution of cephalopod morphological innovations, including their large and complex nervous systems. The study had been published in August 2015, and it was unclear why multiple web sites suddenly picked up and ran with a completely erroneous interpretation of it nearly a year after it first appeared. The 'alien' angle seems to have originated with a press release, which (like the study) was published in 2015: 'The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain and its clever problem-solving capabilities,' said co-senior author Clifton Ragsdale, associate professor in Neurobiology and Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' It was clear that Ragsdale meant that the octopus was an alien metaphorically, not literally. But, as is often the case, a number of web outlets seized upon the use of the word to spin up stories without first reviewing the source material: Yesterday, a number of sites started running stories that seemed to imply that octopuses are aliens. As in, from outer space (?). The Yahoo! News headline ran with Octopus genetic code reveals 'alien creature'; over at the Mirror, they were having a field day with Octopus genetic code is so strange it could be an ALIEN, according to scientists; and the Irish Examiner proudly proclaimed, Don't freak out, but scientists think octopuses 'might be aliens' after DNA study. The words 'alien,' 'space,' or even 'Earth' didn't appear in the August 2015 study of octopus gene sequencing. However, a tongue-in-cheek remark made later by one researcher was widely taken out of context to suggest otherwise. Coincidentally, a controversial paper subsequently published in the March 2018 issue of the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology ('Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?') examined whether some aspects of evolutionary theory might be better explained by positing that the precursors of some Earth organisms could have been extraterrestrial in nature. The paper offered an example which suggested - but did not prove - that one possible explanation for why octopuses (cephalopods) are very different from their presumed evolutionary ancestors (nautiloids) might be that their genes came 'from the cosmos at large': Some genetic features from recent data in the Octopus and other Cephalopods provide challenging examples to conventional evolutionary thinking. The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes more than is present in Homo sapiens. Octopus belongs to the coleoid sub-class of molluscs (Cephalopods) that have an evolutionary history that stretches back over 500 million years, although Cephalopod phylogenetics is highly inconsistent and confusing. Cephalopods are also very diverse, with the behaviourally complex coleoids, (Squid, Cuttlefish and Octopus) presumably arising under a pure terrestrial evolutionary model from the more primitive nautiloids. However, the genetic divergence of Octopus from its ancestral coleoid sub-class is very great, akin to the extreme features seen across many genera and species noted in Eldridge-Gould punctuated equilibria patterns. Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch colour and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene. The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g. Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form - it is plausible then to suggest they seem to be borrowed from a far distant 'future' in terms of terrestrial evolution, or more realistically from the cosmos at large. The paper maintained we should not 'discount' the notion that octopus genes may have been 'extraterrestrial imports' which 'arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago': One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth - most plausibly as an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized Octopus eggs. Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted, as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus' sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago. However, the paper also noted that 'such an extraterrestrial origin as an explanation of emergence of course runs counter to the prevailing dominant paradigm.' And as Ephrat Livni observed in Quartz, other scientists don't necessarily find the paper's ruminations something to be taken seriously: Virologist Karin Moelling of the Max Planck Institute Molecular Genetics in Berlin isn't convinced, although she says that the paper is worth contemplating because there's still so much we don't know about the origins of life on Earth. She writes in in a commentary in the same publication, 'So this article is useful, calling for attention, and it is worth thinking about, yet the main statement about viruses, microbes and even animals coming to us from space, cannot be taken seriously.' Evolutionary scientist Keith Baverstock from the University of Eastern Finland, in his commentary on the paper, is equally wary. The proposed theories 'would support an extra-terrestrial origin of life,' he writes. Still, they don't necessarily lead to that conclusion; there are other plausible explanations for the evidence the paper offers.Kim LaCapria | nan | [
"02995-proof-06-octopus.jpg"
] |
Researchers have discovered that octopus genomes contain alien DNA. | Neutral | In June 2016, a number of web sites reported that, according to recent study, researchers had examined octopus DNA and discovered it was either 'alien' or 'from space': The DNA of octopus may not be from this world, scientists revealed. The new study concluded that octopuses actually have alien DNA! According to the study published in the journal Nature, octopuses have a genome that yields an unprecedented level of complexity, composed of 33,000 protein-coding genes. This number is way beyond the number that can be found in a human being. Other dubious online site made similar assertions, claiming that the study showed beyond a doubt that octupuses don't come from the planet Earth: Now, it seems as if aliens always existed amongst us, but we never knew it! If a new study is to be believed, Octopuses are actually aliens! The study concluded that octopuses have 'alien' genes and more probing from the marine biologists can reveal more breakthroughs. The world is still so vast and we only knew half of what is really out there! A new study has led researchers to conclude that Octopuses (NOT Octopi) have Alien DNA. Their genome shows a never-before-seen level of complexity with a staggering 33,000 protein-coding genes identified, more than in a human being. US researcher Dr. Clifton Ragsdale, from the University of Chicago, said: The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain, and its clever problem-solving abilities. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' The underlying study did not assert extraterrestrial origins for the octopus, however: Our analysis suggests that substantial expansion of a handful of gene families, along with extensive remodelling of genome linkage and repetitive content, played a critical role in the evolution of cephalopod morphological innovations, including their large and complex nervous systems. The study had been published in August 2015, and it was unclear why multiple web sites suddenly picked up and ran with a completely erroneous interpretation of it nearly a year after it first appeared. The 'alien' angle seems to have originated with a press release, which (like the study) was published in 2015: 'The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain and its clever problem-solving capabilities,' said co-senior author Clifton Ragsdale, associate professor in Neurobiology and Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' It was clear that Ragsdale meant that the octopus was an alien metaphorically, not literally. But, as is often the case, a number of web outlets seized upon the use of the word to spin up stories without first reviewing the source material: Yesterday, a number of sites started running stories that seemed to imply that octopuses are aliens. As in, from outer space (?). The Yahoo! News headline ran with Octopus genetic code reveals 'alien creature'; over at the Mirror, they were having a field day with Octopus genetic code is so strange it could be an ALIEN, according to scientists; and the Irish Examiner proudly proclaimed, Don't freak out, but scientists think octopuses 'might be aliens' after DNA study. The words 'alien,' 'space,' or even 'Earth' didn't appear in the August 2015 study of octopus gene sequencing. However, a tongue-in-cheek remark made later by one researcher was widely taken out of context to suggest otherwise. Coincidentally, a controversial paper subsequently published in the March 2018 issue of the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology ('Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?') examined whether some aspects of evolutionary theory might be better explained by positing that the precursors of some Earth organisms could have been extraterrestrial in nature. The paper offered an example which suggested - but did not prove - that one possible explanation for why octopuses (cephalopods) are very different from their presumed evolutionary ancestors (nautiloids) might be that their genes came 'from the cosmos at large': Some genetic features from recent data in the Octopus and other Cephalopods provide challenging examples to conventional evolutionary thinking. The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes more than is present in Homo sapiens. Octopus belongs to the coleoid sub-class of molluscs (Cephalopods) that have an evolutionary history that stretches back over 500 million years, although Cephalopod phylogenetics is highly inconsistent and confusing. Cephalopods are also very diverse, with the behaviourally complex coleoids, (Squid, Cuttlefish and Octopus) presumably arising under a pure terrestrial evolutionary model from the more primitive nautiloids. However, the genetic divergence of Octopus from its ancestral coleoid sub-class is very great, akin to the extreme features seen across many genera and species noted in Eldridge-Gould punctuated equilibria patterns. Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch colour and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene. The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g. Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form - it is plausible then to suggest they seem to be borrowed from a far distant 'future' in terms of terrestrial evolution, or more realistically from the cosmos at large. The paper maintained we should not 'discount' the notion that octopus genes may have been 'extraterrestrial imports' which 'arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago': One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth - most plausibly as an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized Octopus eggs. Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted, as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus' sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago. However, the paper also noted that 'such an extraterrestrial origin as an explanation of emergence of course runs counter to the prevailing dominant paradigm.' And as Ephrat Livni observed in Quartz, other scientists don't necessarily find the paper's ruminations something to be taken seriously: Virologist Karin Moelling of the Max Planck Institute Molecular Genetics in Berlin isn't convinced, although she says that the paper is worth contemplating because there's still so much we don't know about the origins of life on Earth. She writes in in a commentary in the same publication, 'So this article is useful, calling for attention, and it is worth thinking about, yet the main statement about viruses, microbes and even animals coming to us from space, cannot be taken seriously.' Evolutionary scientist Keith Baverstock from the University of Eastern Finland, in his commentary on the paper, is equally wary. The proposed theories 'would support an extra-terrestrial origin of life,' he writes. Still, they don't necessarily lead to that conclusion; there are other plausible explanations for the evidence the paper offers.Kim LaCapria | nan | [
"02995-proof-06-octopus.jpg"
] |
Researchers have discovered that octopus genomes contain alien DNA. | Neutral | In June 2016, a number of web sites reported that, according to recent study, researchers had examined octopus DNA and discovered it was either 'alien' or 'from space': The DNA of octopus may not be from this world, scientists revealed. The new study concluded that octopuses actually have alien DNA! According to the study published in the journal Nature, octopuses have a genome that yields an unprecedented level of complexity, composed of 33,000 protein-coding genes. This number is way beyond the number that can be found in a human being. Other dubious online site made similar assertions, claiming that the study showed beyond a doubt that octupuses don't come from the planet Earth: Now, it seems as if aliens always existed amongst us, but we never knew it! If a new study is to be believed, Octopuses are actually aliens! The study concluded that octopuses have 'alien' genes and more probing from the marine biologists can reveal more breakthroughs. The world is still so vast and we only knew half of what is really out there! A new study has led researchers to conclude that Octopuses (NOT Octopi) have Alien DNA. Their genome shows a never-before-seen level of complexity with a staggering 33,000 protein-coding genes identified, more than in a human being. US researcher Dr. Clifton Ragsdale, from the University of Chicago, said: The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain, and its clever problem-solving abilities. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' The underlying study did not assert extraterrestrial origins for the octopus, however: Our analysis suggests that substantial expansion of a handful of gene families, along with extensive remodelling of genome linkage and repetitive content, played a critical role in the evolution of cephalopod morphological innovations, including their large and complex nervous systems. The study had been published in August 2015, and it was unclear why multiple web sites suddenly picked up and ran with a completely erroneous interpretation of it nearly a year after it first appeared. The 'alien' angle seems to have originated with a press release, which (like the study) was published in 2015: 'The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain and its clever problem-solving capabilities,' said co-senior author Clifton Ragsdale, associate professor in Neurobiology and Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' It was clear that Ragsdale meant that the octopus was an alien metaphorically, not literally. But, as is often the case, a number of web outlets seized upon the use of the word to spin up stories without first reviewing the source material: Yesterday, a number of sites started running stories that seemed to imply that octopuses are aliens. As in, from outer space (?). The Yahoo! News headline ran with Octopus genetic code reveals 'alien creature'; over at the Mirror, they were having a field day with Octopus genetic code is so strange it could be an ALIEN, according to scientists; and the Irish Examiner proudly proclaimed, Don't freak out, but scientists think octopuses 'might be aliens' after DNA study. The words 'alien,' 'space,' or even 'Earth' didn't appear in the August 2015 study of octopus gene sequencing. However, a tongue-in-cheek remark made later by one researcher was widely taken out of context to suggest otherwise. Coincidentally, a controversial paper subsequently published in the March 2018 issue of the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology ('Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?') examined whether some aspects of evolutionary theory might be better explained by positing that the precursors of some Earth organisms could have been extraterrestrial in nature. The paper offered an example which suggested - but did not prove - that one possible explanation for why octopuses (cephalopods) are very different from their presumed evolutionary ancestors (nautiloids) might be that their genes came 'from the cosmos at large': Some genetic features from recent data in the Octopus and other Cephalopods provide challenging examples to conventional evolutionary thinking. The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes more than is present in Homo sapiens. Octopus belongs to the coleoid sub-class of molluscs (Cephalopods) that have an evolutionary history that stretches back over 500 million years, although Cephalopod phylogenetics is highly inconsistent and confusing. Cephalopods are also very diverse, with the behaviourally complex coleoids, (Squid, Cuttlefish and Octopus) presumably arising under a pure terrestrial evolutionary model from the more primitive nautiloids. However, the genetic divergence of Octopus from its ancestral coleoid sub-class is very great, akin to the extreme features seen across many genera and species noted in Eldridge-Gould punctuated equilibria patterns. Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch colour and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene. The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g. Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form - it is plausible then to suggest they seem to be borrowed from a far distant 'future' in terms of terrestrial evolution, or more realistically from the cosmos at large. The paper maintained we should not 'discount' the notion that octopus genes may have been 'extraterrestrial imports' which 'arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago': One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth - most plausibly as an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized Octopus eggs. Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted, as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus' sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago. However, the paper also noted that 'such an extraterrestrial origin as an explanation of emergence of course runs counter to the prevailing dominant paradigm.' And as Ephrat Livni observed in Quartz, other scientists don't necessarily find the paper's ruminations something to be taken seriously: Virologist Karin Moelling of the Max Planck Institute Molecular Genetics in Berlin isn't convinced, although she says that the paper is worth contemplating because there's still so much we don't know about the origins of life on Earth. She writes in in a commentary in the same publication, 'So this article is useful, calling for attention, and it is worth thinking about, yet the main statement about viruses, microbes and even animals coming to us from space, cannot be taken seriously.' Evolutionary scientist Keith Baverstock from the University of Eastern Finland, in his commentary on the paper, is equally wary. The proposed theories 'would support an extra-terrestrial origin of life,' he writes. Still, they don't necessarily lead to that conclusion; there are other plausible explanations for the evidence the paper offers.Kim LaCapria | nan | [
"02995-proof-06-octopus.jpg"
] |
Researchers have discovered that octopus genomes contain alien DNA. | Neutral | In June 2016, a number of web sites reported that, according to recent study, researchers had examined octopus DNA and discovered it was either 'alien' or 'from space': The DNA of octopus may not be from this world, scientists revealed. The new study concluded that octopuses actually have alien DNA! According to the study published in the journal Nature, octopuses have a genome that yields an unprecedented level of complexity, composed of 33,000 protein-coding genes. This number is way beyond the number that can be found in a human being. Other dubious online site made similar assertions, claiming that the study showed beyond a doubt that octupuses don't come from the planet Earth: Now, it seems as if aliens always existed amongst us, but we never knew it! If a new study is to be believed, Octopuses are actually aliens! The study concluded that octopuses have 'alien' genes and more probing from the marine biologists can reveal more breakthroughs. The world is still so vast and we only knew half of what is really out there! A new study has led researchers to conclude that Octopuses (NOT Octopi) have Alien DNA. Their genome shows a never-before-seen level of complexity with a staggering 33,000 protein-coding genes identified, more than in a human being. US researcher Dr. Clifton Ragsdale, from the University of Chicago, said: The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain, and its clever problem-solving abilities. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' The underlying study did not assert extraterrestrial origins for the octopus, however: Our analysis suggests that substantial expansion of a handful of gene families, along with extensive remodelling of genome linkage and repetitive content, played a critical role in the evolution of cephalopod morphological innovations, including their large and complex nervous systems. The study had been published in August 2015, and it was unclear why multiple web sites suddenly picked up and ran with a completely erroneous interpretation of it nearly a year after it first appeared. The 'alien' angle seems to have originated with a press release, which (like the study) was published in 2015: 'The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain and its clever problem-solving capabilities,' said co-senior author Clifton Ragsdale, associate professor in Neurobiology and Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' It was clear that Ragsdale meant that the octopus was an alien metaphorically, not literally. But, as is often the case, a number of web outlets seized upon the use of the word to spin up stories without first reviewing the source material: Yesterday, a number of sites started running stories that seemed to imply that octopuses are aliens. As in, from outer space (?). The Yahoo! News headline ran with Octopus genetic code reveals 'alien creature'; over at the Mirror, they were having a field day with Octopus genetic code is so strange it could be an ALIEN, according to scientists; and the Irish Examiner proudly proclaimed, Don't freak out, but scientists think octopuses 'might be aliens' after DNA study. The words 'alien,' 'space,' or even 'Earth' didn't appear in the August 2015 study of octopus gene sequencing. However, a tongue-in-cheek remark made later by one researcher was widely taken out of context to suggest otherwise. Coincidentally, a controversial paper subsequently published in the March 2018 issue of the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology ('Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?') examined whether some aspects of evolutionary theory might be better explained by positing that the precursors of some Earth organisms could have been extraterrestrial in nature. The paper offered an example which suggested - but did not prove - that one possible explanation for why octopuses (cephalopods) are very different from their presumed evolutionary ancestors (nautiloids) might be that their genes came 'from the cosmos at large': Some genetic features from recent data in the Octopus and other Cephalopods provide challenging examples to conventional evolutionary thinking. The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes more than is present in Homo sapiens. Octopus belongs to the coleoid sub-class of molluscs (Cephalopods) that have an evolutionary history that stretches back over 500 million years, although Cephalopod phylogenetics is highly inconsistent and confusing. Cephalopods are also very diverse, with the behaviourally complex coleoids, (Squid, Cuttlefish and Octopus) presumably arising under a pure terrestrial evolutionary model from the more primitive nautiloids. However, the genetic divergence of Octopus from its ancestral coleoid sub-class is very great, akin to the extreme features seen across many genera and species noted in Eldridge-Gould punctuated equilibria patterns. Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch colour and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene. The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g. Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form - it is plausible then to suggest they seem to be borrowed from a far distant 'future' in terms of terrestrial evolution, or more realistically from the cosmos at large. The paper maintained we should not 'discount' the notion that octopus genes may have been 'extraterrestrial imports' which 'arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago': One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth - most plausibly as an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized Octopus eggs. Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted, as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus' sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago. However, the paper also noted that 'such an extraterrestrial origin as an explanation of emergence of course runs counter to the prevailing dominant paradigm.' And as Ephrat Livni observed in Quartz, other scientists don't necessarily find the paper's ruminations something to be taken seriously: Virologist Karin Moelling of the Max Planck Institute Molecular Genetics in Berlin isn't convinced, although she says that the paper is worth contemplating because there's still so much we don't know about the origins of life on Earth. She writes in in a commentary in the same publication, 'So this article is useful, calling for attention, and it is worth thinking about, yet the main statement about viruses, microbes and even animals coming to us from space, cannot be taken seriously.' Evolutionary scientist Keith Baverstock from the University of Eastern Finland, in his commentary on the paper, is equally wary. The proposed theories 'would support an extra-terrestrial origin of life,' he writes. Still, they don't necessarily lead to that conclusion; there are other plausible explanations for the evidence the paper offers.Kim LaCapria | nan | [
"02995-proof-06-octopus.jpg"
] |
Researchers have discovered that octopus genomes contain alien DNA. | Neutral | In June 2016, a number of web sites reported that, according to recent study, researchers had examined octopus DNA and discovered it was either 'alien' or 'from space': The DNA of octopus may not be from this world, scientists revealed. The new study concluded that octopuses actually have alien DNA! According to the study published in the journal Nature, octopuses have a genome that yields an unprecedented level of complexity, composed of 33,000 protein-coding genes. This number is way beyond the number that can be found in a human being. Other dubious online site made similar assertions, claiming that the study showed beyond a doubt that octupuses don't come from the planet Earth: Now, it seems as if aliens always existed amongst us, but we never knew it! If a new study is to be believed, Octopuses are actually aliens! The study concluded that octopuses have 'alien' genes and more probing from the marine biologists can reveal more breakthroughs. The world is still so vast and we only knew half of what is really out there! A new study has led researchers to conclude that Octopuses (NOT Octopi) have Alien DNA. Their genome shows a never-before-seen level of complexity with a staggering 33,000 protein-coding genes identified, more than in a human being. US researcher Dr. Clifton Ragsdale, from the University of Chicago, said: The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain, and its clever problem-solving abilities. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' The underlying study did not assert extraterrestrial origins for the octopus, however: Our analysis suggests that substantial expansion of a handful of gene families, along with extensive remodelling of genome linkage and repetitive content, played a critical role in the evolution of cephalopod morphological innovations, including their large and complex nervous systems. The study had been published in August 2015, and it was unclear why multiple web sites suddenly picked up and ran with a completely erroneous interpretation of it nearly a year after it first appeared. The 'alien' angle seems to have originated with a press release, which (like the study) was published in 2015: 'The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain and its clever problem-solving capabilities,' said co-senior author Clifton Ragsdale, associate professor in Neurobiology and Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' It was clear that Ragsdale meant that the octopus was an alien metaphorically, not literally. But, as is often the case, a number of web outlets seized upon the use of the word to spin up stories without first reviewing the source material: Yesterday, a number of sites started running stories that seemed to imply that octopuses are aliens. As in, from outer space (?). The Yahoo! News headline ran with Octopus genetic code reveals 'alien creature'; over at the Mirror, they were having a field day with Octopus genetic code is so strange it could be an ALIEN, according to scientists; and the Irish Examiner proudly proclaimed, Don't freak out, but scientists think octopuses 'might be aliens' after DNA study. The words 'alien,' 'space,' or even 'Earth' didn't appear in the August 2015 study of octopus gene sequencing. However, a tongue-in-cheek remark made later by one researcher was widely taken out of context to suggest otherwise. Coincidentally, a controversial paper subsequently published in the March 2018 issue of the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology ('Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?') examined whether some aspects of evolutionary theory might be better explained by positing that the precursors of some Earth organisms could have been extraterrestrial in nature. The paper offered an example which suggested - but did not prove - that one possible explanation for why octopuses (cephalopods) are very different from their presumed evolutionary ancestors (nautiloids) might be that their genes came 'from the cosmos at large': Some genetic features from recent data in the Octopus and other Cephalopods provide challenging examples to conventional evolutionary thinking. The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes more than is present in Homo sapiens. Octopus belongs to the coleoid sub-class of molluscs (Cephalopods) that have an evolutionary history that stretches back over 500 million years, although Cephalopod phylogenetics is highly inconsistent and confusing. Cephalopods are also very diverse, with the behaviourally complex coleoids, (Squid, Cuttlefish and Octopus) presumably arising under a pure terrestrial evolutionary model from the more primitive nautiloids. However, the genetic divergence of Octopus from its ancestral coleoid sub-class is very great, akin to the extreme features seen across many genera and species noted in Eldridge-Gould punctuated equilibria patterns. Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch colour and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene. The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g. Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form - it is plausible then to suggest they seem to be borrowed from a far distant 'future' in terms of terrestrial evolution, or more realistically from the cosmos at large. The paper maintained we should not 'discount' the notion that octopus genes may have been 'extraterrestrial imports' which 'arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago': One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth - most plausibly as an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized Octopus eggs. Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted, as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus' sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago. However, the paper also noted that 'such an extraterrestrial origin as an explanation of emergence of course runs counter to the prevailing dominant paradigm.' And as Ephrat Livni observed in Quartz, other scientists don't necessarily find the paper's ruminations something to be taken seriously: Virologist Karin Moelling of the Max Planck Institute Molecular Genetics in Berlin isn't convinced, although she says that the paper is worth contemplating because there's still so much we don't know about the origins of life on Earth. She writes in in a commentary in the same publication, 'So this article is useful, calling for attention, and it is worth thinking about, yet the main statement about viruses, microbes and even animals coming to us from space, cannot be taken seriously.' Evolutionary scientist Keith Baverstock from the University of Eastern Finland, in his commentary on the paper, is equally wary. The proposed theories 'would support an extra-terrestrial origin of life,' he writes. Still, they don't necessarily lead to that conclusion; there are other plausible explanations for the evidence the paper offers.Kim LaCapria | nan | [
"02995-proof-06-octopus.jpg"
] |
Researchers have discovered that octopus genomes contain alien DNA. | Neutral | In June 2016, a number of web sites reported that, according to recent study, researchers had examined octopus DNA and discovered it was either 'alien' or 'from space': The DNA of octopus may not be from this world, scientists revealed. The new study concluded that octopuses actually have alien DNA! According to the study published in the journal Nature, octopuses have a genome that yields an unprecedented level of complexity, composed of 33,000 protein-coding genes. This number is way beyond the number that can be found in a human being. Other dubious online site made similar assertions, claiming that the study showed beyond a doubt that octupuses don't come from the planet Earth: Now, it seems as if aliens always existed amongst us, but we never knew it! If a new study is to be believed, Octopuses are actually aliens! The study concluded that octopuses have 'alien' genes and more probing from the marine biologists can reveal more breakthroughs. The world is still so vast and we only knew half of what is really out there! A new study has led researchers to conclude that Octopuses (NOT Octopi) have Alien DNA. Their genome shows a never-before-seen level of complexity with a staggering 33,000 protein-coding genes identified, more than in a human being. US researcher Dr. Clifton Ragsdale, from the University of Chicago, said: The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain, and its clever problem-solving abilities. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' The underlying study did not assert extraterrestrial origins for the octopus, however: Our analysis suggests that substantial expansion of a handful of gene families, along with extensive remodelling of genome linkage and repetitive content, played a critical role in the evolution of cephalopod morphological innovations, including their large and complex nervous systems. The study had been published in August 2015, and it was unclear why multiple web sites suddenly picked up and ran with a completely erroneous interpretation of it nearly a year after it first appeared. The 'alien' angle seems to have originated with a press release, which (like the study) was published in 2015: 'The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain and its clever problem-solving capabilities,' said co-senior author Clifton Ragsdale, associate professor in Neurobiology and Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' It was clear that Ragsdale meant that the octopus was an alien metaphorically, not literally. But, as is often the case, a number of web outlets seized upon the use of the word to spin up stories without first reviewing the source material: Yesterday, a number of sites started running stories that seemed to imply that octopuses are aliens. As in, from outer space (?). The Yahoo! News headline ran with Octopus genetic code reveals 'alien creature'; over at the Mirror, they were having a field day with Octopus genetic code is so strange it could be an ALIEN, according to scientists; and the Irish Examiner proudly proclaimed, Don't freak out, but scientists think octopuses 'might be aliens' after DNA study. The words 'alien,' 'space,' or even 'Earth' didn't appear in the August 2015 study of octopus gene sequencing. However, a tongue-in-cheek remark made later by one researcher was widely taken out of context to suggest otherwise. Coincidentally, a controversial paper subsequently published in the March 2018 issue of the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology ('Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?') examined whether some aspects of evolutionary theory might be better explained by positing that the precursors of some Earth organisms could have been extraterrestrial in nature. The paper offered an example which suggested - but did not prove - that one possible explanation for why octopuses (cephalopods) are very different from their presumed evolutionary ancestors (nautiloids) might be that their genes came 'from the cosmos at large': Some genetic features from recent data in the Octopus and other Cephalopods provide challenging examples to conventional evolutionary thinking. The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes more than is present in Homo sapiens. Octopus belongs to the coleoid sub-class of molluscs (Cephalopods) that have an evolutionary history that stretches back over 500 million years, although Cephalopod phylogenetics is highly inconsistent and confusing. Cephalopods are also very diverse, with the behaviourally complex coleoids, (Squid, Cuttlefish and Octopus) presumably arising under a pure terrestrial evolutionary model from the more primitive nautiloids. However, the genetic divergence of Octopus from its ancestral coleoid sub-class is very great, akin to the extreme features seen across many genera and species noted in Eldridge-Gould punctuated equilibria patterns. Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch colour and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene. The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g. Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form - it is plausible then to suggest they seem to be borrowed from a far distant 'future' in terms of terrestrial evolution, or more realistically from the cosmos at large. The paper maintained we should not 'discount' the notion that octopus genes may have been 'extraterrestrial imports' which 'arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago': One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth - most plausibly as an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized Octopus eggs. Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted, as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus' sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago. However, the paper also noted that 'such an extraterrestrial origin as an explanation of emergence of course runs counter to the prevailing dominant paradigm.' And as Ephrat Livni observed in Quartz, other scientists don't necessarily find the paper's ruminations something to be taken seriously: Virologist Karin Moelling of the Max Planck Institute Molecular Genetics in Berlin isn't convinced, although she says that the paper is worth contemplating because there's still so much we don't know about the origins of life on Earth. She writes in in a commentary in the same publication, 'So this article is useful, calling for attention, and it is worth thinking about, yet the main statement about viruses, microbes and even animals coming to us from space, cannot be taken seriously.' Evolutionary scientist Keith Baverstock from the University of Eastern Finland, in his commentary on the paper, is equally wary. The proposed theories 'would support an extra-terrestrial origin of life,' he writes. Still, they don't necessarily lead to that conclusion; there are other plausible explanations for the evidence the paper offers.Kim LaCapria | nan | [
"02995-proof-06-octopus.jpg"
] |
Researchers have discovered that octopus genomes contain alien DNA. | Neutral | In June 2016, a number of web sites reported that, according to recent study, researchers had examined octopus DNA and discovered it was either 'alien' or 'from space': The DNA of octopus may not be from this world, scientists revealed. The new study concluded that octopuses actually have alien DNA! According to the study published in the journal Nature, octopuses have a genome that yields an unprecedented level of complexity, composed of 33,000 protein-coding genes. This number is way beyond the number that can be found in a human being. Other dubious online site made similar assertions, claiming that the study showed beyond a doubt that octupuses don't come from the planet Earth: Now, it seems as if aliens always existed amongst us, but we never knew it! If a new study is to be believed, Octopuses are actually aliens! The study concluded that octopuses have 'alien' genes and more probing from the marine biologists can reveal more breakthroughs. The world is still so vast and we only knew half of what is really out there! A new study has led researchers to conclude that Octopuses (NOT Octopi) have Alien DNA. Their genome shows a never-before-seen level of complexity with a staggering 33,000 protein-coding genes identified, more than in a human being. US researcher Dr. Clifton Ragsdale, from the University of Chicago, said: The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain, and its clever problem-solving abilities. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' The underlying study did not assert extraterrestrial origins for the octopus, however: Our analysis suggests that substantial expansion of a handful of gene families, along with extensive remodelling of genome linkage and repetitive content, played a critical role in the evolution of cephalopod morphological innovations, including their large and complex nervous systems. The study had been published in August 2015, and it was unclear why multiple web sites suddenly picked up and ran with a completely erroneous interpretation of it nearly a year after it first appeared. The 'alien' angle seems to have originated with a press release, which (like the study) was published in 2015: 'The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain and its clever problem-solving capabilities,' said co-senior author Clifton Ragsdale, associate professor in Neurobiology and Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' It was clear that Ragsdale meant that the octopus was an alien metaphorically, not literally. But, as is often the case, a number of web outlets seized upon the use of the word to spin up stories without first reviewing the source material: Yesterday, a number of sites started running stories that seemed to imply that octopuses are aliens. As in, from outer space (?). The Yahoo! News headline ran with Octopus genetic code reveals 'alien creature'; over at the Mirror, they were having a field day with Octopus genetic code is so strange it could be an ALIEN, according to scientists; and the Irish Examiner proudly proclaimed, Don't freak out, but scientists think octopuses 'might be aliens' after DNA study. The words 'alien,' 'space,' or even 'Earth' didn't appear in the August 2015 study of octopus gene sequencing. However, a tongue-in-cheek remark made later by one researcher was widely taken out of context to suggest otherwise. Coincidentally, a controversial paper subsequently published in the March 2018 issue of the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology ('Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?') examined whether some aspects of evolutionary theory might be better explained by positing that the precursors of some Earth organisms could have been extraterrestrial in nature. The paper offered an example which suggested - but did not prove - that one possible explanation for why octopuses (cephalopods) are very different from their presumed evolutionary ancestors (nautiloids) might be that their genes came 'from the cosmos at large': Some genetic features from recent data in the Octopus and other Cephalopods provide challenging examples to conventional evolutionary thinking. The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes more than is present in Homo sapiens. Octopus belongs to the coleoid sub-class of molluscs (Cephalopods) that have an evolutionary history that stretches back over 500 million years, although Cephalopod phylogenetics is highly inconsistent and confusing. Cephalopods are also very diverse, with the behaviourally complex coleoids, (Squid, Cuttlefish and Octopus) presumably arising under a pure terrestrial evolutionary model from the more primitive nautiloids. However, the genetic divergence of Octopus from its ancestral coleoid sub-class is very great, akin to the extreme features seen across many genera and species noted in Eldridge-Gould punctuated equilibria patterns. Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch colour and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene. The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g. Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form - it is plausible then to suggest they seem to be borrowed from a far distant 'future' in terms of terrestrial evolution, or more realistically from the cosmos at large. The paper maintained we should not 'discount' the notion that octopus genes may have been 'extraterrestrial imports' which 'arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago': One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth - most plausibly as an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized Octopus eggs. Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted, as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus' sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago. However, the paper also noted that 'such an extraterrestrial origin as an explanation of emergence of course runs counter to the prevailing dominant paradigm.' And as Ephrat Livni observed in Quartz, other scientists don't necessarily find the paper's ruminations something to be taken seriously: Virologist Karin Moelling of the Max Planck Institute Molecular Genetics in Berlin isn't convinced, although she says that the paper is worth contemplating because there's still so much we don't know about the origins of life on Earth. She writes in in a commentary in the same publication, 'So this article is useful, calling for attention, and it is worth thinking about, yet the main statement about viruses, microbes and even animals coming to us from space, cannot be taken seriously.' Evolutionary scientist Keith Baverstock from the University of Eastern Finland, in his commentary on the paper, is equally wary. The proposed theories 'would support an extra-terrestrial origin of life,' he writes. Still, they don't necessarily lead to that conclusion; there are other plausible explanations for the evidence the paper offers.Kim LaCapria | nan | [
"02995-proof-06-octopus.jpg"
] |
Researchers have discovered that octopus genomes contain alien DNA. | Neutral | In June 2016, a number of web sites reported that, according to recent study, researchers had examined octopus DNA and discovered it was either 'alien' or 'from space': The DNA of octopus may not be from this world, scientists revealed. The new study concluded that octopuses actually have alien DNA! According to the study published in the journal Nature, octopuses have a genome that yields an unprecedented level of complexity, composed of 33,000 protein-coding genes. This number is way beyond the number that can be found in a human being. Other dubious online site made similar assertions, claiming that the study showed beyond a doubt that octupuses don't come from the planet Earth: Now, it seems as if aliens always existed amongst us, but we never knew it! If a new study is to be believed, Octopuses are actually aliens! The study concluded that octopuses have 'alien' genes and more probing from the marine biologists can reveal more breakthroughs. The world is still so vast and we only knew half of what is really out there! A new study has led researchers to conclude that Octopuses (NOT Octopi) have Alien DNA. Their genome shows a never-before-seen level of complexity with a staggering 33,000 protein-coding genes identified, more than in a human being. US researcher Dr. Clifton Ragsdale, from the University of Chicago, said: The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain, and its clever problem-solving abilities. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' The underlying study did not assert extraterrestrial origins for the octopus, however: Our analysis suggests that substantial expansion of a handful of gene families, along with extensive remodelling of genome linkage and repetitive content, played a critical role in the evolution of cephalopod morphological innovations, including their large and complex nervous systems. The study had been published in August 2015, and it was unclear why multiple web sites suddenly picked up and ran with a completely erroneous interpretation of it nearly a year after it first appeared. The 'alien' angle seems to have originated with a press release, which (like the study) was published in 2015: 'The octopus appears to be utterly different from all other animals, even other molluscs, with its eight prehensile arms, its large brain and its clever problem-solving capabilities,' said co-senior author Clifton Ragsdale, associate professor in Neurobiology and Organismal Biology and Anatomy at the University of Chicago. 'The late British zoologist Martin Wells said the octopus is an alien. In this sense, then, our paper describes the first sequenced genome from an alien.' It was clear that Ragsdale meant that the octopus was an alien metaphorically, not literally. But, as is often the case, a number of web outlets seized upon the use of the word to spin up stories without first reviewing the source material: Yesterday, a number of sites started running stories that seemed to imply that octopuses are aliens. As in, from outer space (?). The Yahoo! News headline ran with Octopus genetic code reveals 'alien creature'; over at the Mirror, they were having a field day with Octopus genetic code is so strange it could be an ALIEN, according to scientists; and the Irish Examiner proudly proclaimed, Don't freak out, but scientists think octopuses 'might be aliens' after DNA study. The words 'alien,' 'space,' or even 'Earth' didn't appear in the August 2015 study of octopus gene sequencing. However, a tongue-in-cheek remark made later by one researcher was widely taken out of context to suggest otherwise. Coincidentally, a controversial paper subsequently published in the March 2018 issue of the journal Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology ('Cause of Cambrian Explosion - Terrestrial or Cosmic?') examined whether some aspects of evolutionary theory might be better explained by positing that the precursors of some Earth organisms could have been extraterrestrial in nature. The paper offered an example which suggested - but did not prove - that one possible explanation for why octopuses (cephalopods) are very different from their presumed evolutionary ancestors (nautiloids) might be that their genes came 'from the cosmos at large': Some genetic features from recent data in the Octopus and other Cephalopods provide challenging examples to conventional evolutionary thinking. The genome of the Octopus shows a staggering level of complexity with 33,000 protein-coding genes more than is present in Homo sapiens. Octopus belongs to the coleoid sub-class of molluscs (Cephalopods) that have an evolutionary history that stretches back over 500 million years, although Cephalopod phylogenetics is highly inconsistent and confusing. Cephalopods are also very diverse, with the behaviourally complex coleoids, (Squid, Cuttlefish and Octopus) presumably arising under a pure terrestrial evolutionary model from the more primitive nautiloids. However, the genetic divergence of Octopus from its ancestral coleoid sub-class is very great, akin to the extreme features seen across many genera and species noted in Eldridge-Gould punctuated equilibria patterns. Its large brain and sophisticated nervous system, camera-like eyes, flexible bodies, instantaneous camouflage via the ability to switch colour and shape are just a few of the striking features that appear suddenly on the evolutionary scene. The transformative genes leading from the consensus ancestral Nautilus (e.g. Nautilus pompilius) to the common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) to Squid (Loligo vulgaris) to the common Octopus (Octopus vulgaris) are not easily to be found in any pre-existing life form - it is plausible then to suggest they seem to be borrowed from a far distant 'future' in terms of terrestrial evolution, or more realistically from the cosmos at large. The paper maintained we should not 'discount' the notion that octopus genes may have been 'extraterrestrial imports' which 'arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago': One plausible explanation, in our view, is that the new genes are likely new extraterrestrial imports to Earth - most plausibly as an already coherent group of functioning genes within (say) cryopreserved and matrix protected fertilized Octopus eggs. Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted, as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus' sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago. However, the paper also noted that 'such an extraterrestrial origin as an explanation of emergence of course runs counter to the prevailing dominant paradigm.' And as Ephrat Livni observed in Quartz, other scientists don't necessarily find the paper's ruminations something to be taken seriously: Virologist Karin Moelling of the Max Planck Institute Molecular Genetics in Berlin isn't convinced, although she says that the paper is worth contemplating because there's still so much we don't know about the origins of life on Earth. She writes in in a commentary in the same publication, 'So this article is useful, calling for attention, and it is worth thinking about, yet the main statement about viruses, microbes and even animals coming to us from space, cannot be taken seriously.' Evolutionary scientist Keith Baverstock from the University of Eastern Finland, in his commentary on the paper, is equally wary. The proposed theories 'would support an extra-terrestrial origin of life,' he writes. Still, they don't necessarily lead to that conclusion; there are other plausible explanations for the evidence the paper offers.Kim LaCapria | nan | [
"02995-proof-06-octopus.jpg"
] |
The Environmental Protection Agency awarded $100 million to Flint, Michigan, at the behest of President Trump. | Neutral | On 17 March 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a news release stating that the agency had just awarded a $100 million grant to the state of Michigan to upgrade drinking water infrastructure in the city of Flint. Flint began experiencing a crisis in 2014 after insufficiently treated water from the Flint River became the drinking water source for the city, exposing over 100,000 residents to potentially high levels of lead. Shortly after the EPA's announcement, conservative outlets published articles crediting 'Trump's EPA' for the $100 million grant, some stating that President Trump had 'bestowed' $100 million upon Flint, giving the city its 'first real hope' since the start of the water crisis. But as these articles circulated on social media, others argued that it was actually President Obama who deserved credit for the grant. In this case, both opinions are rooted in some truth. The $100 million grant was funded by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, or WIIN, which was signed by President Obama in December 2016: President Barack Obama [has] signed a bill authorizing water projects across the country, including $170 million to address lead in the drinking water in Flint, Michigan, and $558 million to provide relief to drought-stricken California. Obama said the bill advances vital projects across the country to restore watersheds, improve flood control and rebuild water infrastructure - including pipes in Flint, where residents have struggled with lead-tainted water for more than two years. Although this legislation carried President Obama's name, the EPA did not officially award the grant to Michigan until March 2017, by which time President Donald Trump was in office. As such, it was technically correct to say that 'Trump's EPA' awarded the grant money, although the funding for that grant was originally provided for under legislation signed by President Obama just before he left office: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has awarded a $100-million grant to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to fund drinking water infrastructure upgrades in Flint, funding that had been approved by Congress and former President Barack Obama late [in 2016]. Provided by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, the funds awarded Friday, March 17, are designed to allow the city to accelerate work to replace lead service lines and make other infrastructure improvements, including upgrades to Flint's water treatment plant. Crediting President Trump for this $100 million water infrastructure grant was touted as hypocritical by some critics since his 2017 blueprint budget contained several major cuts to the EPA's funding, but the blueprint maintains that the proposed budget 'provides robust funding for critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure' and that 'these funding levels further the President's ongoing commitment to infrastructure repair and replacement and would allow States, municipalities, and private entities to continue to finance high priority infrastructure investments that protect human health.' The EPA itself noted that President Trump's budget blueprint would not cut the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: The WIIN funding supplements EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), a federal-state partnership. In addition to the federal funds announced today, the State of Michigan is providing the required 20% match of $20 million. Over the years, EPA has provided more than $32.5 billion to states for infrastructure upgrades through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Under President Trump's budget blueprint SRF remains fully funded, and the proposal provides robust funding for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program to finance critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure. | nan | [
"03016-proof-09-Flint_michigan_water_fb.jpg"
] |
The Environmental Protection Agency awarded $100 million to Flint, Michigan, at the behest of President Trump. | Neutral | On 17 March 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a news release stating that the agency had just awarded a $100 million grant to the state of Michigan to upgrade drinking water infrastructure in the city of Flint. Flint began experiencing a crisis in 2014 after insufficiently treated water from the Flint River became the drinking water source for the city, exposing over 100,000 residents to potentially high levels of lead. Shortly after the EPA's announcement, conservative outlets published articles crediting 'Trump's EPA' for the $100 million grant, some stating that President Trump had 'bestowed' $100 million upon Flint, giving the city its 'first real hope' since the start of the water crisis. But as these articles circulated on social media, others argued that it was actually President Obama who deserved credit for the grant. In this case, both opinions are rooted in some truth. The $100 million grant was funded by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, or WIIN, which was signed by President Obama in December 2016: President Barack Obama [has] signed a bill authorizing water projects across the country, including $170 million to address lead in the drinking water in Flint, Michigan, and $558 million to provide relief to drought-stricken California. Obama said the bill advances vital projects across the country to restore watersheds, improve flood control and rebuild water infrastructure - including pipes in Flint, where residents have struggled with lead-tainted water for more than two years. Although this legislation carried President Obama's name, the EPA did not officially award the grant to Michigan until March 2017, by which time President Donald Trump was in office. As such, it was technically correct to say that 'Trump's EPA' awarded the grant money, although the funding for that grant was originally provided for under legislation signed by President Obama just before he left office: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has awarded a $100-million grant to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to fund drinking water infrastructure upgrades in Flint, funding that had been approved by Congress and former President Barack Obama late [in 2016]. Provided by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, the funds awarded Friday, March 17, are designed to allow the city to accelerate work to replace lead service lines and make other infrastructure improvements, including upgrades to Flint's water treatment plant. Crediting President Trump for this $100 million water infrastructure grant was touted as hypocritical by some critics since his 2017 blueprint budget contained several major cuts to the EPA's funding, but the blueprint maintains that the proposed budget 'provides robust funding for critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure' and that 'these funding levels further the President's ongoing commitment to infrastructure repair and replacement and would allow States, municipalities, and private entities to continue to finance high priority infrastructure investments that protect human health.' The EPA itself noted that President Trump's budget blueprint would not cut the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: The WIIN funding supplements EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), a federal-state partnership. In addition to the federal funds announced today, the State of Michigan is providing the required 20% match of $20 million. Over the years, EPA has provided more than $32.5 billion to states for infrastructure upgrades through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Under President Trump's budget blueprint SRF remains fully funded, and the proposal provides robust funding for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program to finance critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure. | nan | [
"03016-proof-09-Flint_michigan_water_fb.jpg"
] |
The Environmental Protection Agency awarded $100 million to Flint, Michigan, at the behest of President Trump. | Neutral | On 17 March 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a news release stating that the agency had just awarded a $100 million grant to the state of Michigan to upgrade drinking water infrastructure in the city of Flint. Flint began experiencing a crisis in 2014 after insufficiently treated water from the Flint River became the drinking water source for the city, exposing over 100,000 residents to potentially high levels of lead. Shortly after the EPA's announcement, conservative outlets published articles crediting 'Trump's EPA' for the $100 million grant, some stating that President Trump had 'bestowed' $100 million upon Flint, giving the city its 'first real hope' since the start of the water crisis. But as these articles circulated on social media, others argued that it was actually President Obama who deserved credit for the grant. In this case, both opinions are rooted in some truth. The $100 million grant was funded by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, or WIIN, which was signed by President Obama in December 2016: President Barack Obama [has] signed a bill authorizing water projects across the country, including $170 million to address lead in the drinking water in Flint, Michigan, and $558 million to provide relief to drought-stricken California. Obama said the bill advances vital projects across the country to restore watersheds, improve flood control and rebuild water infrastructure - including pipes in Flint, where residents have struggled with lead-tainted water for more than two years. Although this legislation carried President Obama's name, the EPA did not officially award the grant to Michigan until March 2017, by which time President Donald Trump was in office. As such, it was technically correct to say that 'Trump's EPA' awarded the grant money, although the funding for that grant was originally provided for under legislation signed by President Obama just before he left office: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has awarded a $100-million grant to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to fund drinking water infrastructure upgrades in Flint, funding that had been approved by Congress and former President Barack Obama late [in 2016]. Provided by the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, the funds awarded Friday, March 17, are designed to allow the city to accelerate work to replace lead service lines and make other infrastructure improvements, including upgrades to Flint's water treatment plant. Crediting President Trump for this $100 million water infrastructure grant was touted as hypocritical by some critics since his 2017 blueprint budget contained several major cuts to the EPA's funding, but the blueprint maintains that the proposed budget 'provides robust funding for critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure' and that 'these funding levels further the President's ongoing commitment to infrastructure repair and replacement and would allow States, municipalities, and private entities to continue to finance high priority infrastructure investments that protect human health.' The EPA itself noted that President Trump's budget blueprint would not cut the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: The WIIN funding supplements EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), a federal-state partnership. In addition to the federal funds announced today, the State of Michigan is providing the required 20% match of $20 million. Over the years, EPA has provided more than $32.5 billion to states for infrastructure upgrades through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. Under President Trump's budget blueprint SRF remains fully funded, and the proposal provides robust funding for the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program to finance critical drinking and wastewater infrastructure. | nan | [
"03016-proof-09-Flint_michigan_water_fb.jpg"
] |
Kay Jewelers regularly replaces diamonds with fakes or inferior stones during service and maintenance appointments. | Neutral | In March 2017, a May 2016 ConservativeTribune.com post about Kay Jewelers' purported propensity for surreptitiously swapping diamonds out with fakes began recirculating on social media: Beware taking your diamond ring to be repaired at Kay Jewelers, because a bombshell investigation has revealed that the specialty retailer has a bad habit of replacing the stones in its customers' engagements rings. Specifically, BuzzFeed tracked down eight women whose engagement ring stones were swapped out with fake ones when the women took their rings to be repaired at the retailer. The article consisted mostly of information pulled from a May 2016 report from BuzzFeed about claims from some customers that jewelry sent for repair or cleaning at Kay Jewelers was returned without the original gems: Since she posted a complaint on Kay's Facebook page, Clarius said she had been contacted by 'hundreds' of people with similar stories. Some of those women reached out after BuzzFeed News reported Kay had lost or damaged multiple engagement rings sent in for repairs ... [Kay, Zales, and Jared] are owned by the same parent company, Sterling, which also owns a number of regional chains, including Marks & Morgan Jewelers, Gordon's Jewelers, Shaw's Jewelers, and Weisfield Jewelers ... Sterling itself is also a subsidiary of a company called Signet, which is the 'largest specialty retail jeweler in the U.S. and the U.K.,' according to Sterling's website. In June 2016, Bloomberg published a statement issued by Kay Jewelers' parent company, Signet, objecting to the complaints: We strongly object to recent allegations on social media, republished and grossly amplified, that our team members systematically mishandle customers' jewelry repairs or engage in 'diamond swapping.... Incidents of misconduct, which are exceedingly rare, are dealt with swiftly and appropriately. It does not appear that a larger number of customers ever stepped forward with subsequent similar claims. Conservative Tribune's report implied that anyone with a Kay Jewelers diamond was at risk of being fleeced, but we could not find any evidence that the claims go far beyond the original report. Although BuzzFeed identified at least eight customers who claimed that Kay Jewelers had switched out their gems for stones of inferior quality, we were unable to substantiate that the incidents transpired as described, nor could we track down any information suggesting that the incidents, if accurate, were widespread. | nan | [
"03064-proof-06-diamond_ring_fb.jpg"
] |
Kay Jewelers regularly replaces diamonds with fakes or inferior stones during service and maintenance appointments. | Neutral | In March 2017, a May 2016 ConservativeTribune.com post about Kay Jewelers' purported propensity for surreptitiously swapping diamonds out with fakes began recirculating on social media: Beware taking your diamond ring to be repaired at Kay Jewelers, because a bombshell investigation has revealed that the specialty retailer has a bad habit of replacing the stones in its customers' engagements rings. Specifically, BuzzFeed tracked down eight women whose engagement ring stones were swapped out with fake ones when the women took their rings to be repaired at the retailer. The article consisted mostly of information pulled from a May 2016 report from BuzzFeed about claims from some customers that jewelry sent for repair or cleaning at Kay Jewelers was returned without the original gems: Since she posted a complaint on Kay's Facebook page, Clarius said she had been contacted by 'hundreds' of people with similar stories. Some of those women reached out after BuzzFeed News reported Kay had lost or damaged multiple engagement rings sent in for repairs ... [Kay, Zales, and Jared] are owned by the same parent company, Sterling, which also owns a number of regional chains, including Marks & Morgan Jewelers, Gordon's Jewelers, Shaw's Jewelers, and Weisfield Jewelers ... Sterling itself is also a subsidiary of a company called Signet, which is the 'largest specialty retail jeweler in the U.S. and the U.K.,' according to Sterling's website. In June 2016, Bloomberg published a statement issued by Kay Jewelers' parent company, Signet, objecting to the complaints: We strongly object to recent allegations on social media, republished and grossly amplified, that our team members systematically mishandle customers' jewelry repairs or engage in 'diamond swapping.... Incidents of misconduct, which are exceedingly rare, are dealt with swiftly and appropriately. It does not appear that a larger number of customers ever stepped forward with subsequent similar claims. Conservative Tribune's report implied that anyone with a Kay Jewelers diamond was at risk of being fleeced, but we could not find any evidence that the claims go far beyond the original report. Although BuzzFeed identified at least eight customers who claimed that Kay Jewelers had switched out their gems for stones of inferior quality, we were unable to substantiate that the incidents transpired as described, nor could we track down any information suggesting that the incidents, if accurate, were widespread. | nan | [
"03064-proof-06-diamond_ring_fb.jpg"
] |
Kay Jewelers regularly replaces diamonds with fakes or inferior stones during service and maintenance appointments. | Neutral | In March 2017, a May 2016 ConservativeTribune.com post about Kay Jewelers' purported propensity for surreptitiously swapping diamonds out with fakes began recirculating on social media: Beware taking your diamond ring to be repaired at Kay Jewelers, because a bombshell investigation has revealed that the specialty retailer has a bad habit of replacing the stones in its customers' engagements rings. Specifically, BuzzFeed tracked down eight women whose engagement ring stones were swapped out with fake ones when the women took their rings to be repaired at the retailer. The article consisted mostly of information pulled from a May 2016 report from BuzzFeed about claims from some customers that jewelry sent for repair or cleaning at Kay Jewelers was returned without the original gems: Since she posted a complaint on Kay's Facebook page, Clarius said she had been contacted by 'hundreds' of people with similar stories. Some of those women reached out after BuzzFeed News reported Kay had lost or damaged multiple engagement rings sent in for repairs ... [Kay, Zales, and Jared] are owned by the same parent company, Sterling, which also owns a number of regional chains, including Marks & Morgan Jewelers, Gordon's Jewelers, Shaw's Jewelers, and Weisfield Jewelers ... Sterling itself is also a subsidiary of a company called Signet, which is the 'largest specialty retail jeweler in the U.S. and the U.K.,' according to Sterling's website. In June 2016, Bloomberg published a statement issued by Kay Jewelers' parent company, Signet, objecting to the complaints: We strongly object to recent allegations on social media, republished and grossly amplified, that our team members systematically mishandle customers' jewelry repairs or engage in 'diamond swapping.... Incidents of misconduct, which are exceedingly rare, are dealt with swiftly and appropriately. It does not appear that a larger number of customers ever stepped forward with subsequent similar claims. Conservative Tribune's report implied that anyone with a Kay Jewelers diamond was at risk of being fleeced, but we could not find any evidence that the claims go far beyond the original report. Although BuzzFeed identified at least eight customers who claimed that Kay Jewelers had switched out their gems for stones of inferior quality, we were unable to substantiate that the incidents transpired as described, nor could we track down any information suggesting that the incidents, if accurate, were widespread. | nan | [
"03064-proof-06-diamond_ring_fb.jpg"
] |
Three outfits from 'The Goonies' inspired character Dennis Nedry's wardrobe for 'Jurassic Park. | Neutral | In May 2021, TikTok user @jbuckstudios posted a new video about two popular movies from the past. It claimed that the outfits worn by 'Jurassic Park' character Dennis Nedry were 'subtle references' to clothing from 'The Goonies.' @jbuckstudios Did you know this about Jurassic Paek? #moviedetails #movietok #movietiktok #movietrivia #jurassicpark #jurassicparkcosplay #jbuckstudios ♬ Blade Runner 2049 - Synthwave Goose If this could be confirmed to be true, it would be quite the cool callback for fans of the films. Dennis Nedry Nedry, who was portrayed by 'Seinfeld' actor Wayne Knight, was the tech whiz on the dinosaur island in 1993's 'Jurassic Park.' In the film, Nedry planned to steal dinosaur embryos and smuggle them out of secure storage in order to make a boatload of money. During a violent thunderstorm, he crashed a jeep and encountered a dinosaur, which ended his chances of a life of riches. Paying Homage The TikTok video purported that three specific outfits from 'The Goonies' (1985) inspired Nedry's wardrobe in 'Jurassic Park.' Did you know that in 1993's 'Jurassic Park,' there are several subtle references to the beloved 80s movie 'The Goonies'? So if we remember, Nedry is a weasely man trying to steal dino DNA. But let's take a closer look at his fashion choices. They seem oddly familiar, right? Well, his outfits are direct references to 1985's 'The Goonies,' as you can see here. The reason so is that Steven Spielberg was an executive producer on 'The Goonies,' so I'm assuming he wanted to pay homage to that film. It's true that Spielberg was an executive producer on 'The Goonies' and also directed 'Jurassic Park.' 'Steven Spielberg Presents' referred to his executive producer role. 'The Goonies' was directed by Richard Donner. The same idea that some relationship exists between the movie characters and their outfits has also appeared in countless tweets. TIL: Every outfit worn by Dennis Nedry in Jurassic Park was inspired by The Goonies. pic.twitter.com/RHeGENH63c - Mark's Yesterworld (@Yester_World) April 18, 2018 The original person who appeared to make the possible connection was Reddit user shadewfb. The Three Outfits Nedry's three outfits that appeared in the video and tweets were a Hawaiian shirt, gray jacket, and yellow raincoat. Quick reminder that Nedry in Jurassic Park dresses like the Goonies. pic.twitter.com/86bOYAlXDL - Nick de Semlyen (@NickdeSemlyen) October 3, 2020 While it's certainly possible that Nedry's outfits were purposely meant to 'pay homage' to 'The Goonies,' we were unable to find any confirmation of the claim from Spielberg, Knight, or anyone else involved in the films. Other entertainment blogs including Nerdist and Screen Rant were also unable to officially confirm the claim. It's true that both Chunk in 'The Goonies' and Nedry in 'Jurassic Park' both wore Hawaiian shirts. However, the shirts weren't quite the same. Also, Nedry's scene with the Hawaiian shirt was on the beach under palm trees. This setting (and Nedry's goofy personality) perhaps called for a Hawaiian shirt regardless of any possible attempt to 'pay homage.' The gray jackets worn by Mouth in 'The Goonies' and Nedry were somewhat similar. However, it could be argued that if Nedry was truly supposed to resemble Mouth, he would have worn a black T-shirt underneath the jacket. Finally, the yellow raincoats worn by Mikey in 'The Goonies' and Nedry also appeared to be similar. As with the Hawaiian shirt on the beach, it could be argued that Nedry's raincoat in the violent thunderstorm was called for regardless of any attempt for a callback to 'The Goonies.' We reached out to Universal Pictures about the claim, and will update this story should we receive a response. It's possible that we will one day receive confirmation that Nedry's outfits were indeed inspired by clothing from 'The Goonies.' However, until that day comes, we have rated the claim as 'Unproven.' | nan | [
"03204-proof-02-goonies-poster.jpg",
"03204-proof-03-nedry-goonies-featured.jpg"
] |
Three outfits from 'The Goonies' inspired character Dennis Nedry's wardrobe for 'Jurassic Park. | Neutral | In May 2021, TikTok user @jbuckstudios posted a new video about two popular movies from the past. It claimed that the outfits worn by 'Jurassic Park' character Dennis Nedry were 'subtle references' to clothing from 'The Goonies.' @jbuckstudios Did you know this about Jurassic Paek? #moviedetails #movietok #movietiktok #movietrivia #jurassicpark #jurassicparkcosplay #jbuckstudios ♬ Blade Runner 2049 - Synthwave Goose If this could be confirmed to be true, it would be quite the cool callback for fans of the films. Dennis Nedry Nedry, who was portrayed by 'Seinfeld' actor Wayne Knight, was the tech whiz on the dinosaur island in 1993's 'Jurassic Park.' In the film, Nedry planned to steal dinosaur embryos and smuggle them out of secure storage in order to make a boatload of money. During a violent thunderstorm, he crashed a jeep and encountered a dinosaur, which ended his chances of a life of riches. Paying Homage The TikTok video purported that three specific outfits from 'The Goonies' (1985) inspired Nedry's wardrobe in 'Jurassic Park.' Did you know that in 1993's 'Jurassic Park,' there are several subtle references to the beloved 80s movie 'The Goonies'? So if we remember, Nedry is a weasely man trying to steal dino DNA. But let's take a closer look at his fashion choices. They seem oddly familiar, right? Well, his outfits are direct references to 1985's 'The Goonies,' as you can see here. The reason so is that Steven Spielberg was an executive producer on 'The Goonies,' so I'm assuming he wanted to pay homage to that film. It's true that Spielberg was an executive producer on 'The Goonies' and also directed 'Jurassic Park.' 'Steven Spielberg Presents' referred to his executive producer role. 'The Goonies' was directed by Richard Donner. The same idea that some relationship exists between the movie characters and their outfits has also appeared in countless tweets. TIL: Every outfit worn by Dennis Nedry in Jurassic Park was inspired by The Goonies. pic.twitter.com/RHeGENH63c - Mark's Yesterworld (@Yester_World) April 18, 2018 The original person who appeared to make the possible connection was Reddit user shadewfb. The Three Outfits Nedry's three outfits that appeared in the video and tweets were a Hawaiian shirt, gray jacket, and yellow raincoat. Quick reminder that Nedry in Jurassic Park dresses like the Goonies. pic.twitter.com/86bOYAlXDL - Nick de Semlyen (@NickdeSemlyen) October 3, 2020 While it's certainly possible that Nedry's outfits were purposely meant to 'pay homage' to 'The Goonies,' we were unable to find any confirmation of the claim from Spielberg, Knight, or anyone else involved in the films. Other entertainment blogs including Nerdist and Screen Rant were also unable to officially confirm the claim. It's true that both Chunk in 'The Goonies' and Nedry in 'Jurassic Park' both wore Hawaiian shirts. However, the shirts weren't quite the same. Also, Nedry's scene with the Hawaiian shirt was on the beach under palm trees. This setting (and Nedry's goofy personality) perhaps called for a Hawaiian shirt regardless of any possible attempt to 'pay homage.' The gray jackets worn by Mouth in 'The Goonies' and Nedry were somewhat similar. However, it could be argued that if Nedry was truly supposed to resemble Mouth, he would have worn a black T-shirt underneath the jacket. Finally, the yellow raincoats worn by Mikey in 'The Goonies' and Nedry also appeared to be similar. As with the Hawaiian shirt on the beach, it could be argued that Nedry's raincoat in the violent thunderstorm was called for regardless of any attempt for a callback to 'The Goonies.' We reached out to Universal Pictures about the claim, and will update this story should we receive a response. It's possible that we will one day receive confirmation that Nedry's outfits were indeed inspired by clothing from 'The Goonies.' However, until that day comes, we have rated the claim as 'Unproven.' | nan | [
"03204-proof-02-goonies-poster.jpg",
"03204-proof-03-nedry-goonies-featured.jpg"
] |
Three outfits from 'The Goonies' inspired character Dennis Nedry's wardrobe for 'Jurassic Park. | Neutral | In May 2021, TikTok user @jbuckstudios posted a new video about two popular movies from the past. It claimed that the outfits worn by 'Jurassic Park' character Dennis Nedry were 'subtle references' to clothing from 'The Goonies.' @jbuckstudios Did you know this about Jurassic Paek? #moviedetails #movietok #movietiktok #movietrivia #jurassicpark #jurassicparkcosplay #jbuckstudios ♬ Blade Runner 2049 - Synthwave Goose If this could be confirmed to be true, it would be quite the cool callback for fans of the films. Dennis Nedry Nedry, who was portrayed by 'Seinfeld' actor Wayne Knight, was the tech whiz on the dinosaur island in 1993's 'Jurassic Park.' In the film, Nedry planned to steal dinosaur embryos and smuggle them out of secure storage in order to make a boatload of money. During a violent thunderstorm, he crashed a jeep and encountered a dinosaur, which ended his chances of a life of riches. Paying Homage The TikTok video purported that three specific outfits from 'The Goonies' (1985) inspired Nedry's wardrobe in 'Jurassic Park.' Did you know that in 1993's 'Jurassic Park,' there are several subtle references to the beloved 80s movie 'The Goonies'? So if we remember, Nedry is a weasely man trying to steal dino DNA. But let's take a closer look at his fashion choices. They seem oddly familiar, right? Well, his outfits are direct references to 1985's 'The Goonies,' as you can see here. The reason so is that Steven Spielberg was an executive producer on 'The Goonies,' so I'm assuming he wanted to pay homage to that film. It's true that Spielberg was an executive producer on 'The Goonies' and also directed 'Jurassic Park.' 'Steven Spielberg Presents' referred to his executive producer role. 'The Goonies' was directed by Richard Donner. The same idea that some relationship exists between the movie characters and their outfits has also appeared in countless tweets. TIL: Every outfit worn by Dennis Nedry in Jurassic Park was inspired by The Goonies. pic.twitter.com/RHeGENH63c - Mark's Yesterworld (@Yester_World) April 18, 2018 The original person who appeared to make the possible connection was Reddit user shadewfb. The Three Outfits Nedry's three outfits that appeared in the video and tweets were a Hawaiian shirt, gray jacket, and yellow raincoat. Quick reminder that Nedry in Jurassic Park dresses like the Goonies. pic.twitter.com/86bOYAlXDL - Nick de Semlyen (@NickdeSemlyen) October 3, 2020 While it's certainly possible that Nedry's outfits were purposely meant to 'pay homage' to 'The Goonies,' we were unable to find any confirmation of the claim from Spielberg, Knight, or anyone else involved in the films. Other entertainment blogs including Nerdist and Screen Rant were also unable to officially confirm the claim. It's true that both Chunk in 'The Goonies' and Nedry in 'Jurassic Park' both wore Hawaiian shirts. However, the shirts weren't quite the same. Also, Nedry's scene with the Hawaiian shirt was on the beach under palm trees. This setting (and Nedry's goofy personality) perhaps called for a Hawaiian shirt regardless of any possible attempt to 'pay homage.' The gray jackets worn by Mouth in 'The Goonies' and Nedry were somewhat similar. However, it could be argued that if Nedry was truly supposed to resemble Mouth, he would have worn a black T-shirt underneath the jacket. Finally, the yellow raincoats worn by Mikey in 'The Goonies' and Nedry also appeared to be similar. As with the Hawaiian shirt on the beach, it could be argued that Nedry's raincoat in the violent thunderstorm was called for regardless of any attempt for a callback to 'The Goonies.' We reached out to Universal Pictures about the claim, and will update this story should we receive a response. It's possible that we will one day receive confirmation that Nedry's outfits were indeed inspired by clothing from 'The Goonies.' However, until that day comes, we have rated the claim as 'Unproven.' | nan | [
"03204-proof-02-goonies-poster.jpg",
"03204-proof-03-nedry-goonies-featured.jpg"
] |
Three outfits from 'The Goonies' inspired character Dennis Nedry's wardrobe for 'Jurassic Park. | Neutral | In May 2021, TikTok user @jbuckstudios posted a new video about two popular movies from the past. It claimed that the outfits worn by 'Jurassic Park' character Dennis Nedry were 'subtle references' to clothing from 'The Goonies.' @jbuckstudios Did you know this about Jurassic Paek? #moviedetails #movietok #movietiktok #movietrivia #jurassicpark #jurassicparkcosplay #jbuckstudios ♬ Blade Runner 2049 - Synthwave Goose If this could be confirmed to be true, it would be quite the cool callback for fans of the films. Dennis Nedry Nedry, who was portrayed by 'Seinfeld' actor Wayne Knight, was the tech whiz on the dinosaur island in 1993's 'Jurassic Park.' In the film, Nedry planned to steal dinosaur embryos and smuggle them out of secure storage in order to make a boatload of money. During a violent thunderstorm, he crashed a jeep and encountered a dinosaur, which ended his chances of a life of riches. Paying Homage The TikTok video purported that three specific outfits from 'The Goonies' (1985) inspired Nedry's wardrobe in 'Jurassic Park.' Did you know that in 1993's 'Jurassic Park,' there are several subtle references to the beloved 80s movie 'The Goonies'? So if we remember, Nedry is a weasely man trying to steal dino DNA. But let's take a closer look at his fashion choices. They seem oddly familiar, right? Well, his outfits are direct references to 1985's 'The Goonies,' as you can see here. The reason so is that Steven Spielberg was an executive producer on 'The Goonies,' so I'm assuming he wanted to pay homage to that film. It's true that Spielberg was an executive producer on 'The Goonies' and also directed 'Jurassic Park.' 'Steven Spielberg Presents' referred to his executive producer role. 'The Goonies' was directed by Richard Donner. The same idea that some relationship exists between the movie characters and their outfits has also appeared in countless tweets. TIL: Every outfit worn by Dennis Nedry in Jurassic Park was inspired by The Goonies. pic.twitter.com/RHeGENH63c - Mark's Yesterworld (@Yester_World) April 18, 2018 The original person who appeared to make the possible connection was Reddit user shadewfb. The Three Outfits Nedry's three outfits that appeared in the video and tweets were a Hawaiian shirt, gray jacket, and yellow raincoat. Quick reminder that Nedry in Jurassic Park dresses like the Goonies. pic.twitter.com/86bOYAlXDL - Nick de Semlyen (@NickdeSemlyen) October 3, 2020 While it's certainly possible that Nedry's outfits were purposely meant to 'pay homage' to 'The Goonies,' we were unable to find any confirmation of the claim from Spielberg, Knight, or anyone else involved in the films. Other entertainment blogs including Nerdist and Screen Rant were also unable to officially confirm the claim. It's true that both Chunk in 'The Goonies' and Nedry in 'Jurassic Park' both wore Hawaiian shirts. However, the shirts weren't quite the same. Also, Nedry's scene with the Hawaiian shirt was on the beach under palm trees. This setting (and Nedry's goofy personality) perhaps called for a Hawaiian shirt regardless of any possible attempt to 'pay homage.' The gray jackets worn by Mouth in 'The Goonies' and Nedry were somewhat similar. However, it could be argued that if Nedry was truly supposed to resemble Mouth, he would have worn a black T-shirt underneath the jacket. Finally, the yellow raincoats worn by Mikey in 'The Goonies' and Nedry also appeared to be similar. As with the Hawaiian shirt on the beach, it could be argued that Nedry's raincoat in the violent thunderstorm was called for regardless of any attempt for a callback to 'The Goonies.' We reached out to Universal Pictures about the claim, and will update this story should we receive a response. It's possible that we will one day receive confirmation that Nedry's outfits were indeed inspired by clothing from 'The Goonies.' However, until that day comes, we have rated the claim as 'Unproven.' | nan | [
"03204-proof-02-goonies-poster.jpg",
"03204-proof-03-nedry-goonies-featured.jpg"
] |
Amazon's Alexa randomly plays a 'creepy laugh. | Neutral | In March 2018, a spate of news articles appeared, reporting that Amazon Alexa units are suddenly and without provocation playing a 'creepy laugh' noise - sometimes scaring owners in the middle of the night. The claim appeared to have been started on 22 February 2018 with a video on Twitter of Alexa's purported 'creepy laugh': So Alexa decided to laugh randomly while I was in the kitchen. Freaked @SnootyJuicer and I out. I thought a kid was laughing behind me. pic.twitter.com/6dblzkiQHp - CaptHandlebar (@CaptHandlebar) February 23, 2018 The rumor grew to encompass claims that Amazon was perplexed as to the nature of the glitch and is unable to address it: AI takeover? Alexa is laughing seemingly at random and Amazon doesn't know why. https://t.co/KFsdcDhrO6 - Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) March 7, 2018 Technology outlets and other sites covering the Alexa glitch referenced a statement from Amazon, but did not quote the response in full, making it difficult to know precisely what the retailer said about the issue: ... users with Alexa-enabled devices have reported hearing strange, unprompted laughter. Amazon responded to the creepiness today in a statement to The Verge, saying, 'We're aware of this and working to fix it.' ... Amazon said its planned fix will involve disabling the phrase, 'Alexa, laugh,' and changing the command to 'Alexa, can you laugh?' The company says the latter phrase is 'less likely to have false positives,' or in other words the Alexa software is likely to mistake common words and phrases that sound similar to the one that makes Alexa start laughing. 'We are also changing Alexa's response from simply laughter to 'Sure, I can laugh,' followed by laughter,' an Amazon spokesperson said. Additional articles referenced subsequent requests for Alexa to turn on the lights, which depending on enunciation and dialect can sound like a command to 'laugh': Amazon said in a statement that it's aware of the issue and on rare occasion, Echo speakers can mistakenly hear 'Alexa, laugh.' Basically, the speaker is hard of hearing. The company intends to fix the problem by changing the wake phrase to a less-demanding 'Alexa, can you laugh?' which it claims will result in less false positives. 'We are also changing Alexa's response from simply laughter to 'Sure, I can laugh,' followed by laughter,' an Amazon spokesperson told Bloomberg. We contacted an Amazon representative to ask about the Alexa glitch, but it seemed that reports of 'random' creepy laughing stemmed mostly from misinterpreted requests to turn on a 'lamp' or lights. Amazon confirmed to several outlets that it will be adding extra steps to trigger the 'laugh' function. | nan | [
"03211-proof-10-amazon_alexa_feature.jpg"
] |
Amazon's Alexa randomly plays a 'creepy laugh. | Neutral | In March 2018, a spate of news articles appeared, reporting that Amazon Alexa units are suddenly and without provocation playing a 'creepy laugh' noise - sometimes scaring owners in the middle of the night. The claim appeared to have been started on 22 February 2018 with a video on Twitter of Alexa's purported 'creepy laugh': So Alexa decided to laugh randomly while I was in the kitchen. Freaked @SnootyJuicer and I out. I thought a kid was laughing behind me. pic.twitter.com/6dblzkiQHp - CaptHandlebar (@CaptHandlebar) February 23, 2018 The rumor grew to encompass claims that Amazon was perplexed as to the nature of the glitch and is unable to address it: AI takeover? Alexa is laughing seemingly at random and Amazon doesn't know why. https://t.co/KFsdcDhrO6 - Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) March 7, 2018 Technology outlets and other sites covering the Alexa glitch referenced a statement from Amazon, but did not quote the response in full, making it difficult to know precisely what the retailer said about the issue: ... users with Alexa-enabled devices have reported hearing strange, unprompted laughter. Amazon responded to the creepiness today in a statement to The Verge, saying, 'We're aware of this and working to fix it.' ... Amazon said its planned fix will involve disabling the phrase, 'Alexa, laugh,' and changing the command to 'Alexa, can you laugh?' The company says the latter phrase is 'less likely to have false positives,' or in other words the Alexa software is likely to mistake common words and phrases that sound similar to the one that makes Alexa start laughing. 'We are also changing Alexa's response from simply laughter to 'Sure, I can laugh,' followed by laughter,' an Amazon spokesperson said. Additional articles referenced subsequent requests for Alexa to turn on the lights, which depending on enunciation and dialect can sound like a command to 'laugh': Amazon said in a statement that it's aware of the issue and on rare occasion, Echo speakers can mistakenly hear 'Alexa, laugh.' Basically, the speaker is hard of hearing. The company intends to fix the problem by changing the wake phrase to a less-demanding 'Alexa, can you laugh?' which it claims will result in less false positives. 'We are also changing Alexa's response from simply laughter to 'Sure, I can laugh,' followed by laughter,' an Amazon spokesperson told Bloomberg. We contacted an Amazon representative to ask about the Alexa glitch, but it seemed that reports of 'random' creepy laughing stemmed mostly from misinterpreted requests to turn on a 'lamp' or lights. Amazon confirmed to several outlets that it will be adding extra steps to trigger the 'laugh' function. | nan | [
"03211-proof-10-amazon_alexa_feature.jpg"
] |
Amazon's Alexa randomly plays a 'creepy laugh. | Neutral | In March 2018, a spate of news articles appeared, reporting that Amazon Alexa units are suddenly and without provocation playing a 'creepy laugh' noise - sometimes scaring owners in the middle of the night. The claim appeared to have been started on 22 February 2018 with a video on Twitter of Alexa's purported 'creepy laugh': So Alexa decided to laugh randomly while I was in the kitchen. Freaked @SnootyJuicer and I out. I thought a kid was laughing behind me. pic.twitter.com/6dblzkiQHp - CaptHandlebar (@CaptHandlebar) February 23, 2018 The rumor grew to encompass claims that Amazon was perplexed as to the nature of the glitch and is unable to address it: AI takeover? Alexa is laughing seemingly at random and Amazon doesn't know why. https://t.co/KFsdcDhrO6 - Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) March 7, 2018 Technology outlets and other sites covering the Alexa glitch referenced a statement from Amazon, but did not quote the response in full, making it difficult to know precisely what the retailer said about the issue: ... users with Alexa-enabled devices have reported hearing strange, unprompted laughter. Amazon responded to the creepiness today in a statement to The Verge, saying, 'We're aware of this and working to fix it.' ... Amazon said its planned fix will involve disabling the phrase, 'Alexa, laugh,' and changing the command to 'Alexa, can you laugh?' The company says the latter phrase is 'less likely to have false positives,' or in other words the Alexa software is likely to mistake common words and phrases that sound similar to the one that makes Alexa start laughing. 'We are also changing Alexa's response from simply laughter to 'Sure, I can laugh,' followed by laughter,' an Amazon spokesperson said. Additional articles referenced subsequent requests for Alexa to turn on the lights, which depending on enunciation and dialect can sound like a command to 'laugh': Amazon said in a statement that it's aware of the issue and on rare occasion, Echo speakers can mistakenly hear 'Alexa, laugh.' Basically, the speaker is hard of hearing. The company intends to fix the problem by changing the wake phrase to a less-demanding 'Alexa, can you laugh?' which it claims will result in less false positives. 'We are also changing Alexa's response from simply laughter to 'Sure, I can laugh,' followed by laughter,' an Amazon spokesperson told Bloomberg. We contacted an Amazon representative to ask about the Alexa glitch, but it seemed that reports of 'random' creepy laughing stemmed mostly from misinterpreted requests to turn on a 'lamp' or lights. Amazon confirmed to several outlets that it will be adding extra steps to trigger the 'laugh' function. | nan | [
"03211-proof-10-amazon_alexa_feature.jpg"
] |
Amazon's Alexa randomly plays a 'creepy laugh. | Neutral | In March 2018, a spate of news articles appeared, reporting that Amazon Alexa units are suddenly and without provocation playing a 'creepy laugh' noise - sometimes scaring owners in the middle of the night. The claim appeared to have been started on 22 February 2018 with a video on Twitter of Alexa's purported 'creepy laugh': So Alexa decided to laugh randomly while I was in the kitchen. Freaked @SnootyJuicer and I out. I thought a kid was laughing behind me. pic.twitter.com/6dblzkiQHp - CaptHandlebar (@CaptHandlebar) February 23, 2018 The rumor grew to encompass claims that Amazon was perplexed as to the nature of the glitch and is unable to address it: AI takeover? Alexa is laughing seemingly at random and Amazon doesn't know why. https://t.co/KFsdcDhrO6 - Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) March 7, 2018 Technology outlets and other sites covering the Alexa glitch referenced a statement from Amazon, but did not quote the response in full, making it difficult to know precisely what the retailer said about the issue: ... users with Alexa-enabled devices have reported hearing strange, unprompted laughter. Amazon responded to the creepiness today in a statement to The Verge, saying, 'We're aware of this and working to fix it.' ... Amazon said its planned fix will involve disabling the phrase, 'Alexa, laugh,' and changing the command to 'Alexa, can you laugh?' The company says the latter phrase is 'less likely to have false positives,' or in other words the Alexa software is likely to mistake common words and phrases that sound similar to the one that makes Alexa start laughing. 'We are also changing Alexa's response from simply laughter to 'Sure, I can laugh,' followed by laughter,' an Amazon spokesperson said. Additional articles referenced subsequent requests for Alexa to turn on the lights, which depending on enunciation and dialect can sound like a command to 'laugh': Amazon said in a statement that it's aware of the issue and on rare occasion, Echo speakers can mistakenly hear 'Alexa, laugh.' Basically, the speaker is hard of hearing. The company intends to fix the problem by changing the wake phrase to a less-demanding 'Alexa, can you laugh?' which it claims will result in less false positives. 'We are also changing Alexa's response from simply laughter to 'Sure, I can laugh,' followed by laughter,' an Amazon spokesperson told Bloomberg. We contacted an Amazon representative to ask about the Alexa glitch, but it seemed that reports of 'random' creepy laughing stemmed mostly from misinterpreted requests to turn on a 'lamp' or lights. Amazon confirmed to several outlets that it will be adding extra steps to trigger the 'laugh' function. | nan | [
"03211-proof-10-amazon_alexa_feature.jpg"
] |
The actors who played the characters of Frankie and Marta in the 2003 comedy film 'School of Rock' are dating in real life. | Neutral | If you sang along to Jack Black's 2003 comedy film 'School of Rock,' about a man that pretends to be a substitute teacher at a fancy school only to turn his students into a rock band, then here is some sweet news. According to a TikTok user, two child actors from the movie are now grown up and currently dating in real life. The user did some sleuthing and discovered the publicly available Instagram accounts of Angelo Massagli, who played Frankie, and Caitlin Hale, who played Marta. @marfymae Been on a massive IG scroll wbu #schoolofrock #netflix #jackblack #film #teacherspet #O2HereComesBrighter #HAIRFOODHYPE ♬ School of Rock (Teacher's Pet) - The Original Broadway Cast Of School Of Rock Frankie was one of the children in the movie assigned to be 'security' for the fictional band, while Marta was a backup singer. Both of them appear to have moved on from the acting life, but they have frequently posted pictures at reunions with their castmates, as well as pictures that appear to show them together as a couple. Their last photograph together is from four weeks ago (as of mid-May 2021): View this post on Instagram A post shared by Angelo Massagli (@angelo_massagli) In one photograph, Hale appeared to be recovering from surgery in March and praised Massagli for 'waiting on me hand and foot.' View this post on Instagram A post shared by Caitlin Hale, RDMS (@caitlinmhale) Neither has confirmed the relationship since the story made headlines, but a fellow castmate appeared to confirm it in a different TikTok video. Rivka Reyes, who played a cellist turned bass player in the fictional band made a 'Where are they now' video, in which they wrote: 'Caitlin Hale (Marta) is a registered nurse and Angelo Massagli (Frankie) is a lawyer and they are DATING!' @rivkah.reyes #stitch with @cassandra.i welcome to #schoolofrock tok! stay. it's fun here. #nostalgia #wherearetheynow #fyp #foryou ♬ original sound - rivkah reyes (they/siya) Given that the couple itself has not responded to the online chatter about the two of them dating, but several photos appear to confirm this, and a fellow castmate appeared to confirm it as well, we rate this claim as 'Mixture.' | nan | [] |
The actors who played the characters of Frankie and Marta in the 2003 comedy film 'School of Rock' are dating in real life. | Neutral | If you sang along to Jack Black's 2003 comedy film 'School of Rock,' about a man that pretends to be a substitute teacher at a fancy school only to turn his students into a rock band, then here is some sweet news. According to a TikTok user, two child actors from the movie are now grown up and currently dating in real life. The user did some sleuthing and discovered the publicly available Instagram accounts of Angelo Massagli, who played Frankie, and Caitlin Hale, who played Marta. @marfymae Been on a massive IG scroll wbu #schoolofrock #netflix #jackblack #film #teacherspet #O2HereComesBrighter #HAIRFOODHYPE ♬ School of Rock (Teacher's Pet) - The Original Broadway Cast Of School Of Rock Frankie was one of the children in the movie assigned to be 'security' for the fictional band, while Marta was a backup singer. Both of them appear to have moved on from the acting life, but they have frequently posted pictures at reunions with their castmates, as well as pictures that appear to show them together as a couple. Their last photograph together is from four weeks ago (as of mid-May 2021): View this post on Instagram A post shared by Angelo Massagli (@angelo_massagli) In one photograph, Hale appeared to be recovering from surgery in March and praised Massagli for 'waiting on me hand and foot.' View this post on Instagram A post shared by Caitlin Hale, RDMS (@caitlinmhale) Neither has confirmed the relationship since the story made headlines, but a fellow castmate appeared to confirm it in a different TikTok video. Rivka Reyes, who played a cellist turned bass player in the fictional band made a 'Where are they now' video, in which they wrote: 'Caitlin Hale (Marta) is a registered nurse and Angelo Massagli (Frankie) is a lawyer and they are DATING!' @rivkah.reyes #stitch with @cassandra.i welcome to #schoolofrock tok! stay. it's fun here. #nostalgia #wherearetheynow #fyp #foryou ♬ original sound - rivkah reyes (they/siya) Given that the couple itself has not responded to the online chatter about the two of them dating, but several photos appear to confirm this, and a fellow castmate appeared to confirm it as well, we rate this claim as 'Mixture.' | nan | [] |
The actors who played the characters of Frankie and Marta in the 2003 comedy film 'School of Rock' are dating in real life. | Neutral | If you sang along to Jack Black's 2003 comedy film 'School of Rock,' about a man that pretends to be a substitute teacher at a fancy school only to turn his students into a rock band, then here is some sweet news. According to a TikTok user, two child actors from the movie are now grown up and currently dating in real life. The user did some sleuthing and discovered the publicly available Instagram accounts of Angelo Massagli, who played Frankie, and Caitlin Hale, who played Marta. @marfymae Been on a massive IG scroll wbu #schoolofrock #netflix #jackblack #film #teacherspet #O2HereComesBrighter #HAIRFOODHYPE ♬ School of Rock (Teacher's Pet) - The Original Broadway Cast Of School Of Rock Frankie was one of the children in the movie assigned to be 'security' for the fictional band, while Marta was a backup singer. Both of them appear to have moved on from the acting life, but they have frequently posted pictures at reunions with their castmates, as well as pictures that appear to show them together as a couple. Their last photograph together is from four weeks ago (as of mid-May 2021): View this post on Instagram A post shared by Angelo Massagli (@angelo_massagli) In one photograph, Hale appeared to be recovering from surgery in March and praised Massagli for 'waiting on me hand and foot.' View this post on Instagram A post shared by Caitlin Hale, RDMS (@caitlinmhale) Neither has confirmed the relationship since the story made headlines, but a fellow castmate appeared to confirm it in a different TikTok video. Rivka Reyes, who played a cellist turned bass player in the fictional band made a 'Where are they now' video, in which they wrote: 'Caitlin Hale (Marta) is a registered nurse and Angelo Massagli (Frankie) is a lawyer and they are DATING!' @rivkah.reyes #stitch with @cassandra.i welcome to #schoolofrock tok! stay. it's fun here. #nostalgia #wherearetheynow #fyp #foryou ♬ original sound - rivkah reyes (they/siya) Given that the couple itself has not responded to the online chatter about the two of them dating, but several photos appear to confirm this, and a fellow castmate appeared to confirm it as well, we rate this claim as 'Mixture.' | nan | [] |
The actors who played the characters of Frankie and Marta in the 2003 comedy film 'School of Rock' are dating in real life. | Neutral | If you sang along to Jack Black's 2003 comedy film 'School of Rock,' about a man that pretends to be a substitute teacher at a fancy school only to turn his students into a rock band, then here is some sweet news. According to a TikTok user, two child actors from the movie are now grown up and currently dating in real life. The user did some sleuthing and discovered the publicly available Instagram accounts of Angelo Massagli, who played Frankie, and Caitlin Hale, who played Marta. @marfymae Been on a massive IG scroll wbu #schoolofrock #netflix #jackblack #film #teacherspet #O2HereComesBrighter #HAIRFOODHYPE ♬ School of Rock (Teacher's Pet) - The Original Broadway Cast Of School Of Rock Frankie was one of the children in the movie assigned to be 'security' for the fictional band, while Marta was a backup singer. Both of them appear to have moved on from the acting life, but they have frequently posted pictures at reunions with their castmates, as well as pictures that appear to show them together as a couple. Their last photograph together is from four weeks ago (as of mid-May 2021): View this post on Instagram A post shared by Angelo Massagli (@angelo_massagli) In one photograph, Hale appeared to be recovering from surgery in March and praised Massagli for 'waiting on me hand and foot.' View this post on Instagram A post shared by Caitlin Hale, RDMS (@caitlinmhale) Neither has confirmed the relationship since the story made headlines, but a fellow castmate appeared to confirm it in a different TikTok video. Rivka Reyes, who played a cellist turned bass player in the fictional band made a 'Where are they now' video, in which they wrote: 'Caitlin Hale (Marta) is a registered nurse and Angelo Massagli (Frankie) is a lawyer and they are DATING!' @rivkah.reyes #stitch with @cassandra.i welcome to #schoolofrock tok! stay. it's fun here. #nostalgia #wherearetheynow #fyp #foryou ♬ original sound - rivkah reyes (they/siya) Given that the couple itself has not responded to the online chatter about the two of them dating, but several photos appear to confirm this, and a fellow castmate appeared to confirm it as well, we rate this claim as 'Mixture.' | nan | [] |
Hillary Clinton donned a hijab for a new campaign ad. | Neutral | On 28 June 2016, the web site Departed published an item reporting that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's 'latest' television campaign ad depicted the former Secretary of State wearing a hijab: Hillary's latest campaign video tries to build up her non-existent foreign policy experience. That means making as much as possible out of her feminist speech in China ... which avoided criticizing a Communist regime that forces women to have abortions. (Or as her Planned Parenthood pals call it, health care outreach.) And showing her travel photo slideshow. It's basically like those travel videos friends force you to watch except this is a really expensive commercial and no one can force you to watch it. But in odd contrast to touting Hillary's feminism and strength, is this shot of her wearing a Hijab; an Islamic garment of submission. However, Departed did not display or link to the campaign ad in question. And the very same claim was made back in October 2015, so clearly the referenced image didn't stem from a campaign ad that was 'new' in June 2016. In fact, the image of Hillary Clinton in a headscarf was a screen capture taken from a montage of very brief segments showing Hillary meeting with various foreign dignitaries in her role as secretary of state, compiled for a promotional campaign video that the Clinton campaign tweeted on 19 October 2015: 'I don't think I have ever met someone more prepared to be president.' -@Madeleine Albrighthttps://t.co/D6nCGEDC6v - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 19, 2015 The blink-and-you'll-miss-it screenshot occurred at the 0:27-0:28 mark of the video and was widely shared out of context to suggest that Hillary Clinton's 'new campaign ad' depicted her wearing a hijab as part of her ordinary attire. But it was clear in (the universally absent) context that the footage was captured while Clinton was visiting a location in which her wearing a head covering was expected by custom. Specifically, the image was taken from coverage of a 2009 visit to Pakistan by Secretary of State Clinton, during which she donned a head covering while visiting the shrine of the Sufi saint Shah Abdul Latif Kazmi and the Badshahi Mosque. Just as historical Catholic practice held until well into the 20th century that women should cover their heads in church, historical Islamic practice typically holds that all mosque visitors should cover their legs below the knee, and that women should cover their heads; failure to do so may be considered extremely disrespectful by practitioners of the religion. The donning of a head covering in such circumstance by a non-Muslim is a diplomatic courtesy, no more an act of 'submission' to Islam than the wearing of a yarmulke by a non-Jewish person while visiting temples or attending Jewish religious ceremonies constitutes 'submission' to Judaism. | nan | [] |
Subsets and Splits