Showing posts with label Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Security. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 25, 2020

The 2020 Election Wasn't 'Stolen.' Here Are All The Facts That Prove It.

 (By Andrew Romano and Jon Ward, Yahoo News, 12 November 2020)

 The United States has been conducting presidential elections for 232 years. No modern candidate has ever refused to accept the results and recognize the winner’s legitimacy.  In this sense, 2020 could be different from any contest since the Civil War — if President Trump continues to claim that President-elect Joe Biden “stole” the election from him.

But every indication is that the 2020 election, conducted in the midst of a pandemic, with by far the most votes ever cast, was run honestly and the results tabulated accurately — a tribute to the professionalism and integrity of officials across the country.

Before Election Day, the Trump administration invited a delegation of 28 international experts from the Organization of American States, which has reported on elections around the world, to observe the vote. Its preliminary report found zero evidence of significant fraud.

The New York Times recently spoke to top election officials in 49 of 50 states. Not one, Democrat or Republican, reported “that fraud or other irregularities played a role in the outcome of the presidential race.”

On Nov. 12, the coordinating council overseeing the voting systems used around the country said in an unprecedented statement distributed by Trump’s own Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) that “the November 3rd election was the most secure in American history” and that “there is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.”  “While we know there are many unfounded claims and opportunities for misinformation about the process of our elections,” the statement continued, “we can assure you we have the utmost confidence in the security and integrity of our elections, and you should too.”

And the head of CISA has spent the last week explaining on Twitter and on the agency’s “Rumor Control” website why none of the stories of so-called fraud that Americans may be encountering on social media or alternative news sites represent anything out of the ordinary.

Yet these ominous-but-ultimately-overblown stories continue to circulate online — stories of pollsters falsifying their surveys to hurt Trump, of dead people voting, of observers being blocked from watching the count, of mysterious batches of Biden votes suddenly materializing in Democratic cities, of computer glitches changing the results, and so on.As a result, millions of people continue to worry that maybe something happened in 2020 that’s never happened before. They wonder if maybe the election was stolen. 

It wasn’t.

What follow are the facts, and just the facts, on each of the major “fraud” rumors flooding your inbox and your newsfeed.

Even if all of these rumors were true, which they aren’t, they wouldn’t add up to enough votes to overturn the outcome: Biden is on track to beat Trump by 5 million votes nationwide and by tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of votes in key states.  And while some allegations could end up exposing real fraud — because real fraud happens in every election — history shows that such incidents will be few, far between and ultimately inconsequential.

In 2014, Loyola Law School professor and voting expert Justin Levitt investigated every general, primary, special and municipal election held since the year 2000. Of more than 1 billion ballots cast, he found just 31 credible instances of potential voter impersonation, which is one of a few ways that cheating can actually occur.

RUMOR: Democrats and Dominion Voting Systems tampered with computers to change the results

REALITY: Officials quickly fixed isolated glitches and accidents, only two of which involved Dominion and none of which affected the final vote count

No election goes off without a hitch, and in the internet era, technology can compound some of the usual mistakes. But there’s a big difference between Democrats conspiring with Dominion Voting Systems to “hack” election and delete Republican votes and the kind of minor, easily detectable and correctible data-entry accidents and software glitches that complicate any computer-based enterprise.

The first is what Trump & Co. darkly speculate, without evidence, to have taken place in close-run states.  The second is what actually happened.

Consider the example of Antrim County, Mich., a Republican stronghold where unofficial results initially showed Biden beating Trump by roughly 3,000 votes — a sharp reversal from Trump's performance there in 2016. Trump supporters flagged the discrepancy. Tweets about it went viral. Soon conservatives such as Ted Cruz were calling for investigations and alleging that maybe the same election-management software used in Antrim County (Dominion Voting Systems) had screwed up the statewide count.

Experts eventually figured out what went wrong: An election worker had “configured ballot scanners and reporting systems with slightly different versions of the ballot, which meant some results did not line up with the right candidate when officials loaded them into the system,” according to the New York Times. By then local officials had already caught and corrected the error — even before another round of review conducted by Republican and Democratic “canvassers” that is designed to catch such mistakes. In the revised count, Trump beat Biden by roughly 2,500 votes.

But these facts haven’t deterred Trump allies from seizing on other, unrelated examples of routine tech-related errors to falsely insinuate some sort of nefarious conspiracy involving Dominion. In Oakland County, Mich., election workers mistakenly counted votes from the city of Rochester Hills twice, according to the Michigan Department of State — then spotted and fixed their error. An incumbent Republican county commissioner kept his seat as a result.

“As a Republican, I am disturbed that this is intentionally being mischaracterized to undermine the election process,” Tina Barton, the clerk in Rochester Hills, said in a video she posted online. “This was an isolated mistake that was quickly rectified.”

Oakland County used software from a company called Hart InterCivic, not Dominion.

Meanwhile in Georgia, glitchy software updates affected how poll workers checked in voters in Spalding and Morgan counties, which both halted voting for a few hours. In another Georgia county, Gwinnett, a different glitch delayed the reporting of results.  Gwinnett County used Dominion; the other counties did not. In any case, the issues did not affect the counts. Trump won Spalding County by 21 points and Morgan County by 42; Biden won Gwinnett by 18.

Elsewhere, fringier far-right activists have vaguely theorized that secret CIA computer systems called “Hammer” and “Scorecard” hacked the election on Biden’s behalf, pointing to momentary inconsistencies in CNN’s unofficial, on-air vote tallies for the 2019 Kentucky gubernatorial race as evidence. There is no proof that Hammer and Scorecard exist, and even if they did, experts say they would not be able to intercept the digital transmission of vote results and change them without being detected; officials always compare the transmitted results to paper receipts from the original machines before certifying the outcome.  “The Hammer and Scorecard nonsense [is] just that — nonsense,” tweeted Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency director Chris Krebs. “This is not a real thing, don’t fall for it and think 2x before you share.”

Yet Twitter and Facebook posts from Trump and White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany falsely implied that the isolated issues in Michigan and Georgia were signs of widespread problems with the election. On Thursday, the president even went so far as to tweet that Dominion itself had deleted millions of his votes — a claim with no basis in reality. He followed up Sunday and Monday by echoing baseless conspiracy theories alleging Democratic control of Dominion, which have been debunked as well. The president has not provided a shred of proof that software switched or deleted a single one of his votes — let alone the tens or even hundreds of thousands he would need to overturn his losses in Michigan, Georgia and elsewhere.

Not to be deterred, however, Georgia’s two Republican senators, who are jockeying for advantage in their Jan. 5 runoff elections, called on Brad Raffensperger, the state’s Republican secretary of state, to resign because he had “failed the people of Georgia.”

“That is not going to happen,” Raffensperger said in a statement. “My job is to follow Georgia law and see to it that all legal votes, and no illegal votes, are counted properly and accurately. … As a Republican, I am concerned about Republicans keeping the U.S. Senate. I recommend that Senators Loeffler and Perdue start focusing on that.”

RUMOR: Biden won only because of ‘illegal’ votes

REALITY: Actual illegal votes are rare, and the courts are considering all credible charges

In every election, some people cast ballots that end up not counting because they run afoul of state election law for one reason or another. It’s critical to the integrity of the election — and public trust in America’s democratic process — that officials identify and disqualify such votes. Every state has numerous safeguards in place to ensure that’s exactly what happens.

But the mere existence of irregularities doesn’t invalidate an election. If it did, no election would be valid. Scale is important here, too. Illegal votes can affect the outcome only if enough of them benefit the winner to potentially account for his or her entire margin of victory.  “One would have to show, at minimum, more illegal votes than the margin between the candidates,” Richard Hasen, a law and political science professor at the University of California, Irvine, and a nationally recognized election law expert, recently explained. “That would be quite an extreme scale of fraud. Let’s see what the evidence is.”

The evidence of illegal votes in the 2020 election has been exceedingly thin.

One of the most detailed complaints about the possibility that ineligible voters cast ballots, or that votes were manufactured, came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan on Nov. 9. A pro-Trump lawsuit against the city of Detroit, filed by the Great Lakes Justice Center, claimed that election workers were told not to check signatures on mail ballots, that extra mail ballots were brought in and all counted for Biden, that election workers backdated mail ballots so they could be counted, and that they “used false information to process ballots.”

The lawsuit also claimed election observers were blocked from watching vote counting at key moments, that votes from ineligible voters were counted and that a handful of city workers “coached” voters to cast ballots for Biden.  But the city filed a detailed response, knocking down the allegations and saying they reflected “an extraordinary failure to understand how elections function.”

Election workers at the TCF Center, a Detroit convention center where much of the county’s vote tabulation took place, were instructed not to check mail-ballot signatures during the count, the city said, because signature matching had already been done before the ballots arrived at the facility.

Complaints made in the Great Lakes lawsuit about mail ballots — known in Michigan as absent voter ballots — being backdated, with the implication that they had arrived after Election Day, were also plainly false, the city said. “No ballots received by the Detroit City Clerk after 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020 were even brought to the TCF Center,” the city’s attorneys wrote. “No ballot could have been ‘backdated,’ because no ballot received after 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020 was ever at the TCF Center.”

As for the notion that ineligible votes were counted, or that votes were concocted out of thin air and assigned to names of people who didn’t vote, the city said that what Republican observers inside TCF really saw was election workers correcting an error by some election workers at satellite locations, who failed to complete a process that allowed some mail ballots to be counted. It was necessary to enter the date for these ballots to allow them to count, the city said.  “Every single ballot delivered to the TCF Center had already been verified as having been completed by an eligible voter,” the city said.

The charge of extra ballots being brought in was related to the arrival of blank ballots that were sent to TCF for use by election workers. These ballots were given to election workers so they could function as duplicate ballots in case legitimate ballots were damaged and could not be read by voting machines, the filing said.  “Michigan election law does not call for partisan challengers to be present when a ballot is duplicated; instead, when a ballot is duplicated as a result of a ‘false read,’ the duplication is overseen by one Republican and one Democratic inspector coordinating together,” Detroit’s lawyers wrote. “That process was followed, and Plaintiffs do not — and cannot — present any evidence to the contrary.”

The Trump campaign, in a lawsuit of its own filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, claimed there were cases in which “ballot duplication was performed only by Democratic election workers, not bipartisan teams.” This claim has already been dismissed in one lawsuit filed last week by the Trump campaign in Michigan’s Court of Claims.

The accusation of “false information” was based on records that list some voters as having been born in the year 1900. The city said some mail ballots that arrived between Sunday night and Tuesday — all before the close of polls on Tuesday night — needed to have the birth date manually entered due to a software “quirk.”

Election workers entering the birth date for those ballots used Jan. 1, 1900, as a “placeholder date” until the ballot entry could be matched to the voter’s entry in the state voter file. “That birthday will appear in several places in the electronic poll book record for a limited period,” the city said.  That leaves the allegation of city workers “coaching” voters to cast ballots for Biden, a claim made by a city worker named Jessy Jacob in the lawsuit.

The city said that if this were true it would be “contrary to the instructions given to workers at the satellite locations,” but also said it was “curious that Ms. Jacob waited until after the election to raise these allegations.”  The city noted that Jacob had been furloughed prior to the election, was brought back to work during election season in September and was furloughed again immediately after the election.  The filing also pointed to evidence on social media that two of the individuals who signed affidavits in the Great Lakes lawsuit were adherents of the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory.

The Detroit lawyers also pointed out that Trump received almost three times as many votes in Detroit in the 2020 election as he did four years ago: 12,654, up from 4,972 in 2016. (The vote for Biden in Detroit this year was just under 234,000, which was about 1,000 votes less than Hillary Clinton’s total in 2016. But Biden won the state by almost 150,000 votes.)

“Nothing about those numbers supports the theory of fraud being advanced. Nothing about those numbers supports the completely unsubstantiated claims of tens of thousands of improperly processed ballots,” the city said.

RUMOR: ‘Dead people’ voted for Biden

REALITY: The Trump campaign hasn’t been able to produce more than one or two potential examples of ‘dead people’ casting ballots (and no one knows who they voted for)

It’s a perennial claim in American politicsThe only reason my candidate lost is because a bunch of dead people voted for your candidate. And Trump ally Lindsey Graham, the recently reelected Republican senator from South Carolina, is its latest proponent.

“The Trump team has canvassed all early voters and absentee mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, and they have found over 100 people they think were dead [and] 15 people that we verified that have been dead who voted,” Graham said during a Fox News interview. “Six people registered after they died and voted. In Pennsylvania, I guess you’re never out of it.”

Graham isn’t alone in accusing the deceased of meddling in the election; members of Trump's family and supporters like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell have repeated similar charges. Meanwhile, a series of viral tweets and videos shared by Trump fans have also accused various Michigan residents — some with birth dates from the turn of the 20th century — of casting absentee ballots from beyond the grave.  The implication is that somehow Democrats filled out and fraudulently submitted ballots in the names of dead people in order to lift Biden to victory.

But that just doesn’t compute.

In reality, 13 states actually count absentee ballots submitted by living voters who then die before Election Day, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. So some of these so-called illegal votes are, in fact, perfectly legal.  Elsewhere, states prohibit counting the votes of people who are no longer alive. They do this in two ways: by disqualifying the early votes or mail ballots of residents who wind up dying before Election Day and/or by promptly flagging voters who have recently died so officials can cross-reference the voter rolls and discount any ballots cast in their name.

It’s a complicated, fast-moving process, and sometimes the human beings in charge of it make mistakes. One viral video, for instance, purports to show that “118-year-old ‘William Bradley’ voted via absentee ballot in Wayne County, Mich.” But what actually happened, according to Politifact, is that Bradley’s son — also named William Bradley and residing at the same address, but not born in March 1902 and definitely not deceased — voted with his own ballot, which officials then incorrectly attributed to his father.  “No ballot was cast for the now deceased Bradley,” Politifact explained. “This was a clerical error, not voter fraud.”

Another Michigan voter, named Donna Brydges, was also cited in viral pro-Trump videos because her birth date was listed as 1901 in the state’s qualified voter database. Turns out that Brydges is 75 and voted legally; her DOB was merely a placeholder.

“It is important to note that some state registration systems indicate a missing date of birth by adopting filler dates, such as 01/01/1900, 01/01/1850, or 01/01/1800,” a 2017 report about duplicate voting from the Government Accountability Institute noted. “The vast majority of votes cast by individuals appearing to be over 115 years old had these three erroneous birthdates.”

Likewise, CNN recently checked 50 of the more than 14,000 names on a list of allegedly dead-but-registered Michigan voters making the rounds on Twitter and found that only five of them voted in 2020 — and all five are, in fact, alive.  None of the 37 actually dead people in CNN’s sample cast a ballot.

Whatever the exact figures, we’re talking about a small handful of ballots here — nowhere near the number Trump would need to catch up in Michigan, where he trails by about 147,000 votes, or Pennsylvania, where he trails by 45,000. A suit filed by a conservative foundation in Pennsylvania alleged that the state included 21,000 dead people on its voter rolls. But “the court found no deficiency in how Pennsylvania maintains its voter rolls,” according to a spokeswoman for the state attorney general’s office, and “there is currently no proof provided that any deceased person has voted in the 2020 election.”

And even then there’s no reason to think the dead favor Democrats over Republicans. In October, a man in Luzerne County, Pa. — a registered Republican — was charged with felonies after trying to apply for a mail ballot in his dead mother’s name. On Nov. 7, meanwhile, Trump campaign adviser Corey Lewandowski provided what he said was “one concrete example” of dead-voter fraud, pointing to an obituary for Denise Ondick of West Homestead in Allegheny County, Pa., who died on Oct. 22 — one day before election officials received her application for a mail-in ballot, according to online records from the Pennsylvania Department of State, and 11 days before the county received and recorded her vote. The Trump campaign has cited a single, similar incident in Nevada.

In an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, Ondick’s daughter said she helped her mother fill out an application for a mail ballot in early October, before the elder Ondick died of cancer, but that she could not explain why the ballot had been sent in after her mother’s death. Ondick’s husband said he couldn’t recall doing anything with the ballot.  Ondick’s daughter also said her mother had planned to vote for Trump.

Lewandowski said Ondick was “one of many” examples of dead-voter fraud the Trump campaign would be asking the courts to review. So far, the campaign has not revealed any additional details or mentioned any other specific cases.

RUMOR: Democrats blocked Republican observers from watching the count

REALITY: Republican lawyers for the Trump campaign have admitted in court that this is false

Republicans have focused these complaints on Detroit and Philadelphia.  “We’re seeing this pattern in Democratic city after Democratic city, but the worst of the country right now is Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were they’re not allowing election observers in, despite clear state law that requires election observers being there, despite an order from a state judge saying election observers have to be within 6 feet of the ballot counting,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said on Nov. 5, on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show.  “I am angry and I think the American people are angry because by throwing the observers out, by clouding the vote counting in a shroud of darkness, they are setting the stage to potentially steal the election,” Cruz said.  These allegations were repeated by Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. 

But the Trump campaign’s own lawyers acknowledged in a hearing that there have been Republican observers in the room at all times since mail ballots began to be opened and counted at the Pennsylvania Convention Center.  “Their counsel admitted at the hearing, after questions from the court, that they had several representatives in the room,” said the Philadelphia City Commissioners in a statement.

The commissioners, two Democrats and one Republican who oversee voting in the city, said there were between 15 and 19 Republican observers present all day on Nov. 5.  Hawley also said that “some states [were] going to court to try to stop poll watchers, people just observing the ballot counts.”  “I mean, that is deeply, deeply disturbing,” he said.

That was another false claim. The city of Philadelphia appealed a ruling that partisan observers should be allowed to oversee the work of election officials from as close as 6 feet away. There was never an allegation in the suit that poll watchers were being barred from the room.  The Trump campaign’s lawsuit had alleged that its observers, who were in the room with unobstructed views, wanted to get closer so they could challenge individual mail ballots if there was no signature on the outer envelope, or if the voter had written the wrong date on the envelope.

The city’s appeal argued that state law does not permit those kinds of challenges, a decision the state legislature made in recognition that allowing challenges to individual ballots would slow down the processing of a historic number of mail ballots during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Challenging the eligibility of voters to cast mail ballots had to be done when the ballots were requested, Tammy Bruce, a former Arizona elections official, told Yahoo News.

Observers in the room are entitled to see that mail ballots are being examined for signatures and that they were properly placed inside a privacy envelope, and to monitor for anything else of concern, such as the destruction or discarding of ballots.  Gingrich, also on Fox, claimed poll watchers had been “physically excluded” from overseeing vote counting.

He pointed specifically to Detroit, where there were complaints about election officials covering the windows of a counting room at the TCF Center.  “You have a precinct where you don’t let anyone in. They’re boarded up,” Gingrich claimed. “I would take every precinct that blocked poll watchers and not count their votes.”  But a Detroit city attorney said the windows were blocked because ballots were being counted closely enough to them that members of the public could take photos that might disclose the privacy of voters’ ballots.  There were “hundreds of challengers from both parties … inside the Central Counting Board all afternoon and all evening,” said Detroit attorney Lawrence Garcia.

The city of Detroit noted in a court filing that “more than 200 Republican challengers were present at the TCF center, and at no time were they limited to fewer than one challenger for every Absent Voter Counting Board. While six feet of separation was necessary for health reasons, the Department of Elections provided large computer monitors at every counting board, so that challengers could view all information as it was inputted into the computer.”  “When it became clear that the number of challengers had reached or exceeded the lawful quota and the room had become over-crowded, additional challengers were not admitted until challengers from their respective parties voluntarily departed.”

When Yahoo News asked Gingrich what proof he had of observers being “physically excluded” from vote-counting centers, a Gingrich spokesman essentially admitted there was none. “With regard to the people being kept from watching ballots being counted, we now have a better understanding of the situations in Philadelphia and Detroit,” said Louie Brogdon, editorial director of Gingrich 360, a consulting and media production firm.  “When Speaker Gingrich made his earlier comment, he was speaking on the best information he had at the time,” Brogdon said.

RUMOR: Democrats suddenly ‘found’ new, fraudulent Biden votes to beat Trump

REALITY: Counting mail ballots took a long time in some states, like Pennsylvania, because the Republican Party blocked reforms that would have avoided this problem

In the days after Election Day, Trump said several times that Democrats were trying to cheat him by “finding” votes for Biden.  “They are finding Biden votes all over the place — in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. So bad for our Country!” the president tweeted just before noon on Wednesday, Nov. 4.  His mention of those three states is telling. They are the same ones that Yahoo News was writing about for three months leading up to the election, raising awareness about what one Pennsylvania Republican warned in September was a “man-made disaster … that easily could be avoided.”

The disaster happened. It didn’t have to. And it created space for the president to falsely claim that votes were being “found” when in fact they were simply being counted in a delayed fashion. The delay was caused — seemingly intentionally — by the Republican Party itself. 

Here’s what happened. After the outbreak of COVID-19 in the late winter and early spring, most states allowed all voters to cast ballots by mail in the spring and early summer, during primary elections. Over the summer, some states moved back to a focus on in-person voting. But most stuck with expanded access to voting by mail.  For many states this was new. But five states have conducted their elections by mail for years now: Colorado, Utah, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii. Two more, Arizona and California, have done their elections mostly by mail for a few years.

As states moved to voting by mail, most had rules that allowed election clerks to process those ballots as they arrived. As Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, told Yahoo News in August, “We can start processing those right away, meaning: Cut the envelope, open, verify the information on it, put it through the scanner, but not hit ‘tabulate.’ That can’t happen until 7:30 on election night.”  As a result, Ohio had most of its mail ballots counted early on election night. Most states did.  But Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — the same three states mentioned by Trump in his tweet — refused to make a change allowing clerks to process mail ballots like the rest of the country.

Action was needed from the state legislature, and in all three states the Republican Party held majorities in both the state Senate and the state House.  LaRose himself warned of a “really terrible situation” if these legislatures didn’t make a simple change, giving clerks time to process mail ballots before Election Day.

In other words, the GOP knew its lack of action was going to delay the counting of mail ballots by several days, and either did nothing or — as in the case of Michigan — gave clerks one day ahead of Election Day to process mail ballots, rather than the week or two that experts and election officials recommended.

In Pennsylvania, Republicans at first allowed clerks to start processing mail ballots 21 days before Election Day, but then cut that down to three and included a number of “poison pill” ideas in its bill that guaranteed Democrats would oppose it.

There has been no evidence of ballots being added. That has happened before in Philadelphia, but on a very small scale. In May, an election judge there pleaded guilty to adding a total of 113 votes over three elections from 2014 to 2016 to help judicial candidates running for a local court.  The point made by LaRose and other Republican experts is that even isolated examples of cheating, which do happen, do not add up to a conspiracy. To manipulate tens of thousands of votes without detection is not possible given the multiple layers of security and accountability involved in running elections, experts say.  One of those layers is the postelection audit that each state conducts itself to ensure that the result was accurate.

RUMOR: Pollsters falsified their results to suppress the GOP vote

REALITY: Republicans turned out in record numbers even though pollsters mistakenly underestimated Trump again

Last Thursday, Trump told reporters that pollsters had deliberately produced false surveys showing Biden with a big lead in order to suppress Trump votes and help Biden win the election.  He followed up Monday night with a series of tweets repeating the same claim.  “.@FoxNews, @QuinnipiacPoll, ABC/WaPo, NBC/WSJ were so inaccurate with their polls on me, that it really is tampering with an Election,” Trump wrote. “They were so far off in their polling, and in their attempt to suppress - that they should be called out for Election Interference … ABC/WaPo had me down 17 points in Wisconsin, the day before the election, and I WON! In Iowa, the polls had us 4 points down, and I won by 8.2%! Fox News and Quinnipiac were wrong on everything… The worst polling ever, and then they’ll be back in four years to do it again. This is much more then [sic] voter and campaign finance suppression!”

Trump is right about one thing: Pollsters again underestimated the president’s support in key (mostly Midwestern) states such as Iowa and Wisconsin, four years after he first beat his Rust Belt polling numbers to eke out a narrow Electoral College victory over Hillary Clinton.  Trump is wrong, however, that this polling miss was part of some sort of plot to propel Biden to the presidency.  There are two reasons for this. First, these errors are the opposite of deliberate — instead, they’re a source of embarrassment for pollsters nationwide. And second, even if they had been deliberate, they didn’t actually “work.” They didn’t stop Republicans from voting.

Polling is a business, and accuracy is the coin of the realm. As Fox News contributor Liberty Vittert, a data science professor at the Washington University in St. Louis, recently explained, “Pollsters poll on many more issues than political campaigns, and their businesses depend on their reputations for accurate polling.”

To believe that dozens of pollsters independently falsified their results to boost Biden, in other words, you’d also have to believe that somehow they were all independently willing to sabotage their reputations and hurt their businesses on the slim chance that Trump’s passionate base would see Biden’s inflated numbers and decide to stay home.  “The president’s accusation doesn’t make sense,” Vittert wrote. “Think about it: why would any business hire a pollster if it thought the polling was inaccurate?”

Instead, the truth is that pollsters labored mightily to improve their methodologies after missing a lot of non-college-educated white Trump voters in 2016 — and now, in 2020, they’ve missed again, perhaps because many of those voters simply aren’t as willing as highly engaged, COVID-era Democrats to pick up the phone and participate in a practice they’ve already rejected as “fake news.”

This phenomenon is called non-response bias. Pollsters are not proud of their failure to correct for it.  “The reason why the polls are wrong is because the people who were answering these surveys were the wrong people,” pollster David Shor recently explained. “The problem [is that] one group of people [is] really, really excited to share their opinions, while another group isn’t. As long as that bias exists, it’ll percolate down to whatever you do.”

The flip side of this phenomenon, as Shor put it, is that “these low-trust people still vote, even if they’re not answering these phone surveys.” The 2020 results bear this out. Not only did Trump receive more than 72 million votes — the second-most in U.S. history, after Biden’s 78 million — but Senate Republicans in Texas, Michigan, Colorado, North Carolina and Georgia actually beat the president’s share of the vote in their respective states.  Together, these stats suggest that far from being discouraged by Trump’s unpromising poll numbers, Republicans turned out in force on Nov. 3. It’s just that more people voted for Biden.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-2020-election-wasnt-stolen-here-are-all-the-facts-that-prove-it-184623754.html

Sunday, January 19, 2020

‘You’re A Bunch Of Dopes And Babies’: Inside Trump’s Stunning Tirade Against Generals

(By Carol Leonnig & Philip Rucker, Washington Post, 17 January 2020)

There is no more sacred room for military officers than 2E924 of the Pentagon, a windowless and secure vault where the Joint Chiefs of Staff meet regularly to wrestle with classified matters. Its more common name is “the Tank.” The Tank resembles a small corporate boardroom, with a gleaming golden oak table, leather swivel armchairs and other mid-century stylings. Inside its walls, flag officers observe a reverence and decorum for the wrenching decisions that have been made there.

Hanging prominently on one of the walls is The Peacemakers, a painting that depicts an 1865 Civil War strategy session with President Abraham Lincoln and his three service chiefs — Lieutenant General Ulysses S. Grant, Major General William Tecumseh Sherman, and Rear Admiral David Dixon Porter. One hundred fifty-​­two years after Lincoln hatched plans to preserve the Union, President Trump’s advisers staged an intervention inside the Tank to try to preserve the world order.

By that point, six months into his administration, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, Director of the National Economic Council Gary Cohn, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had grown alarmed by gaping holes in Trump’s knowledge of history, especially the key alliances forged following World War II. Trump had dismissed allies as worthless, cozied up to authoritarian regimes in Russia and elsewhere, and advocated withdrawing troops from strategic outposts and active theaters alike.

Trump organized his unorthodox worldview under the simplistic banner of “America First,” but Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn feared his proposals were rash, barely considered, and a danger to America’s superpower standing. They also felt that many of Trump’s impulsive ideas stemmed from his lack of familiarity with U.S. history and, even, where countries were located. To have a useful discussion with him, the trio agreed, they had to create a basic knowledge, a shared language.

President Trump spoke about his former defense secretary at a Cabinet meeting Jan. 2, saying he was not "too happy" with how Jim Mattis handled Afghanistan. (The Washington Post)
So on July 20, 2017, Mattis invited Trump to the Tank for what he, Tillerson, and Cohn had carefully organized as a tailored tutorial. What happened inside the Tank that day crystallized the commander in chief’s berating, derisive and dismissive manner, foreshadowing decisions such as the one earlier this month that brought the United States to the brink of war with Iran. The Tank meeting was a turning point in Trump’s presidency. Rather than getting him to appreciate America’s traditional role and alliances, Trump began to tune out and eventually push away the experts who believed their duty was to protect the country by restraining his more dangerous impulses.

AD
The episode has been documented numerous times, but subsequent reporting reveals a more complete picture of the moment and the chilling effect Trump’s comments and hostility had on the nation’s military and national security leadership.

Just before 10 a.m. on a scorching summer Thursday, Trump arrived at the Pentagon. He stepped out of his motorcade, walked along a corridor with portraits honoring former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, and stepped inside the Tank. The uniformed officers greeted their commander in chief. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph F. Dunford Jr. sat in the seat of honor midway down the table, because this was his room, and Trump sat at the head of the table facing a projection screen. Mattis and the newly confirmed deputy defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, sat to the president’s left, with Vice President Pence and Tillerson to his right. Down the table sat the leaders of the military branches, along with Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon was in the outer ring of chairs with other staff, taking his seat just behind Mattis and directly in Trump’s line of sight.

Mattis, Cohn, and Tillerson and their aides decided to use maps, graphics, and charts to tutor the president, figuring they would help keep him from getting bored. Mattis opened with a slide show punctuated by lots of dollar signs. Mattis devised a strategy to use terms the impatient president, schooled in real estate, would appreciate to impress upon him the value of U.S. investments abroad. He sought to explain why U.S. troops were deployed in so many regions and why America’s safety hinged on a complex web of trade deals, alliances, and bases across the globe.

An opening line flashed on the screen, setting the tone: “The post-war international rules-based order is the greatest gift of the greatest generation.” Mattis then gave a 20-minute briefing on the power of the NATO alliance to stabilize Europe and keep the United States safe. Bannon thought to himself, “Not good. Trump is not going to like that one bit.” The internationalist language Mattis was using was a trigger for Trump.  “Oh, baby, this is going to be f---ing wild,” Bannon thought. “If you stood up and threatened to shoot [Trump], he couldn’t say ‘postwar rules-based international order.’ It’s just not the way he thinks.”

For the next 90 minutes, Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn took turns trying to emphasize their points, pointing to their charts and diagrams. They showed where U.S. personnel were positioned, at military bases, CIA stations, and embassies, and how U.S. deployments fended off the threats of terror cells, nuclear blasts, and destabilizing enemies in places including Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Korea Peninsula, and Syria. Cohn spoke for about 20 minutes about the value of free trade with America’s allies, emphasizing how he saw each trade agreement working together as part of an overall structure to solidify U.S. economic and national security.

Trump appeared peeved by the schoolhouse vibe but also allergic to the dynamic of his advisers talking at him. His ricocheting attention span led him to repeatedly interrupt the lesson. He heard an adviser say a word or phrase and then seized on that to interject with his take. For instance, the word “base” prompted him to launch in to say how “crazy” and “stupid” it was to pay for bases in some countries.

Trump’s first complaint was to repeat what he had vented about to his national security adviser months earlier: South Korea should pay for a $10 billion missile defense system that the United States built for it. The system was designed to shoot down any short- and medium-range ballistic missiles from North Korea to protect South Korea and American troops stationed there. But Trump argued that the South Koreans should pay for it, proposing that the administration pull U.S. troops out of the region or bill the South Koreans for their protection.  “We should charge them rent,” Trump said of South Korea. “We should make them pay for our soldiers. We should make money off of everything.”

Trump proceeded to explain that NATO, too, was worthless. U.S. generals were letting the allied member countries get away with murder, he said, and they owed the United States a lot of money after not living up to their promise of paying their dues.  “They’re in arrears,” Trump said, reverting to the language of real estate. He lifted both his arms at his sides in frustration. Then he scolded top officials for the untold millions of dollars he believed they had let slip through their fingers by allowing allies to avoid their obligations.  “We are owed money you haven’t been collecting!” Trump told them. “You would totally go bankrupt if you had to run your own business.”

Mattis wasn’t trying to convince the president of anything, only to explain and provide facts. Now things were devolving quickly. The general tried to calmly explain to the president that he was not quite right. The NATO allies didn’t owe the United States back rent, he said. The truth was more complicated. NATO had a nonbinding goal that members should pay at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on their defenses. Only five of the countries currently met that goal, but it wasn’t as if they were shorting the United States on the bill.

More broadly, Mattis argued, the NATO alliance was not serving only to protect western Europe. It protected America, too. “This is what keeps us safe,” Mattis said. Cohn tried to explain to Trump that he needed to see the value of the trade deals. “These are commitments that help keep us safe,” Cohn said.

Bannon interjected. “Stop, stop, stop,” he said. “All you guys talk about all these great things, they’re all our partners, I want you to name me now one country and one company that’s going to have his back.”

Trump then repeated a threat he’d made countless times before. He wanted out of the Iran nuclear deal that President Obama had struck in 2015, which called for Iran to reduce its uranium stockpile and cut its nuclear program.

 “It’s the worst deal in history!” Trump declared.

“Well, actually . . .,” Tillerson interjected.

 “I don’t want to hear it,” Trump said, cutting off the secretary of state before he could explain some of the benefits of the agreement. “They’re cheating. They’re building. We’re getting out of it. I keep telling you, I keep giving you time, and you keep delaying me. I want out of it.”

Before they could debate the Iran deal, Trump erupted to revive another frequent complaint: the war in Afghanistan, which was now America’s longest war. He demanded an explanation for why the United States hadn’t won in Afghanistan yet, now 16 years after the nation began fighting there in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Trump unleashed his disdain, calling Afghanistan a “loser war.” That phrase hung in the air and disgusted not only the military leaders at the table but also the men and women in uniform sitting along the back wall behind their principals. They all were sworn to obey their commander in chief’s commands, and here he was calling the war they had been fighting a loser war.  “You’re all losers,” Trump said. “You don’t know how to win anymore.”

Trump questioned why the United States couldn’t get some oil as payment for the troops stationed in the Persian Gulf. “We spent $7 trillion; they’re ripping us off,” Trump boomed. “Where is the f---ing oil?”  Trump seemed to be speaking up for the voters who elected him, and several attendees thought they heard Bannon in Trump’s words. Bannon had been trying to persuade Trump to withdraw forces by telling him, “The American people are saying we can’t spend a trillion dollars a year on this. We just can’t. It’s going to bankrupt us.”

“And not just that, the deplorables don’t want their kids in the South China Sea at the 38th parallel or in Syria, in Afghanistan, in perpetuity,” Bannon would add, invoking Hillary Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables” reference to Trump supporters.

Trump mused about removing General John Nicholson, the U.S. commander in charge of troops in Afghanistan. “I don’t think he knows how to win,” the president said, impugning Nicholson, who was not present at the meeting.  Dunford tried to come to Nicholson’s defense, but the mild-mannered general struggled to convey his points to the irascible president.  “Mr. President, that’s just not . . .,” Dunford started. “We’ve been under different orders.”

Dunford sought to explain that he hadn’t been charged with annihilating the enemy in Afghanistan but was instead following a strategy started by the Obama administration to gradually reduce the military presence in the country in hopes of training locals to maintain a stable government so that eventually the United States could pull out. Trump shot back in more plain language.  “I want to win,” he said. “We don’t win any wars anymore . . . We spend $7 trillion, everybody else got the oil and we’re not winning anymore.”

Trump by now was in one of his rages. He was so angry that he wasn’t taking many breaths. All morning, he had been coarse and cavalier, but the next several things he bellowed went beyond that description. They stunned nearly everyone in the room, and some vowed that they would never repeat them. Indeed, they have not been reported until now.  “I wouldn’t go to war with you people,” Trump told the assembled brass.  Addressing the room, the commander in chief barked, “You’re a bunch of dopes and babies.”

For a president known for verbiage he euphemistically called “locker room talk,” this was the gravest insult he could have delivered to these people, in this sacred space. The flag officers in the room were shocked. Some staff began looking down at their papers, rearranging folders, almost wishing themselves out of the room. A few considered walking out. They tried not to reveal their revulsion on their faces, but questions raced through their minds. “How does the commander in chief say that?” one thought. “What would our worst adversaries think if they knew he said this?”

This was a president who had been labeled a “draft dodger” for avoiding service in the Vietnam War under questionable circumstances. Trump was a young man born of privilege and in seemingly perfect health: six feet two inches with a muscular build and a flawless medical record. He played several sports, including football. Then, in 1968 at age 22, he obtained a diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that exempted him from military service just as the United States was drafting men his age to fulfill massive troop deployments to Vietnam.

Tillerson in particular was stunned by Trump’s diatribe and began visibly seething. For too many minutes, others in the room noticed, he had been staring straight, dumbfounded, at Mattis, who was speechless, his head bowed down toward the table. Tillerson thought to himself, “Gosh darn it, Jim, say something. Why aren’t you saying something?”  But, as he would later tell close aides, Tillerson realized in that moment that Mattis was genetically a Marine, unable to talk back to his commander in chief, no matter what nonsense came out of his mouth.

The more perplexing silence was from Pence, a leader who should have been able to stand up to Trump. Instead, one attendee thought, “He’s sitting there frozen like a statue. Why doesn’t he stop the president?” Another recalled the vice president was “a wax museum guy.” From the start of the meeting, Pence looked as if he wanted to escape and put an end to the president’s torrent. Surely, he disagreed with Trump’s characterization of military leaders as “dopes and babies,” considering his son, Michael, was a Marine first lieutenant then training for his naval aviator wings. But some surmised Pence feared getting crosswise with Trump. “A total deer in the headlights,” recalled a third attendee.

Others at the table noticed Trump’s stream of venom had taken an emotional toll. So many people in that room had gone to war and risked their lives for their country, and now they were being dressed down by a president who had not. They felt sick to their stomachs. Tillerson told others he thought he saw a woman in the room silently crying. He was furious and decided he couldn’t stand it another minute. His voice broke into Trump’s tirade, this one about trying to make money off U.S. troops.

“No, that’s just wrong,” the secretary of state said. “Mr. President, you’re totally wrong. None of that is true.”

Tillerson’s father and uncle had both been combat veterans, and he was deeply proud of their service.

“The men and women who put on a uniform don’t do it to become soldiers of fortune,” Tillerson said. “That’s not why they put on a uniform and go out and die . . . They do it to protect our freedom.”

There was silence in the Tank. Several military officers in the room were grateful to the secretary of state for defending them when no one else would. The meeting soon ended and Trump walked out, saying goodbye to a group of servicemen lining the corridor as he made his way to his motorcade waiting outside. Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn were deflated. Standing in the hall with a small cluster of people he trusted, Tillerson finally let down his guard.  “He’s a f---ing moron,” the secretary of state said of the president.

The plan by Mattis, Tillerson, and Cohn to train the president to appreciate the internationalist view had clearly backfired.  “We were starting to get out on the wrong path, and we really needed to have a course correction and needed to educate, to teach, to help him understand the reason and basis for a lot of these things,” said one senior official involved in the planning. “We needed to change how he thinks about this, to course correct. Everybody was on board, 100 percent agreed with that sentiment. [But] they were dismayed and in shock when not only did it not have the intended effect, but he dug in his heels and pushed it even further on the spectrum, further solidifying his views.”

A few days later, Pence’s national security adviser, Andrea Thompson, a retired Army colonel who had served in Afghanistan and Iraq, reached out to thank Tillerson for speaking up on behalf of the military and the public servants who had been in the Tank. By September 2017, she would leave the White House and join Tillerson at Foggy Bottom as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security affairs.

The Tank meeting had so thoroughly shocked the conscience of military leaders that they tried to keep it a secret. At the Aspen Security Forum two days later, longtime NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell asked Dunford how Trump had interacted during the Tank meeting. The Joint Chiefs chairman misleadingly described the meeting, skipping over the fireworks.

“He asked a lot of hard questions, and the one thing he does is question some fundamental assumptions that we make as military leaders — and he will come in and question those,” Dunford told Mitchell on July 22. “It’s a pretty energetic and an interactive dialogue.”

One victim of the Tank meeting was Trump’s relationship with Tillerson, which forever after was strained. The secretary of state came to see it as the beginning of the end. It would only worsen when news that Tillerson had called Trump a “moron” was first reported in October 2017 by NBC News.

Trump once again gathered his generals and top diplomats in December 2017 for a meeting as part of the administration’s ongoing strategy talks about troop deployments in Afghanistan in the Situation Room, a secure meeting room on the ground floor of the West Wing. Trump didn’t like the Situation Room as much as the Pentagon’s Tank, because he didn’t think it had enough gravitas. It just wasn’t impressive.

But there Trump was, struggling to come up with a new Afghanistan policy and frustrated that so many U.S. forces were deployed in so many places around the world. The conversation began to tilt in the same direction as it had in the Tank back in July.  “All these countries need to start paying us for the troops we are sending to their countries. We need to be making a profit,” Trump said. “We could turn a profit on this.”

Dunford tried to explain to the president once again, gently, that troops deployed in these regions provided stability there, which helped make America safer. Another officer chimed in that charging other countries for U.S. soldiers would be against the law.  “But it just wasn’t working,” one former Trump aide recalled. “Nothing worked.”

Following the Tank meeting, Tillerson had told his aides that he would never silently tolerate such demeaning talk from Trump about making money off the deployments of U.S. soldiers. Tillerson’s father, at the age of 17, had committed to enlist in the Navy on his next birthday, wanting so much to serve his country in World War II. His great-uncle was a career officer in the Navy as well. Both men had been on his mind, Tillerson told aides, when Trump unleashed his tirade in the Tank and again when he repeated those points in the Situation Room in December.  “We need to get our money back,” Trump told his assembled advisers.

That was it. Tillerson stood up. But when he did so, he turned his back to the president and faced the flag officers and the rest of the aides in the room. He didn’t want a repeat of the scene in the Tank.  “I’ve never put on a uniform, but I know this,” Tillerson said. “Every person who has put on a uniform, the people in this room, they don’t do it to make a buck. They did it for their country, to protect us. I want everyone to be clear about how much we as a country value their service.”

Tillerson’s rebuke made Trump angry. He got a little red in the face. But the president decided not to engage Tillerson at that moment. He would wait to take him on another day.  Later that evening, after 8:00, Tillerson was working in his office at the State Department’s Foggy Bottom headquarters, preparing for the next day. The phone rang. It was Dunford. The Joint Chiefs chairman’s voice was unsteady with emotion.

Dunford had much earlier joked with Tillerson that in past administrations the secretaries of state and Defense Department leaders wouldn’t be caught dead walking on the same side of the street, for their rivalry was that fierce. But now, as both men served Trump, they were brothers joined against what they saw as disrespect for service members. Dunford thanked Tillerson for standing up for them in the Situation Room.  “You took the body blows for us,” Dunford said. “Punch after punch. Thank you. I will never forget it.”

Tillerson, Dunford, and Mattis would not take those body blows for much longer. They failed to rein in Trump’s impulses or to break through what they regarded as the president’s stubborn, even dangerous insistence that he knew best. Piece by piece, the guardrails that had hemmed in the chaos of Trump’s presidency crumpled.

In March 2018, Trump abruptly fired Tillerson while the secretary of state was halfway across the globe on a sensitive diplomatic mission to Africa to ease tensions caused by Trump’s demeaning insults about African countries. Trump gave Tillerson no rationale for his firing, and afterward acted as if they were buddies, inviting him to come by the Oval Office to take a picture and have the president sign it. Tillerson never went.

Mattis continued serving as the defense secretary, but the president’s sudden decision in December 2018 to withdraw troops from Syria and abandon America’s Kurdish allies there — one the president soon reversed, only to remake 10 months later — inspired him to resign. Mattis saw Trump’s desired withdrawal as an assault on a soldier’s code. “He began to feel like he was becoming complicit,” recalled one of the secretary’s confidants.

The media interpretation of Mattis’ resignation letter as a scathing rebuke of Trump’s worldview brought the president’s anger to a boiling point. Trump decided to remove Mattis two months ahead of the secretary’s chosen departure date. His treatment of Mattis upset the secretary’s staff. They decided to arrange the biggest clap out they could. The event was a tradition for all departing secretaries. They wanted a line of Pentagon personnel that stretched for a mile applauding Mattis as he left for the last time. It was going to be “yuge,” staffers joked, borrowing from Trump’s glossary.

But Mattis would not allow it.  “No, we are not doing that,” he told his aides. “You don’t understand the president. I work with him. You don’t know him like I do. He will take it out on Shanahan and Dunford.”

Dunford stayed on until September 2019, retiring at the conclusion of his four-year term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. One of Dunford’s first public acts after leaving office was to defend a military officer attacked by Trump, Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official who testified in the House impeachment inquiry about his worries over Trump’s conduct with Ukraine. Trump dismissed Vindman as a “Never Trumper,” but Dunford stepped forward to praise the Purple Heart recipient as “a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer. He has made an extraordinary contribution to the security of our nation.”

By then, however, Trump had become a president entirely unrestrained. He had replaced his raft of seasoned advisers with a cast of enablers who executed his orders and engaged his obsessions. They saw their mission as telling the president yes.



This article is adapted from “A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump’s Testing of America,” which will be published on Jan. 21 by Penguin Press.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/youre-a-bunch-of-dopes-and-babies-inside-trumps-stunning-tirade-against-generals/2020/01/16/d6dbb8a6-387e-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html Subscriber sign in

We noticed you’re blocking ads!

Keep supporting great journalism by turning off your ad blocker. Or purchase a subscription for unlimited access to real news you can count on.

Try 1 month for $1

Unblock ads

Questions about why you are seeing this?Contact us


Monday, July 29, 2013

How To Guard Your Identity

How To Guard Your Identity
(By Lynn Brenner, Parade Magazine)

These days, it seems you can’t turn on the news without hearing about yet another security breach exposing consumer information to identity thieves. Due to stunningly widespread corporate carelessness, the records of more than 46 million Americans were lost or stolen in the first half of 2005 alone. Clearly, it’s up to you to protect yourself. Here’s what you need to know.

What a Criminal Does

An identity thief doesn’t just steal your credit card and go on a spending spree. He gets new cards, opens new accounts and takes out new loans, leaving a trail of unpaid bills in your name. He can even use your identity to commit crimes or acts of terrorism, says Mari Frank, a California lawyer who was an identity theft victim and is now an authority on the crime. Most victims don’t find out what has happened until long afterward, when they’re called by a collection agency or turned down for a loan.  The thief may be someone you know. Linda Foley, a magazine writer, learned that her own employer had swiped her identity to open cell phone and credit card accounts. Foley and her husband are now the executive directors of the Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) in San Diego. Sometimes the thief works for a company you do business with.  Bridget J. Thomas of Prairieville, La., learned that her identity had been stolen by a bank employee at a branch 300 miles from the one she used. “When she was caught, she was employed with a different bank, in a different state,” says Thomas. “And even after she was arrested, that didn’t stop the collection agencies from hounding me.”  Setting the record straight is a nightmare that can take years. In serious cases, victims spend an average of 600 hours and $1400 in out-of-pocket expenses to repair their credit. Until you can “prove” your innocence, you may face higher insurance rates and credit card fees, be rejected for a student loan or a mortgage, find you can’t get a job -even be arrested for crimes you didn’t commit.

Can This Happen To You?

All a thief needs is your Social Security number -which is routinely used by government agencies, health care providers, utility companies, employers and financial institutions. Even your video rental store has it. Often, this information is publicly available. That’s how retired Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, became a victim: His Social Security number, along with those of other military officers, was published in the Congressional Record and later posted on a Web site. In 1999, thieves used their identities to open 273 new credit card accounts and run up $200,000 in charges.  And all your personal information is now for sale by data brokers. In February, ChoicePoint, a huge data broker, revealed that it had unwittingly sold consumer Social Security numbers and credit reports to criminals posing as businessmen. That disclosure was mandated by a 2003 California law requiring consumer notification when data is compromised. (A weaker version of that law has been proposed at the federal level.) The same law has revealed shocking corporate irresponsibility: Bank of America, Time Warner, Wachovia, MCI and Ameritrade are among the household names that have admitted losing the personal data of more than 6 million customers and/or employees so far this year. MasterCard International disclosed that a hacker had stolen 40 million account numbers from a company that processes the transactions of MasterCard, Visa USA, American Express and Discover cardholders.
 
A New Form of Defense

You could stop ID thieves cold by freezing access to your credit file. The file becomes off-limits to anyone who doesn’t know the secret PIN number that you choose. The result: A person applying for credit in your name is rejected, because the lender can’t check your history to approve the application. (Your current credit cards aren’t affected.) And if you want to apply for new credit or let someone run a background check on you, you can get a credit thaw. Before shopping for a new car, for example, you might thaw your history for auto dealers.  Yet only 10 states—California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Nevada, Louisiana, Texas, Vermont and Washington —let consumers block access to their credit files. The three big credit bureaus each charge about $10 for a freeze and $10 for a thaw. So true protection costs about $60 if you opt for one thaw a year, says Linda Foley. By contrast, credit monitoring costs around $100 a year and only tells you after the fact that you’ve been robbed.  Congress is considering a law to allow credit freezes nationwide, but banks, mortgage brokers and retailers strongly oppose giving consumers this option. “The biggest opponents are the credit bureaus,” says Mari Frank. “They make a fortune selling access to your credit report.” These firms are lobbying for a weak federal law, which would supersede tough state laws. They argue that a credit freeze hurts the consumer by eliminating the convenience of instant credit. True, it can take up to three days to thaw your credit file. “But how often do you buy a car or apply for a mortgage?” says Foley. You should get to decide whether to limit access to your own data, she adds. If you agree, tell your Senators and Representative. At www.senate .gov or www.house.gov you’ll find their names and contact information.
 

What You Can Do Now

Periodically check your credit report for suspicious activity. All Americans are entitled to a free annual credit report from each of the three bureaus—Experian, Equifax and TransUnion. By requesting a report every four months, you can keep free tabs on your record year-round, instead of paying for credit monitoring. (Go to www.FTC.gov/ credit for more info.)  Buy online with credit, not debit, cards. With a credit card, your maximum liability for unauthorized purchases is $50.  Don’t respond to a ‘phishing’ e-mail. It looks just like a message from a company you do business with and often warns that your account will be terminated if you don’t “update” or “verify” your financial information within 24 hours. Don’t click on links in this e-mail! To check it out, type in the firm’s Web address yourself or call the company.
 

If You’re a Victim...

Act fast - and brace yourself. You may face uncooperative credit and law enforcement agencies. For emotional support and sound advice, rely on organizations like ITRC (at www.idtheftcenter.org) and books like Mari Frank’s From Victim to Victor: A Step by Step Guide for Ending the Nightmare of Identity Theft, which lists the agencies to call for help and provides all the legal letters you need to send.  Call Equifax, Experian and TransUnion to put a fraud alert on your credit reports. The alert lasts up to 90 days and requires creditors to call you before opening new accounts in your name. But be warned: There’s no legal requirement to honor alerts; merchants eager to make sales often ignore them.  Close your credit card accounts and change the passwords on all your financial accounts.  File a police report. Credit bureaus won’t extend a fraud alert without it. Unfortunately, says Frank, local police are often reluctant to provide a report. Many lack the resources to investigate the crime.  Mail copies of the police report to all three credit agencies with a cover letter demanding your complete credit file.  Call every creditor with a bogus account listed in your file and have them close it immediately. Demand copies of all fraudulent applications for credit and billing statements, advises Frank. Creditors don’t want to divulge that information - but they will if you request it in writing and enclose a copy of a police report.
 

Safety Measures

Stolen wallets and checkbooks remain the most frequent sources of ID theft.  Avoid carrying your checkbook or your Social Security card.  Photocopy your card and cut out all but the last four digits. Government agencies and companies should be required to X out all but the last four numbers too, says victims’ advocate Linda Foley.  Never give out your Social Security number without first asking, “What happens if I don't give it?” Most of the time, the answer is, “Nothing.”  Don’t use your mother’s real maiden name or your real city of birth as identifiers, advises Foley. Use made-up names (City of birth: Atlantis.) But never make up a Social Security number!  That creates a problem for someone else.  Try to add passwords to online and offline accounts, so that anyone who calls your bank or mutual fund needs more than your name, address and Social Security number to impersonate you.  Make sure your mail is delivered to a locked box.  Buy a cross-cut shredder and destroy all unsolicited pre-approved credit offers and blank “courtesy” checks.

Sunday, March 31, 2013

The End Of Cash


 
The End Of Cash
(By Deirdre van Dyk, Time Magazine, Jan. 09, 2012)

Walk into a store, submit your shopping list, and a map directs you to the peanut-butter-brittle ice cream you crave. When you get to the front of the line, just bump your phone on the reader and you also get a discount via an e-coupon you've downloaded. Or scan pictures of the lasagna, salad and French bread you want for dinner from a Safeway ad as you wait for the train and pick up the bag on your way home. This is the year the surging popularity of the mobile wallet--a smart phone that also acts as credit card, checkbook and shop-bot--will radically shift shopping habits. It's the biggest thing in retail since the credit card got us talking about a cashless economy. The driving force is communication: cash can't communicate, but phones can. Your alarm clock, radio, camera, landline and GPS, even your laptop, have already been displaced by your phone. Why not the $69 and four credit cards the average American carries? "Everything eventually migrates to the cell phone," says Scott Ellison, an analyst with IDC who tracks the mobile industry. "And when it moves, people tend to do a lot more of it."

Tammy Lam, 26, a p.r. executive in San Francisco, uses her T-Mobile HTC myTouch phone to pay for just about everything. "I ordered dinner from my local Thai on GrubHub while sitting on the bus on the way home from work last night. I bought all my Christmas presents on my phone. When friends and I are out, we use Groupon to buy a meal," says Lam, who uses her phone instead of her computer for shopping even when she's at home. And she prefers it to cards or bills when she's out. "I hate cash," says Lam. Lam is an early adopter, but there are enough people like her to set off a mobile-wallet war that will escalate this year, converting billions of dollars' worth of transactions to cashless in the $4 trillion retail economy.

Google, the company that changed online search, just launched Google Wallet in partnership with Citibank, MasterCard and Sprint's Nexus S 4G phone. PayPal, the company that solved secure online payment, will announce 20 partnerships this year designed to allow you to order ahead, self-check-out in stores and simply use your phone number and a PIN to pay for purchases. Isis--a Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile wallet with Visa, AmEx, Discover and MasterCard partnerships--launches midyear in Salt Lake City and Austin. Visa's own virtual wallet, V.Me, is also on deck. "Anything with an on switch could be a payment device," says Anuj Nayar, PayPal's communications director. And of course, everyone anticipates a move by Apple, whose stores are already processing sales through iPhones. Apple will announce a wallet this year, predicts Mark Beccue, a mobile analyst with ABI Research. "They have such a loyal following, and they're so vertically integrated--they'll help move everything forward."

Mobile wallets work in different ways. Google and Isis rely on NFC, or near-field communication. Basically, this means the phone and the sales terminal talk to each other. The Subway sandwich chain is installing NFC in about 7,400 of its 25,000 locations; 219 Macy's and Bloomingdale's stores have it up and running; Jamba Juice, OfficeMax, Coke vending machines, even New Jersey Transit trains are set up to take payments with a tap of your phone. Some of the more fantastic aspects of these schemes--like tapping a sign at Home Depot that automatically calls a service rep--require stores to be fitted with NFC equipment throughout, something that hasn't quite happened yet. But the pattern is set. "Consumers expect to use one click to buy just about anything," says Osama Bedier, vice president of payments at Google. "There are no checkout lines online."

Mobile wallets can also be your shop-bot, sniffing out exclusive offers--say, $2 off oatmeal at Jamba Juice as you walk by. Not hungry? Save the coupon to the wallet, which will automatically activate it when you buy your next oatmeal. "Twenty years ago, we had zero need for digital payments," says Bedier. "But today you can't buy a song or a game or an app without them. Increasingly, it will be hard to get a lot of experiences on offer with just cash." There's something ironic about getting your money's worth only if you're not actually using money.

PayPal, with its 103 million account holders and 9 million merchants, is betting on the cloud: store your information and access it from any computer or phone. It has been buying up companies, at least a dozen in the past year, that specialize in bar code readers, inventory tracking or offering location-based deals. And PayPal is working with retailers to put it all together in apps. Like Google, PayPal is building in loyalty cards and coupons and trying to wrap up other capabilities--like skip-the-line checkout at coffee shops, grocery stores and home-improvement centers--before NFC is built in. "There is nothing you can imagine that isn't happening," says Scott Thompson, president of PayPal.

The goal is to reduce friction in retail. To solve the lunch-hour crunch at Pizza Express restaurants in London, for instance, PayPal created an app that allows customers to enter the number from their bill into their phone and then pay without waiting for a server to run a credit card. The potential glitch? If your cell service or wi-fi goes out, so does your ability to pay. Starbucks' app, which has been used 26 million times, allows customers to tap their phone to pay for their triple-venti lattes; mobile payments hit 6 million in a recent nine-week stretch. LevelUp users get their own QR codes they can scan at 1,000 retailers to pay for coffee or pizza. Shop Savvy, a price-comparison tool, has added a buy button. AisleBuyer is a line buster, allowing you to do scan-and-buy self-checkout.

Certainly consumers seem ready to ditch paper and plastic. Every day, apps are launched that accommodate person-to-person transactions, giving you the ability to pony up your share of the rent as well as the ability to skip the checkout line. And 32 million banking customers are managing their money very comfortably on cell phones. Chase alone moves $3 billion a year on mobiles with an app that allows you to deposit to checking via a cell-phone photograph or pay friends for your share of the moo-shu pork by phone transfer. PNC Bank's app allows you to move money from one account to another by sliding your finger along a bar. The future of mobile transactions has already arrived--in Africa. In a market with few banks and even fewer ATMs but with a cell-phone network that makes the U.S.'s laughable by comparison, mobile banking is the standard. In Kenya, 18 million M-Pesa users now move 20% of the country's GDP via simple text messages. Pretty impressive for a program that started in 2007.

This Christmas season is a window on the mobile wallet's development. Salvation Army Santas used mobile phones to take payments, there were 500% daily jumps in mobile sales on PayPal, and customers pulled out their cell phones to check reviews and compare prices in stores in never-before-seen numbers. Amazon even offered $5 off to customers who scanned a bar code in a store--so Amazon could offer a lower price on the same item. This "scan and scram" behavior infuriates brick-and-mortar retailers, who fear they are simply being used as a showroom for online retailers. They may be right--but consumers now have a price-discovery tool that gives them more power, and they aren't going to give it up.

Our comfort and routine with cash and credit cards have been barriers of a sort. But mobile payment could jump the fence and move faster than anyone expects. When Haiti was hit by an earthquake in 2010, the Red Cross raised $32 million, $10 at a time, via text. Ultimately, mobile payments made up 7% of the money raised for Haiti. "We call it the game changer," says Roger Lowe, the charity's spokesperson. "If they say people aren't already using their phone for payments, I have 32 million reasons to believe they are." Mobile-payment platforms could power social movements too. WePay, an online-payment system that helped the Occupy movement raise $680,000, will launch mobile capabilities in the summer.

The mobile wallet, predicted to be worth $12.5 billion this year according to ABI Research, is about not just the Minority Report--style cool-retail factor but also practical things like ... money. "The consumer will save money, in part through deals that are based on past purchases, not just random offers. And they'll get better financial control," says McKinsey's Philip Bruno. But on an everyday level, the mobile wallet's big promise may lie in the little problems it can solve. "If it's a busy lunchtime and I can preorder and prepay at Chipotle, skipping that long line," says Charles Wilson, who helps companies with social-media strategies, "then it's a godsend." Or as Ed McLaughlin, head of emerging payments at MasterCard, says, cash will never go away but will only become less useful. "Cash is going to be like the postage stamp. If you aren't used to using it, it won't make a whole lot of sense why one would."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2103289,00.html




The Most Dangerous Thing In Your Wallet
(By Bill Saporito, Time, Feb. 10, 2014)

A thin magnetic stripe is all that stands between your credit-card information and the bad guys. And they've been working hard to break in. That's why 2014 is shaping up as a major showdown: banks, law enforcement and technology companies are all trying to thwart a network of hackers who are succeeding in swiping account numbers, names, email addresses and other crucial data used in identity theft. More than 100 million accounts at Target, Neiman Marcus and Michaels stores were affected in some way during the most recent attacks, starting last November.  Swipe is the operative word: cards are increasingly vulnerable to attacks when you make purchases in a store. In several recent incidents, hackers have been able to scoop up massive troves of credit-, debit- or prepaid-card numbers using malware inserted surreptitiously into the retailers' point-of-sale system--the checkout registers. Hackers then sold the data to a second group of criminals operating in shadowy corners of the web. Not long after, the stolen data was showing up on counterfeit cards and being used for online purchases.

The solution could cost as little as $2 extra for every piece of plastic issued. The fix is a security technology used heavily outside the U.S. While American credit cards use the 40-year-old magstripe technology to process transactions, much of the rest of the world uses smarter cards with a technology called EMV (short for Europay, MasterCard, Visa) that employs a chip embedded in the card plus a customer PIN to authenticate every transaction on the spot. If a purchaser fails to punch in the correct PIN at the checkout, the transaction gets rejected. (Online purchases can be made by setting up a separate transaction code.)
Why haven't big banks adopted the more secure technology? When it comes to mailing out new credit cards, it's all about relative costs, says David Robertson, who runs the Nilson Report, an industry newsletter: "The cost of the card, putting the sticker on it, coding the account number and expiration date, embossing it, the little mailer--fully loaded, you are in the dollar range." A chip-and-PIN card currently costs closer to $3, says Robertson, because of the price of chips. (Once large issuers convert en masse, the chip costs should drop.)  Multiply $3 by the more than 5 billion magstripe credit and prepaid cards in circulation in the U.S. Then consider that there's an estimated $12.4 billion in card fraud on a global basis, says Robertson. With 44% of that in the U.S., American credit-card fraud amounts to about $5.5 billion annually. Card issuers have so far calculated that absorbing the liability for even big hacks like the Target one is still cheaper than replacing all that plastic.

That leaves American retailers pretty much alone the world over in relying on magstripe technology to charge purchases--and leaves consumers vulnerable. Each magstripe has three tracks of information, explains payments-security expert Jeremy Gumbley, the chief technology officer of CreditCall, an electronic-payments company. The first and third are used by the bank or card issuer. Your vital account information lives on the second track, which hackers try to capture. "Malware is scanning through the memory in real time and looking for data," he says. "It creates a text file that gets siphoned off."
Chip-and-PIN cards, by contrast, make counterfeits or skimming impossible because the information that gets scanned is encrypted. The historical reason the U.S. has stuck with magstripe, ironically enough, is once superior technology. Our cheap, ultra-reliable wired networks made credit-card authentication over the phone frictionless. In France, card companies created EMV in part because the telephone monopoly was so maddeningly inefficient and expensive. The workaround allowed transactions to be verified locally and securely.  Some big banks, like Wells Fargo, are now offering to convert your magstripe card to a chip-and-PIN model. (It's actually a hybrid that will still have a magstripe, since most U.S. merchants don't have EMV terminals.) Should you take them up on it? If you travel internationally, the answer is yes.  Keep in mind, too, that credit cards typically have better liability protection than debit cards. If someone uses your credit card fraudulently, it's the issuer or merchant, not you, that takes the hit. Debit cards have different liability limits depending on the bank and the events surrounding any fraud. "If it's available, the logical thing is to get a chip-and-PIN card from your bank," says Eric Adamowsky, a co-founder of CreditCardInsider.com "I would use credit cards over debit cards because of liability issues." Cash still works pretty well too.

Retailers and banks stand to benefit from the lower fraud levels of chip-and-PIN cards but have been reluctant for years to invest in the new infrastructure needed for the technology, especially if consumers don't have access to it. It's a chicken-and-egg problem: no one wants to spend the money on upgraded point-of-sale systems that can read the chip cards if shoppers aren't carrying them--yet there's little point in consumers' carrying the fancy plastic if stores aren't equipped to use them. (An earlier effort by Target to move to chip and PIN never gained traction.) According to Gumbley, there's a "you-first mentality. The logjam has to be broken."  JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon recently made overtures to do so, noting that banks and merchants have spent the past decade suing each other over interchange fees--the percentage of the transaction price they keep--rather than deal with the growing hacking problem. Chase offers a chip-enabled card under its own brand and several others for travel-related companies such as British Airways and Ritz-Carlton.
The Target and Neiman hacks have also changed the cost calculus: although retailers have balked at spending the $6.75 billion that Capgemini consultants estimate it will take to convert all their registers to be chip-and-PIN-compatible, the potential liability they now face is exponentially greater. Target has been hit with class actions from hacked consumers. "It's the ultimate nightmare," a retail executive from a well-known chain admitted to TIME.

The card-payment companies MasterCard and Visa are pushing hard for change. The two firms have warned all parties in the transaction chain--merchant, network, bank--that if they don't become EMV-compliant by October 2015, the party that is least compliant will bear the fraud risk.  In the meantime, app-equipped smartphones and digital wallets--all of which can use EMV technology--are beginning to make inroads on cards and cash. PayPal, for instance, is testing an app that lets you use your mobile phone to pay on the fly at local merchants--without surrendering any card info to them. And further down the road is biometric authentication, which could be encrypted with, say, a fingerprint.
Credit and debit cards, though, are going to be with us for the foreseeable future, and so are hackers, if we stick with magstripe technology. "It seems crazy to me," says Gumbley, who is English, "that a cutting-edge-technology country is depending on a 40-year-old technology." That's why it may be up to consumers to move the needle on chip and PIN. Says Robertson: "When you get the consumer into a position of worry and inconvenience, that's where the rubber hits the road."