Did You Vote? Now Your Friends May Know (nytimes.com) 344
A look at VoteWithMe and OutVote, two new political apps that are trying to use peer pressure to get people to vote. From a story: The apps are to elections what Zillow is to real estate -- services that pull public information from government records, repackage it for consumer viewing and make it available at the touch of a smartphone button. But instead of giving you a peek at house prices, VoteWithMe and OutVote let you snoop on which of your friends voted in past elections and their party affiliations -- and then prod them to go to the polls by sending them scripted messages like "You gonna vote?" "I don't want this to come off like we're shaming our friends into voting," said Naseem Makiya, the chief executive of OutVote, a start-up in Boston. But, he said, "I think a lot of people might vote just because they're frankly worried that their friends will find out if they didn't."
Whom Americans vote for is private. But other information in their state voter files is public information; depending on the state, it can include details like their name, address, phone number and party affiliation and when they voted. The apps try to match the people in a smartphone's contacts to their voter files, then display some of those details. The data's increasing availability may surprise people receiving messages nudging them to vote -- or even trouble them, by exposing personal politics they might have preferred to keep to themselves. Political campaigns have for years purchased voter files from states or bought national voter databases from data brokers, but the information has otherwise had little public exposure outside of campaign use. Now any app user can easily harness such data to make inferences about, and try to influence, their contacts' voting behavior.
Whom Americans vote for is private. But other information in their state voter files is public information; depending on the state, it can include details like their name, address, phone number and party affiliation and when they voted. The apps try to match the people in a smartphone's contacts to their voter files, then display some of those details. The data's increasing availability may surprise people receiving messages nudging them to vote -- or even trouble them, by exposing personal politics they might have preferred to keep to themselves. Political campaigns have for years purchased voter files from states or bought national voter databases from data brokers, but the information has otherwise had little public exposure outside of campaign use. Now any app user can easily harness such data to make inferences about, and try to influence, their contacts' voting behavior.
I voted (Score:4, Funny)
Still can't get my friends to vote. They're convinced it gets you jury duty [lifehacker.com]
Re:I voted (Score:5, Insightful)
1) At least in my state, just the fact you have a drivers license means you can get jury duty
2) Why are people so against jury duty? Yes, it's inconvenient but so what? We need more intelligent people willing to participate.
Re: (Score:2)
2) - I've heard the pay is particularly poor?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The per diem is a joke, but the actual pay is knowing you have access to a jury of your peers should the need arise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately I've been called a few times but dismissed during voir dire every time except once, when the defendant did not show up.
I got bumped during noir dire as well - prosecutor didn't like that I said I couldn't convict someone if I thought the particular law under which a person was charged was morally unjust (which was not applicable to the case we were on, and I went to lengths to make it clear that I wasn't referring to it).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not unsuitable. Just unlikely to be selected. This is the corollary to the executive branch's selective enforcement. It's an important part of the checks and balances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm ever asked, I won't lie under oath. But I will say "What's that?" and they can assume whatever they will.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately I've been called a few times but dismissed during voir dire every time except once
That's the problem The justice system might need more intelligent people willing to participate but a lawyer defending a guilty defendant does not want them to participate.
Re: (Score:3)
It's good to have a job that continues to pay even if you're absent for jury duty, but I imagine for some people it can be a serious financial burden and that meager pay is not going to make up for it.
I've been fortunate enough to get paid while I've gone downtown to fulfill my jury duty although the last time my boss was clearly not happy about it. (What he didn't know is I was already looking for a new job and even did a phone interview on the drive to the courthouse one day).
The pay was meager enough t
Re:I voted (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is exactly what trial lawyers and DA's don't want.
Re: (Score:2)
We need more intelligent people willing to participate.
Which is exactly what trial lawyers and DA's don't want.
Uh, so a zero sum game? Rather, DAs want intelligent, consistent jurors so they can make informed decisions on what to prosecute and whether and how to prosecute. DAs really aren't served by a crapshoot like the defense is.
No joke (Score:3)
Didn't even pause between those non-sequitur. Sure as hell didn't see the irony. Since then I've been opposed to Juries. The possibility of jury nullification saving me is dwarfed by the chances that somebody would send me up the river because they don't like the cut of my jib; especially since I'm a nerd.
Re: (Score:2)
2) Why are people so against jury duty? Yes, it's inconvenient but so what? We need more intelligent people willing to participate.
You can't be fired for time off for jury duty, but you don't have to be paid, either. There are a ton of people where, if they got stuck on a jury for a week, would be in a world of hurt financially. Can't really blame them. I'm fortunate enough that I do still get salary, so, since I never actually get picked, it's basically a day off where I don't have to answer my cell phone.
The Franchise (Score:2, Interesting)
An old Asimov book used Multivac to question a single randomly chosen individual a number of seemingly random questions. From his responses it determined the proper outcome of the election for all districts. Obviously Asimov believed as you did but took it to an extreme level for a fictional story.
Amusing part is I read it Oct 2008, the story talked about the presidential election in Nov 2008. Think it was written in the 60s.
Just thought you might like to know is been a common theme for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
A random sampling of a mere 10% of the population will give you the proportions to an acceptable level of accuracy.
Something like 50% of people vote, which means we have very high confidence as to what the correct proportions are.
The problem with your theory is that 50% is not a random sample. It is skewed older and more conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
If all you got was a unregistered letter, you weren't legally served anyhow. Safe to ignore (in CA anyhow).
I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I know I'm supposed to support get out the vote (Score:5, Interesting)
They are not for the best. Basically these types of things just turn the electorate into a mob. We are not picking the next American idle here; this is serious. I think every citizen should be able to vote but those who don't want to take it seriously should do everyone a favor and butt out.
Voting is a right; however if you choose to exercise it you have responsibility to take it seriously. Frankly if election day rolls around you still need to be told, that it is election day, where to vote, and what the names of the candidates are - you have not done so. You have no business going to polls at this point IMHO.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What you say makes sense. However, there is another property of voting that has some effect: if you vote, you get some stake in the goverment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is to start building a habit, and applying pressure so that people feel they need to vote. Which results in them paying some attention to what they are voting on in subsequent elections.
It's plausible, but obviously unproven at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a lot of effort to stop people voting, so encouraging them to overcome the barriers is a good thing.
Even if they are less than ideally informed now, participating is a good step towards more engagement and learning.
Recent elections and referendums have made people realize that their votes do count.
Re: (Score:2)
...Party affiliation is a good example. If you live in a strong blue or strong red district and you vote the other way, that's none of your friends business.
Keep in mind that "party affiliation" does not say who you vote for in the election. It only says which of the primaries you vote in.
Wrong Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
"I think a lot of people might vote just because they're frankly worried that their friends will find out if they didn't."
If that's your only reason for voting, then you might as well just stay home. People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess. If you aren't willing to make the time and effort to research candidate positions (or even who the candidates are) then you are doing more harm to good when you vote. Democracy and effective government can only exist with an informed electorate. Put pressure on our politicians to campaign on actual, thought out policies and then hold them to those policies if they are elected. Do your research yourself, go to each campaign's website, watch debates and speeches, etc-don't just listen to talking heads or what your preferred candidate says about their opponent. Voting is a right just as owning a gun is a right. Uninformed voting is the electoral equivalent of waving a gun around in the air-when exercising a right, you have a duty to exercise that right responsibly.
Re: (Score:3)
The idea is a significant percentage of the people who start feeling like they have to vote due to peer pressure will find out about what they are voting on. Right now, paying no attention and not voting is socially acceptable. Make "not voting" no longer socially acceptable, and a good number of people will start paying enough attention to decide as well as any other average voter.
It's unknown at this point if this works, statistically. Anecdotally, people report they have gotten people to pay more att
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who votes is insufficiently cynical. Don't hire them.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to quote your signature to you:
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Last election it was Clinton or Trump. Doesn't matter how well you researched either candidate's position, because it boiled down to something other than policy for many people.
Voting from an informed position only really helps if you have a range of candidates, all with a realistic chance of winning. What you actually get is a choice of two and a massive amount of disinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
Last election it was Clinton or Trump. Doesn't matter how well you researched either candidate's position, because it boiled down to something other than policy for many people.
Voting from an informed position only really helps if you have a range of candidates, all with a realistic chance of winning. What you actually get is a choice of two and a massive amount of disinformation.
It was? Huh, I voted for Johnson. You see, that's part of the problem. The 2 party system is broken, everyone realizes it, yet everyone says why vote for them, only the Democrat or Republican can win. It's a cliche, but Rome wasn't built in a day. If the third party candidate is the one that has policies you support, vote for them. Enough people do that and third parties get enough votes to qualify for federal funds in the next election. As they get higher vote percentages, more people will realize t
Re: (Score:2)
Especially true in 'safe states'. Vote for someone for a change.
Vermin Supreme was the best choice. As I'm in CA, my vote is wasted in any case.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the cause of our current political issues are largely tied to First-Past-the-Post voting and Gerrymandering. Switching to a Single Transferable Vote [youtube.com] would be a far more powerful force for good than any other single change we could do, because it would allow a voice in congress for alternative viewpoints and eliminate the evil that is Gerrymandering.
And it's this echo-chamber of two parties (FPtP) that stay in office forever (Gerrymandering) that's strangling our democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
"People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess."
Considering the US routinely comes in the bottom of voter turnout for industrialized countries, I don't that argument is as useful as you think it is.
Just shows how much power even a few educated voters can have. All of the "go vote" programs we have, being pushed by athletes, musicians, actors, etc, don't say "go out and learn about the candidates" they say "go vote". The type of people who go vote just because someone tells them to are not the type likely to research candidates. If people would go out, educate themselves about politics and candidates, and then went out and voted a lot of problems in the country would be fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well clearly they don't want you to go out and vote for a republican or libertarian.
The underlying message is "go vote for team blue!"
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, I'm usually well educated about candidates , and tend to skip voting of races and issues I have not studied, still.
I've done that myself, and I have also specifically voted 3rd party in cases where the only ads I had ever seen from candidates was to attack their opponents-if you don't want to tell me why I should vote for and instead spend all your time attacking other people, I'm not going to vote for you.
I am often voting for the candidate least likely to make me vomit then a candidate I actually want.
I believe my sig is an appropriate reply to this. When your only choice is between the lesser of two evils, evil still always wins.
Re: (Score:2)
"People voting on heuristics or based on what pop singer posted is what got this country into it's current mess."
No, its elitist idiots who got us into this mess with the notion that voting was some kind of intellectual challenge that only qualified people like themselves should participate in. If everyone voted, Donald Trump wouldn't be president because the outcome wouldn't have been determined by who was motivated to vote.
You mistake my claim of "our current mess" to be primarily directed at the election of Trump, as I assume so does whoever modded me flamebait. While trump is certainly a symptom, it goes much deeper. Current Congressional approval ratings are at less than 20%, yet reelection rates are at over 90%. Why? It's easier to vote for the incumbent. Politicians no longer have to worry about getting things done: if a bill or policy put forth by the majority party fails, it's because the other side killed it or s
If you have to convince someone to vote . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
. . . they're probably not the kind of person that should be voting anyway.
“I would rather be governed [quoteinvestigator.com] by the first 2,000 people in the telephone directory,” he said, “than by the Harvard University faculty.”
-William F. Buckley
Re: (Score:2)
Voting should be a privilege and only a right for those that have earned the privilege.
Wrong. Voting should always be a right for all adult citizens barring a few exceptions (namely felons who have shown no desire or ability to live within society), as the consequences of voting affects everyone. However, like any right, it is a right that should be exercised responsibly. You have a right to free speech, but you shouldn't go around knowingly committing libel or slander or yelling fire in crowded theater or yelling obscenities to children. You have a right to protest, but you shouldn't do
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain the discrepancy between the two noun phrases I've highlighted?
Because a line has to be drawn somewhere? Unless you plan to let babies vote. Whoever's picture the crawl to gets their vote? "Legal adult" is a reasonable cutoff because that is also the age in which the person is extended several rights/privileges and also owes a measure of responsibility towards society (draft for example).
Re: (Score:2)
Voting should be with a rifle at 200 yards. If you can't hit the square next to your candidates name, vote doesn't count. Iron sights.
Not good for farming subsidies then, because a lot of people couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at that range.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone who needs to be convinced to get out and vote is unaware of what the issues are, and even if they were, you are suggesting that it should be acceptable to suppress voters who don't meet some arbitrary qualification of being "informed" enough to vote... who sets that criteria? This is isomorphically equivalent to suppressing voters who
Re: (Score:2)
It is far more common for a person to ignorantly express a wholly biased point of view than it is for a person to hesitate to express themselves because they realize they do not know enough to express any kind of recognizable opinion. For this reason, I do not think that the reason you give is the most common reason people do not vote.
I would suggest that most of the people who do not vote simply don't believe there are enough other people out there that think as they do to make a difference.
I've been deluged... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I've been deluged... (Score:4, Informative)
My wife registered as preferring one of the parties here in our state. And she has gotten over 100 pieces of mail from that party
I registered as unaffiliated so as not to be a pawn in the gerrymandering wars but that didn't stop me from getting 5 text messages to my cell from the Democrats urging me to vote for their candidates.
Re: (Score:3)
My wife registered as preferring one of the parties here in our state. And she has gotten over 100 pieces of mail from that party
I registered as unaffiliated so as not to be a pawn in the gerrymandering wars but that didn't stop me from getting 5 text messages to my cell from the Democrats urging me to vote for their candidates.
A related example of how the public information leaked by the voting rolls in TFA can be used for the power of spam^h^h^h^h^hevil: my wife voted in a primary. Although our state has open primaries and we are both officially un-affliated, one party's heuristics have decided that we're now obviously part of their party's political base. So, we been inundated with junk mail and spam calls made with that assumption, on top of the regular blast of robocalls generated by all sides since we live in "a competitiv
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Only needed in states with closed primaries and only if you want to vote in those primaries.
Intent (Score:2)
> "I don't want this to come off like we're shaming our friends into voting," said Naseem Makiya, the chief executive of OutVote, a start-up in Boston.
It doesn't "come off" like that at all. It comes across like you're a start-up with a useless, non-monetizable product and you're willing to attach yourself to nearly anything in order to gain your desired career trajectory.
I voted... (Score:2)
Guess I'm out then (Score:3)
The apps try to match the people in a smartphone's contacts
All I have is a dumb flip phone. Aww, too bad you don't get to harvest my information for your use.
Re: (Score:2)
Even better, no one has me in their contact list because no one calls me.
More data points for marketers (Score:2)
for (int i = 2020 ; ; i += 4 ) { trump(i); } (Score:2)
FTFY
If you don't want to vote, don't worry.. (Score:2)
With all the voter suppression happening and voting machines flipping votes, you will not have to worry about it any more. Next election, You might not be given the option.
Re: (Score:3)
With all the voter suppression happening and voting machines flipping votes, you will not have to worry about it any more.
Showing you're on the left. If you were on the right you'd have said:
With all the illegal immigration happening and the fake voters created by the combination of unexamined mail-in registration and no-appearance-no-hardship absentee (mail in) ballots, you will not have to worry about it any more.
Both ideas are a hazard, whether or not they're true. The purpose of an election is to conv
Re: (Score:2)
With all the voter suppression happening and voting machines flipping votes, you will not have to worry about it any more. Next election, You might not be given the option.
None of this happens with enough frequency to change any election result.... But hey, there's no way your vote counts if you don't cast it.
Ugh (Score:3)
So... (Score:2)
Who voted probably needs to be public information, with all the finger pointing and insinuations out there about fraud. This can be abused by people with deep pockets and agenda, but it is probably not a huge problem right now.
Shaming your friends into voting can only backfire.
better (Score:3)
Everyone must vote!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't we first find out if people have an informed view of the issues on the ballot before we encourage them to go out?
Too many people think "informed view" means "believes the same thing I do".
I want people to vote even if they disagree with me on every issue - but that's just me.
Huge privacy violation (Score:3)
Vote shaming? (Score:2)
"I don't want this to come off like we're shaming our friends into voting," said Naseem Makiya...
Proceeds to create app that shames friends into voting.
Everyone Must Vote in Turkey. (Score:2)
Look at how well THAT has turned out.
Public printouts (Score:3)
I've been a poll worker three times in California. We had several printouts of the names and addresses of registered voters in our precinct. We had to put one of those printouts outside the polling place. Once an hour until 5 pm, on that public printout, we had to cross off the names of the people who had voted.
I asked someone why the list of voter names and addresses, and whether they'd voted, should be made public like that. She replied that it was to help political party workers get out the vote.
For me, that's not a good enough reason. My name and address, and whether I've voted, should be kept private.
Apps like these, and public voter printouts, hurt people's privacy.
Harrassment (Score:3)
I received a form letter showing me the voting status of everyone on my street (names redacted, addresses intact, but since I know my neighbors and where they live, it's hardly good enough to redact the names) and a warning that if I didn't vote today they would start calling me on the phone to explain myself. They didn't put it like that, of course, because that borders on harassment, but that's exactly what the entire letter implied. "If you choose not to vote, we'll be calling you in the next few days to discuss your choice." Yeah, I don't think so. The only response you're going to get from me is a big "Eff You".
It suggested that I may want to "talk to [my] non-voting neighbors to help them understand why voting is important]." and that they would be doing the same by calling them after election day (if they didn't vote), too.
Yes, you should vote. But whether you vote or not is still a choice and no one has the right to harass you for it.
ahh yes, I'm sure this will help. (Score:2)
I'm sure Democrats will totally reach out to registered republicans in their networks and urge them to vote...likewise the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats actually do this to my wife who is a registered republican.
This is an example of "Nudging" (Score:2)
In the last 3 months I have seen this exact technique described and reported in 6 different books on Psychology and persuasion.
The technique, sometimes called "voting report card" depends on the assumption that people can be "nudged" into "responsible" behavior by adjusting the ways in which they are given choices, either through policy or environment. Although the book, "Nudge" by Richard Thaler https://www.amazon.com/Nudge-I... [amazon.com] advocates a more free choice approach to shaping peoples' behavior, it can eas
I still don't understant this "state party" thing. (Score:2)
What the flying fuck business does the state have in knowing which one of the 8 significant political parties you're affiliated to? If any. Or several. I mean, it's perfectly possible for you to have valid grounds for affiliation to 4 political parties here, without one word of hypocrisy and only considering where you grew up and where you live now. If you've had a more mobile history, it could be 5, easily.
But hey, America'
Mandatory voting is excellent (Score:2)
Over 18, must be on the roll. Must vote.
Means lots of poling places everywhere, no queues, the electoral commission comes to your house if you have a reason you cant travel there.
Also set an independent body to set electoral boundaries so gerrymandering is a thing of the past.
Don't want to vote for anyone? Draw a giant cock on the ballot sheet.
Seems to work extremely well in Australia. Sure we have our political problems, but when everyone has to vote it naturally pulls the political representation towar
Re:If you think "gonna" is a word, please don't vo (Score:4, Insightful)
>> You gonna vote? If you express yourself with words like "gonna", please don't vote.
If you think the target audience is concerned about slang, might I remind you that we now have a full compliment of emojis built into our desktop operating systems.
Re: (Score:3)
Some day you're gonna get your ass kicked, you elitist prick, and you will deserve it.
I didn't care for the tone of the ops post but I don't think you could have chosen a better response to add weight to his opinion...
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, things are generally good enough for you. Lucky person.
Re: (Score:2)
Try actually meeting some of these people. Many are not as bad as they are portrayed. That said, some of them are truly psychopathic megalomaniacs. You will know those by their actions.
As long as people choose not to vote, they will get politicians picked by others - generally those supported by the greedy.
Re: (Score:2)
While true, sociopaths are often very charming. You have to back that up with research.
Re:I will vote (Score:5, Funny)
Just remember this year, that due to all the conflict and divisive nature of politics, that to ensure we keep things civil at the polls:
1. Republicans, vote today at your normal places.
2. Democrats, vote tomorrow at your normal places.
This way we can ensure that we keep things civil at the polling sites and lessen any chance of fights and/or riots.
Pass the word around so that everyone knows.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting graph on the BBC today, illustrating the amount raised from individual donations by the Rs and Ds: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/... [bbci.co.uk]
The Democrats got about twice as much from individuals this year. Normally it's quite close.
Unfortunately they don't show overall campaign donations. I wonder if corporate donations bring the Republicans up to the same level.
Re: (Score:3)
No, no, today is *Independent* voting day. Republican day was yesterday. Sorry you missed it. Better luck in two years. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I will vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on....
If anyone is really stupid enough to fall for that and not know it is a joke, then I'm wondering if they are even smart enough to go vote without hurting themselves along the way to the polling place.
Re: (Score:3)
A joke ceases to be funny...if you have to explain it is a joke.
Any reasonably intelligent person would know that it was outlandish and therefore , a joke.
Or is it a fedora? [Re:I will vote] (Score:3)
Anyone with a red hat, you need to vote next month as it's national red hat month and you'll get twice the voting power if you save it up.
Hey! What do you have against Linux users?
Dangerous (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on where you live. Here, there's no point in voting because the Democrat will win, every single time, by more than +30%.
It's thinking like that which gave us Brexit.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it also gave Trump an advantage in 2016.
There were a lot of complaints and criticism of the media and pollsters predicting a Clinton win, but did it really benefit her? I'm sure a lot of people who wanted her to win were lazy and stayed home because they were convinced she was a shoo-in.
I doubt as many Trump supporters stayed home blissfully confident that he would be elected even without their vote.
I don't see how this app is going to work since I just got back from turning in my mail-in ballot
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, register Democrat and make sure your voice is heard in the primaries. Still better than doing nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Vote Gridlock!
This year, that means Ds for the house. But only a few, so it can easily flip back.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Proof of concept? Alabama 2016. Roy Moore.
Bad example. Ole' Roy was the candidate because another candidate split the republican vote in the primary, not because he was the darling of the party. Trump campaigned for another republican in the primary you know. This is uniquely a republican problem, where better candidates split the vote in the primary, leaving the less desirable candidate in the general (Hello? Remember how Trump got nominated?). THAT'S the issue here, or it was the issue with Roy. I don't see democrats doing this as much, thoug
Re:Binary choices (Score:4, Insightful)
Please back candidates that support ranked choice voting. It's the only easy to get out of the closed loop we are in.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that is less divisive than kissing babies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This so stupid. Don't even pretend the Democrats have some kind of advantage in virtue here.
Trump's lies - some tall tales about turnout out events
Meanwhile we just watched Dianne Feinstein tell the whopper that nobody from her office leaked Christine Fords identity. Which is crazy because how else could it have become public? Now the truth might be she does not know who, but she said it was not her or her people. - Almost certainly a lie. Next we spent three weeks watching a good man get dragged thru
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Voting history and registration should be private.
Bonus captcha: "flagged"
Why? As long as we maintain that how they voted is secret, publish this information.
I think who voted is generally public record for a reason. Knowing who's registered and who cast a ballot has the effect of making vote fraud more obvious and thus more risky for those who would try it. It also allows independent public auditing of total votes cast vrs total votes counted, which tells us something about how accurate the count is, that it's not been fudged.
The deterrent effect it has on vote fraud is wort