When the Lang family watched the news about Mollie Tibbetts unfold on Tuesday, a familiar face flashed on the screen.

They were shocked. The face of the suspect was familiar to them as one of their employees at Yarrabee Farms, but the name that went with the picture was completely different.

“What we learned within the last 24 hours is that our employee was not who he said he was,” said Dane Lang, manager of Yarrabee Farms.

Cristhian Bahena Rivera,  the 24-year-old immigrant accused of abducting and killing Tibbetts, allegedly used a different name and provided false identification when he applied for employment at the farm just outside of Brooklyn, his employer said Wednesday.

Rivera worked at Yarrabee Farms in rural Poweshiek County for four years, Lang said. Yarrabee Farms is owned by multiple generations of the Lang family, including Craig Lang, former Farm Bureau President and prominent Iowa Republican.

Rivera was charged with first-degree murder Tuesday in the July 18 disappearance of Tibbetts, whose remains were found in a cornfield in rural Poweshiek County. A criminal complaint released Tuesday said Rivera directed law enforcement to Tibbetts’ body. 

Rivera worked on day-to-day operations with the cows. He was introduced to the Lang family and gained employment there through a former girlfriend.

He also lived on the property in a mobile home, said Mitch Mortvedt, assistant director of the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation.

“We continue to cooperate with the investigation, and we have provided information about our former employee, including his hiring records, to authorities,” Craig Lang said during a press conference on the farm on Wednesday. “There will be plenty of time later to discuss immigration. However, now is not that time.”

COMPLETE COVERAGE:All the latest Mollie Tibbetts information here

Dane Lang is Craig’s son. He said Rivera provided a state-issued government ID and social security number when applying for employment. The information is required to file a Form I-9, which verifies the identity and employment eligibility of a person in the U.S.

As a voluntary second verification step, the business put Rivera’s information through the Social Security Administration’s number verification service, but Dane Lang said he and others assumed it was E-Verify.gov. 

E-verify.gov allows employers to check if the information on a Form I-9 matches Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security records.

Employment verification officials consider E-Verify a more robust backgrounding system, because it includes immigration status and eligibility to work in the United States. A check of only a social security number verifies that the number, name and birth date an employee provided match information that exists in the federal Social Security database.

Dane Lang said Rivera provided a different name when he applied for employment, but he would not share it on Wednesday, citing the investigation.

“This employee was considered in good standing,” Dane Lang said. Rivera showed up to work on time, cooperated with the other employees and showed up every day, he said.

Over the last month, the younger Lang said he didn’t notice any changes in Rivera’s behavior. He said he always worked well with his colleagues.

“I wish I had seen a difference, but I didn’t,” Dane Lang said. 

About 10 full-time and part-time employees work on the farm. He said the family was consulting with their immigration attorney on whether they can use E-Verify to check existing employees’ background.

Dane Lang would not confirm whether there were any non-U.S. citizens employed at the farm.

He said the farm’s employees are a part of the community and some of their kids have gone on to become homecoming king or a valedictorian.

At least 100 threatening voicemail messages have been sent to Dane Lang since Tuesday, he said. People have threatened to burn down buildings and even kill his dog after learning Rivera was employed at the farm.

“This is a really scary situation,” he said. “And the unfortunate thing is, people are paying attention to me and we’re forgetting about the heartbroken family in Brooklyn and the heartbroken community.”

The Register’s Donnelle Eller contributed to this report.

Read or Share this story: https://dmreg.co/2o37jcM

Image: Christophe Morin/getty

Facebook is finally, ever-so-slightly curtailing one aspect of its creepy data gathering practices, and all it took was a threat from Apple. 

The social media and advertising conglomerate plans to remove its Onavo VPN app from the App Store after Apple warned the company that the app was in violation of its policies governing data gathering. So reports the Wall Street Journal, which notes that app should be gone by late Wednesday. 

For those blissfully unaware, Onavo sold itself as a virtual private network that people could run “to take the worry out of using smartphones and tablets.” In reality, Facebook used data about users’ internet activity collected by the app to inform acquisitions and product decisions. 

Essentially, Onavo allowed Facebook to run market research on you and your phone, 24/7. It was spyware, dressed up and neatly packaged with a Facebook-blue bow. Data gleaned from the app, notes the Journal, reportedly played into the social media giant’s decision to start building a rival to the Houseparty app. Oh, and its decision to buy WhatsApp. 

In other words, Facebook seriously relied on the detailed look at users’ web habits that Onavo provided. That specific arrow in the company’s surreptitious quiver will soon be cast aside — sort of. 

Importantly, it’s not like the app itself is going anywhere for the untold number of people who’ve already downloaded it. And it’s still available on the Google Play store as of the time of this writing. (Just a little tip for all your Android users out there: Don’t download it.)

While the app’s removal from the App Store is certainly unwelcome news for Facebook, it is likely not surprising. The threatened Apple ban and subsequent Facebook retreat, after all, didn’t come out of the blue. In June of this year, Apple updated its App Store guidelines to explicitly ban “[collecting] information about which other apps are installed on a user’s device for the purposes of analytics or advertising/marketing.”

As that’s more or less exactly the point of Onavo, people saw the writing on the wall.

Now Facebook will just have to resort to all its other ways of gathering data about its users to determine which burgeoning competitor to crush beneath its hoodie-bedazzled boot. Oh yeah, and all the data it will continue to gather from the misguided people still using Onavo, of course.  

Three Pennsylvania men will face more than 1,000 counts of sexual intercourse with animals among other charges, officials announced Monday.

The men are accused of abusing animals including dogs, horses, a cow and a goat at a makeshift farm in Clearfield County, District Attorney William A. Shaw, Jr. said in a release.

Terry Wallace, 41; Matthew Brubaker, 32; and Marc Measnikoff, 34, are each accused of 1,460 counts of sexual intercourse with animals and cruelty to animals, in addition to felony charges relating to endangering the welfare of children and the corruption of minors.

The charges come after a 16-year-old boy living with the men reported them to police. He told authorities that a specially designed pen was used for sexual contact.

When police arrested the men on Saturday, they found cameras used to make “a large volume of homemade videos,” the release says.

“So I’ve been doing this for over 20 years and this is probably the worse situation of this type of case that I’ve come across,” Shaw told WJAC-TV.

The release says police and animal rescue workers were still finding a placement for the animals on Monday.

Shaw said in the release that he does not believe the boy involved was sexually abused, although an investigation is ongoing.

Contributing: The Associated Press

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2LnQPFc

Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler is demanding, again, that President Trump stop using his songs at political rallies.

The 70-year-old rocker sent Trump a cease-and-desist letter Wednesday after the commander-in-chief played Aerosmith’s hit song “Livin’ on the Edge” at a rally in Charleston, West Virginia Tuesday night.

“Mr. Trump is creating the false impression that our client has given his consent for the use of his music, and even that he endorses the presidency of Mr. Trump,” the letter obtained by USA TODAY read.

Tyler’s legal team said Trump’s use of the song is a trademark infringement and a “violation of our client’s rights of privacy.”

His lawyers say use of the song “specifically violates Section 43 of the Lanham Act, as it ‘is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person.”

This is not the first-time the former “American Idol” judge has criticized Trump over use of his music.

The singer’s legal team sent Trump a cease-and-desist letter in August 2015 and October 2015, after the then-Republican candidate used “Dream On” on the campaign trail.

Tyler’s lawyers called the latest offense “clearly willful,” given how Trump’s team ignored their previous notices.

“What makes this violation even more egregious is that Mr. Trump’s use of our client’s music was previously shut down, not once, but two times, during his campaign for presidency in 2015,” the letter stated.

Tyler wrote the song “Livin’ on the Edge” with Aerosmith bandmates Joe Perry and Mark Hudson in 1993.

The group performed with Post Malone at the MTV Video Music Awards Monday, a day before Trump’s West Virginia rally. Aerosmith will launch a Las Vegas residency in April 2019. 

More: Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler talks health after tour cut short 

Also: Aerosmith heading to Las Vegas: Band will launch residency next year

 

 

 

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2o7ZVwV

Jonathan Kodjia’s stoppage-time header earned Aston Villa a draw against Brentford, as both sides maintained their unbeaten starts in the Championship.

The Ivory Coast striker looped a header over Bees goalkeeper Dan Bentley in the fifth minute of added time – his second equaliser of the night – to give Villa a deserved point.

Neal Maupay got both Brentford goals – but he was fortunate to escape punishment for a first-half stamp on Villa midfielder John McGinn and may yet be retrospectively banned.

Maupay’s well-worked right-foot volley into the roof of the net, after Sergi Canos galloped down the right for Ollie Watkins to head back across goal came against the run of play on 23 minutes.

But Villa were rightfully level on 39 minutes when a great tackle by McGinn won possession, Kodjia turned Ezri Konsa on the edge of the box and then, after letting go of the Bees defender’s shirt, darted into the area to drill a fiercely struck right-foot shot beyond Bentley.

Maupay then got in at the far post ahead of Alan Hutton to acrobatically net from close range on 82 minutes after Villa keeper Orjan Nyland could only parry Watkins’ neatly chipped left-wing cross – the Frenchman’s fifth goal of the season.

Nyland, who had already made one stunning low save to keep out a Nico Yennaris strike, then made another great block to prevent a third Bees goal for sub Said Benrahma.

But Kodjia, who had an injury-wrecked 2017-18 season, had the final word with that key late second equaliser to leave both his side and boyhood Villa fan Dean Smith’s Brentford with eight points from their first four matches.

Since being relegated to the Championship, Villa have met Smith’s Brentford five times – and are still to win.

Aston Villa manager Steve Bruce told BBC WM:

“That was our best performance by a country mile in the first half. You can see what we’re trying to do. Then the first mistake we make they score from, but the reaction was good.

“It was a horrible stamp on John McGinn and their lad should have been sent off. I know how difficult it is for referees and I never want to see anyone red carded. But I am sure they will look at it. A malicious stamp on purpose sticks in the back of your throat, especially when that player scores twice

“At 2-1 down, they then had a couple of chances in a good 10 minutes and, all of a sudden, you think that’s a bit unjust. But Jonathan Kodjia looks a bit more like the old Jonathan Kodjia again. And we had the character to come back again and get something.”

Brentford boss Dean Smith told BBC Radio London:

“If you remember the incident, Mile Jedinak fell over, got up and then smashed Neal in the back of the head so, if they are looking at retrospective for Neal, then we’ll do so for Jedinak.

“I would have taken a point at half-time. We weren’t very good in the first half but we looked the more likely as the game went on.

“We missed big chances at 2-1 to put the game to bed. The start has been very good, it could have been excellent.”

In a strange way, dick pics have defined this weird, at times beautiful, but mostly horrifying place we call the world wide web.

I mean is there any online experience more universal than encountering a penis you never expected nor wanted to see? It’s perhaps only surpassed in its pervasiveness by trolling.

A 2017 market research survey by YouGov, an online polling company, found that 53 percent of millennial women have received one. (The online survey was weighted to represent U.S. adults over 18.) Dick pics are such an embedded aspect of our online experience, in fact, that there’s even a blockchain for that. 

Dick pics weren’t even a possibility before widespread internet and cellphone access. Sure, really committed folks could snail mail penis photos. But the distinct experience of suddenly receiving digital schlong in the palm of your hand is pretty much exclusive to the smartphone age.

You don’t even have to be a heterosexual woman, a gay man, bi, or romantically interested or involved with someone who owns male genitalia in order to encounter dick pics. Spend any amount of time on services like Chatroulette or OKCupid, and there they are: dicks. Everywhere.

We’re in the golden age of penis portraiture.

We’re in the golden age of penis portraiture. But unfortunately, we only get to talk about the negative side of it, when dick pic culture can actually be very intricate, multilayered, sex-positive, and feminist (more on that later).

So, we’ve helpfully put together a complete guide to getting a handle on dick pics, both of the solicited and unsolicited variety. Without further ado, some rules:

1. No, it is never OK to send an unsolicited dick pic

Let’s get this one out of the way. There is never ANY reason to send an unsolicited dick pic. We don’t care if you’re just doing it for laughs. It doesn’t matter if you think you can reasonably assume the other person is willing.

Even if it’s with someone who’s already given prior consent or has expressed interest in receiving a dick pic, you still can’t know where in the world they are at the moment you decide to surprise them with some unrequested wang.

Remember: You’re inherently dealing with a digital interaction when it comes to dick pics. That means consent is even harder to establish without an explicit and enthusiastic, “Yes!” Lots of communication can be lost without visual body language cues, and tone is easily misinterpreted. 

Always make sure your schlong shot is desired before proceeding. And for parties who want the D pic: Don’t be afraid to respectfully ask (as long as you’re clear that “no” is absolutely an OK response.)

2. When it’s OK to send a dick pic it can be fantastic

Now that we’ve established the basic concept of consent, let’s dig into the less talked about phenomenon: Lots of people (yes, including lots of women) actually love receiving solicited dick pics! 

Don’t believe us? Well, Bustle recently wrote an article about the growing phenomenon of dick appreciation threads. One redditor from r/LadyBoner, Kate, explained that, “I don’t like porn because I have to see the men’s stupid faces, whereas with a dick pic, I can imagine whatever I want or even find a dick pic that looks like my boyfriend’s.” 

“I don’t like porn because I have to see the men’s stupid faces.”

For her, it’s even empowering. It feels like a reclamation, she said. “It’s an act of choice and agency, unlike when unsolicited dick pics are sent to me … Dicks are fantastic when I’ve consented to interact with them.”

Here’s why dick pics can be an awesomely sex positive and feminist experience: In a world where sending nudes via Snapchat is practically considered a formal “next step” in a millennial relationship, it can feel really weird if it’s only one-sided. Uneven distribution of exposure between the two parties can lead to a sense of uneven vulnerability.

Nudes should be a mutually agreed upon, enjoyable, and equal experience. It’s an opportunity to appreciate and explore each other from a distance (if you protect yourself properly, which we’ll get into later). If you’re sexting with visual aids, dick pics are integral to that balance.

Image: vicky leta / mashable

However, not all dick pics are created equally. Which brings us to …

3. There’s definitely an art to taking a great dick pic

I’m not gonna lie: Having never possessed a dick myself, there’s a limit to my advice on the mechanics of taking a good dick pic. For that, check out this great guide from the creator of the blog Critique My Dick Pic (NSFW, obvs), Madeleine Holden. To summarize: Stop freaking out about size, no “log shots,” and setting/production value is important.

However, as a receiver of many D pics (both solicited and unsolicited), I do consider myself something of a connoisseur of the art form. Here’s what to know about creating a masterpiece:

• One of the sexiest aspects of a dick pic is the sheer thrill of receiving one. It’s a naughty digital secret you now share together. Like the appeal of getting your own private striptease or sexting, it’s personal, just for you, and a pretty high level of intimacy for a bunch of pixels on a screen. Really makes a lady feel special, you know?

• Confidence in your dick pic is super sexy — but arrogance makes us want to gag (and, no, not like the porn stars). Do not use dick pics as a platform to boast and showboat. Which goes hand-in-hand with …

• When it comes to pics, size truly doesn’t matter. For one, you can’t even accurately judge in a photo. And if you’re throwing in an object for scale in a dick pic (like a banana — yes, I swear to god men do this), you’re already failing.

• What matters is making your dick pic personal. No two dicks are alike, and your partner asked to see yours for a reason. It’s because they already like you, which means they probably already like your dick.

• That segues perfectly into our next hot tip: NEVER REPURPOSE A DICK PIC YOU ALREADY SENT SOMEONE ELSE. It is painfully obvious when you’re using a stock photo equivalent of a dick pic. Don’t think we won’t notice, either. Like, damn, Easter’s coming up but there’s a Christmas tree in your photo …

• I know the phrase “dick pic” rolls off the tongue (get it?!), but if you’re comfortable, you might want to try a dick vid. That invites all sorts of new possibilities for creativity and intimacy, that you should always discuss with your partner first.

• Have fun. Sending nudes should be about making each other feel wanted, so only dick pic when both of you feel great about what’s happening.

• There’s a lot of trust that goes into sending a nude. And don’t underestimate the need to protect yourself, your data, and your schlong. Check out these safety tips.

4. How to clap back at an unsolicited dick pic

It’s hard to describe just how violating it feels to get an unsolicited dick pic. You can’t ignore the negative aspects of non-consensual dick pics, and the disturbed psychology of individuals who do it.

It’s ludicrous that, while we have laws prohibiting flashers IRL, virtually assaulting people on the internet has no real consequence (besides perhaps getting kicked off a platform). So we recommend shaking off the heebie jeebies of this experience by reclaiming that unwanted penis.

There’s lots of different forms of revenge. One woman threatened to send any dick pics she received on Tinder to the perpetrator’s mom (and actually followed through with it). Others choose witty retorts. There’s even an app to help you do just that.

Artist and activist Whitney Bell reclaimed the experience of receiving unsolicited dick pics by turning them into an art gallery called I Didn’t Ask for This: A Lifetime of Dick Pics, and calling attention to harassment in the digital space. “Professional penis photographer” Soraya Doolbaz took a different artistic approach, with her high-end dicture gallery advocating for better solicited dick pics, while also stripping this symbol of patriarchal power through humor.

So do whatever feels cathartic and right for you, and grab that horrifying unwanted dick by the literal balls. Go wild. Get MS Paint involved. Photoshop a “This Is What A Feminist Looks Like” t-shirt onto it, and send it right back.

Because some fool just sent you their genitals. Abuse the hell outta that power.

5. But most importantly: Protect yourself first

We’ve had some fun, but the hard truth (no pun intended this time), is that clapping back can lead to even more harassment. That’s a risk you don’t have to take if you don’t want to. And there’s other, safer forms of recourse. 

Like we said, there’s little to no legal consequences for it in America (though officials are trying to change that in places like Australia, Canada, and Britain). 

But the best options is to block the person immediately: Whether barring a phone number, Instagram or Snapchat account, un-matching on Tinder, disabling open DMs on Twitter, or changing your Airdrop settings to “Contacts Only.”

On most platforms, you can and should report them too (though the results are not always stellar.) Many dating websites even removed the ability to exchange photos altogether to fix the issue. But the following apps explicitly classify harassment like unsolicited dick pics as a reportable offense: Twitter, Facebook, Tinder, Instagram, Reddit, and Snapchat.

So when it comes to dick pics, practice safe sexting. And above all, make sure your virtual junk is only sliding into those DMs who want them. 

Sham invoices from the President Donald Trump’s private company. Secret talks with a tabloid owner to “catch and kill” a damaging story. Members of a presidential campaign coordinating to hide payoffs to alleged mistresses on the eve of an election

The Justice Department’s charges against President Trump’s longtime fixer Michael Cohen offer a trail of people and organizations who prosecutors say helped him orchestrate the illegal payments, including members of the president’s campaign, his company and a longtime friend. Prosecutors said they had unearthed a mountain of evidence — including encrypted messages and audio recordings — to support that case.

But prosecutors left one central question unanswered: What happens to them now?

Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney and longtime fixer, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to eight felonies, including two charges that he violated election laws by engineering the payments to two women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump years earlier. Then he told a stunned federal courtroom in New York that Trump himself had directed the illegal payments.

“There were others who had direct roles in these illegal contributions; in some cases, a more direct role,” said Noah Bookbinder, the head of the campaign finance watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Whether they have sufficient proof to bring an indictment against any of them we don’t know yet, but the information goes pretty far toward alleging criminal activity by some of these other entities.”

More: Trump suggests people not hire Michael Cohen

More: Did Michael Cohen lie to Congress?

Trump acknowledged in an interview with Fox & Friends on Wednesday that the money to pay one of the women, pornographic actress Stormy Daniels, “came from me,” but he denied that it violated any laws. Earlier in the morning, he said on Twitter that the violations for which Cohen had pleaded guilty and could soon be sent to prison are “not a crime.”

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said only that “what I can tell you is the president did nothing wrong. There are no charges against him.”

But through much of Trump’s orbit on Wednesday, the question turned to how people and organizations close to him could be caught up in the Justice Department’s understanding of the case.

The charges prosecutors laid out on Tuesday did not name any of them but instead concealed them behind flimsy pseudonyms, something the government routinely does.

They include unnamed members of Trump’s 2016 campaign; his private company, The Trump Organization; and American Media, Inc., the owner of the tabloid National Enquirer.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the case. Representatives of Trump’s company, his campaign, AMI and Cohen did not respond to requests for comment.

The government’s allegations left observers with little doubt that the federal investigators have taken a broad view of the potential wrongdoing. What remains to be seen, they said, is whether investigators have unearthed evidence that any of the others identified in the charges against Cohen knew that the payments were illegal.

Paul Ryan, the top lawyer for the watchdog group Common Cause, aid the organization “expects and hopes that the U.S. Attorney’s Office is exploring criminal charges and indictments of AMI, The Trump Organization and the Trump campaign itself.”

The charges against Cohen center on payments to two women, Daniels and former Playboy playmate Karen McDougal, in the months before the 2016 election.

In one episode, prosecutors charged that Cohen and AMI paid McDougal $150,000 to prevent her from speaking to the media about an affair with Trump. Prosecutors charged that although the agreement was ostensibly to pay her for writing for the magazine, “its principle purpose … was to suppress [her] story so as to prevent it from influencing the election.”

Prosecutors also said they had developed evidence that the payment was part of a broader agreement between Cohen and AMI’s chief executive David Pecker to help Trump’s campaign “deal with negative stories about [Trump’s] relationships with women, by, among other things, assisting the campaign in identifying such stories so they could be purchased and their publication avoided.” 

AMI’s involvement is significant because one of the charges against Cohen alleged that the payment by AMI was an illegal corporate campaign donation. Cohen pleaded guilty to engineering the illegal payment.

That doesn’t mean AMI could face charges, said Richard Hasen, a University of California Irvine professor who specializes in election law. Beyond that, the Justice Department would have to navigate “another layer of complexity” to build a case against AMI because election laws include a special carve-out for media companies meant to keep them from running afoul of the law when they report or comment on political candidates.

In the second episode, prosecutors said Cohen paid $130,000 to Daniels through a shell company to prevent her from talking about an alleged affair with Trump. Prosecutors said Trump’s private business, The Trump Organization, which is now held in a trust run by his two adult sons and another executive, ultimately repaid Cohen for the payoff, plus a $60,000 bonus, falsely describing them as a retainer for legal services.

Ryan said federal law prohibits companies from reimbursing campaign donations.

Prosecutors said in a court filing that both payments were “coordinated with one or more members” of Trump’s campaign.  

Peter Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor, said “all the entities have legal exposure.” But he said he would be surprised if the government pursues charges against the president’s business.

“They got the guy who did it: Cohen. If they aren’t going after the president, it seems a little unfair to go after all these people at the Trump Organization who were just effectuating it,” he said.

Other experts said they were skeptical that the government could bring additional charges, and raised questions about whether it should have prosecuted Cohen for election violations at all.

“Ask yourself — is the purpose of campaign laws to allow (and in fact require) people to pay blackmail to their mistresses with campaign funds?” said Capital University Law School professor Brad Smith. Because that’s what he said prosecutors’ position seems to require.  

The other unanswered question on Wednesday was how directly the government could prove that Cohen and the others intended to violate election laws. That was the issue that ultimately undermined the government’s case against former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who the government charged with engineering illegal contributions to silence his mistress. A jury acquitted Edwards of some charges and failed to reach a verdict on others.

“You have to be able to persuade a jury that this was ultimately about the election,” said Columbia Law School professor Richard Briffault.

On Tuesday, prosecutors told a federal judge in New York that, at least as to Cohen, they were prepared to do that. Just before Cohen pleaded guilty, assistant U.S. attorney Andrea Griswold ticked through a list of evidence the government was prepared to present if he chose to go to trial, including files the FBI seized from Cohen’s office during an April raid, audio recordings, text messages and messages sent on encrypted apps, plus “the testimony of witnesses, including witnesses involved in the transactions in question.”

 

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2w8CFmA