Terms And Conditions May Apply Summary
Bombs are dropping from the skies, planes are crashing into building, and muggings and shootings are occurring everywhere. In current society, many people fear these terrorist attacks and global incidents, but the public is not aware that a crime can occur without them leaving the vicinity of their bedrooms. With millions of people engaging in social media, the public needs to be aware of the risk of cyber crime, a violation in which multiple companies participate. Director Cullen Hoback introduces the film, Terms and Conditions May Apply, which reveals various companies misusing the personal information of the public. Through the film, Hoback demonstrates the end of the age of privacy because of the multiple amounts of people who unintentionally
…show more content…
allow corporations to use or sell their private information for the benefit of the corporations. By utilizing numerous visual and auditory techniques and devices, Hoback presents the way organizations can manipulate people’s private information for their own gain without notifying the public. One strategy Cullen Hoback utilizes is expert testimony, which includes acquiring experts within the field of discussion to expound upon the argument that various companies misuse people’s private information. By enlisting professional individuals to discuss the abuse of privacy policies, Cullen Hoback establishes credibility because he is including expert testimony; thus persuading the public to believe the arguments against companies such as Facebook and Google, which sell and record personal information for private gain. Throughout the film, Hoback presents various opinions on privacy policies from people such as authors and analysts who expound upon Hoback’s argument that the world has reached the end of the age of privacy. Having an expert in a field relating to the argument at hand aids in persuading others to believe in the side the filmmakers are supporting. At various key points in the documentary, Cullen Hoback presents a situation through verbal communication or visual aid and then films experts speaking about the situation and the problems within the situation. One such example occurs when specialists Eli Pariser and Debra Williamson expound upon the differences in the anonymity of users in Google’s privacy policy from 2000 and 2001. By explicating the problems in the situation, the audience can explicitly understand the complications many companies create when selling information about their customers and users. Verifying that the documentary includes experts speaking about the problem instead of regular people enforces the trustworthiness of the speaker and his words albeit the slight bias some speakers may contain. The documentary does not include experts because the filmmakers want other people speaking about the problem, the film includes experts because the filmmakers desire experienced people, who will reinforce and fortify the argument the filmmakers are developing. Thus increasing the knowledge people will gain about different companies embezzling their private information for personal gain. The filmmakers utilize expert testimony to strengthen their allegation against corporations that focus more on money than privacy and trust. In addition to expert testimony, the filmmakers provide numerous personal accounts about the victims of manipulation by companies, and these people speak about their experience with the misuse of their information. This film exposes numerous accounts of the government and different businesses abusing the Internet through exceptions in privacy policies. The state police as well as SWAT searched and bombarded one man’s home because he posted a seemingly violent direct quote from a movie on Facebook, although he changed the location. By displaying various personal experiences with a misuse of personal information, the filmmakers show many different companies invading the privacy of the general public. Even hilarious exceptions in privacy policies, such as Game Station's “immortal soul clause,” exhibit the potential harm or damage a company can inflict on the average individual who does not read the terms and conditions before clicking “Yes, I Agree.” Using witness testimonies, the filmmakers connect the audience with people who are victims of cyber crime, and these victims are diverse from adults to children, women to men. By connecting the audience to the victims of the cyber crime of different companies, the filmmakers create feelings of sympathy and astonishment towards the treatment of various individuals by the police because companies include exceptions in the privacy policy, which allows them to sell their client’s private information for personal gain. In addition, the filmmakers provoke feelings of anger and trepidation within the public because they may become another victim of a similar crime. These emotions spur angry reactions towards the information the film is conveying towards the audience. The filmmakers want to provoke these reactions to ensure a call to action to create a change that benefits the public, to stop multiple companies from using their customers’ information for private gain. Showing witness testimonies leads to emotions that fuel the desire to end the abuse of companies such as Facebook and Google that sell information for money instead of protecting the information as promised. Moreover, throughout the film various sound effects play during scenes where the narrator is expounding upon the copious exceptions towards privacy policies and the effect those amendments have on other people in society. Repeating the same screeching, shrill sound during shocking reveals of the exploitation of different corporations increases the fear factor towards the daunting information. In the film during the opening scenes when the narrator begins explaining the corrupt actions of various companies, a chilling sound, that is comparable to a heart beating, resonates to indicate the frightening aspects of the information the narrator is disclosing. The sound effects are similar to those that appear in horror movies, intended to scare people by combining audio with visual to increase the fear in spooky scenes. By increasing the fear, the filmmakers increase the distrust numerous corporations will gain because people are afraid that those corporations will misuse their private information and generate complications that affect their lives such as being detained at an airport or bombarded at home for a misunderstanding of a humorous post. Furthermore, by expanding the distrust of the companies, people will doubt the dependability of the companies that may misuse their information. By playing a spooky track during explanations of the abuse of private information by various companies, the filmmakers increase the unease and concern towards corporations that do not respect their clients’ personal information.
In addition to auditory techniques, the producers include amusing cartoons within the documentary to provide entertainment, so the filmmakers can increase the attention towards the horrors the documentary is revealing.
Moreover, the cartoons connect with the younger generation, who are engrossed in amusing shows such as the Simpsons or South Park; and establishing that connection prolongs the amount of attention the documentary may receive. Cullen Hoback produced this documentary during an age of technology, when people have smartphones that contain every available possibility of entertainment such as music, television, and games. The attention spans of people of the technological generation are short because they focus on entertaining details more than the important facts and statistics. But the filmmakers took that fact into consideration when producing the documentary because the film includes multiple scenes with cartoons that are amusing and informing. Through the cartoons, the filmmakers demonstrate the consequences of the violations of privacy by many companies such as when Target accidentally revealed the unintentional pregnancy of one man’s daughter by sending her coupons on baby supplies because of her recent purchases. Not only do the cartoons present this information in an entertaining performance with vivid expressions and body motions, but also the cartoons simplify the information to enhance the understanding of the material the filmmakers are presenting. By incorporating entertaining cartoons, the filmmakers add some flamboyance and some energy to the film, so the film does not merely contain boring statistics and dull video
footage.
On one hand, the documentary effectively persuades people to believe the argument the filmmakers support because of the various tactics the filmmakers use, but on the other hand, some people disagree with the documentary because of the fallacies and faults in the argument of the filmmakers. Writer Simon Abrams assumes, “Hoback never explains, beyond soundbite-friendly remarks, how Facebook and Google have taken users information and used it.” (Abrams). Throughout the film, the producers provide multiple examples of the misuse of private information, so Hoback may not verbally and explicitly explain how Facebook and Google have abused user information, but he shows the abuse through video footage and personal interviews with various victims of the cybercrime. Another writer, Andrew Lapin, concedes with some of Hoback’s points, but he believes that Hoback needs to give credit towards Google and other companies for the good things that they have done as well. Lastly, Michael O’Sullivan does not think that the companies are the problem; he believes that the public’s apathy towards the situation is the main problem. “In other words, Facebook really isn’t the problem (nor are Google, Verizon, Instagram, Amazon or any other of many services that collect our data in order to monetize it, or, as we have learned through recent news stories, to hand it over to the government). Rather it’s our own apathy about the fact that they’re doing it.” (O’Sullivan). The people do not care or do not pay attention to the problem at hand, which is why there is much difficulty in finding a solution to the problem. This documentary may change the minds of the people who watch the film, but some people do not care about the abuse towards their private information. Most people are apathetic towards cyber crimes around the world until they become a victim.
Throughout the documentary, Cullen Hoback exhibits a myriad of propaganda tactics to bolster his argument against the organizations that disregard their clients because the organizations crave wealth over responsibility and trust. Hoback shows the way social media sites violate the privacy of their users because of exceptions in their privacy policies, which are not constructed to be able to read all the way through. Through multiple visual and audio strategies and devices, Director Cullen Hoback effectively explains and demonstrates the possibility of an invasion of privacy of the public by various companies around the world.
allow corporations to use or sell their private information for the benefit of the corporations. By utilizing numerous visual and auditory techniques and devices, Hoback presents the way organizations can manipulate people’s private information for their own gain without notifying the public. One strategy Cullen Hoback utilizes is expert testimony, which includes acquiring experts within the field of discussion to expound upon the argument that various companies misuse people’s private information. By enlisting professional individuals to discuss the abuse of privacy policies, Cullen Hoback establishes credibility because he is including expert testimony; thus persuading the public to believe the arguments against companies such as Facebook and Google, which sell and record personal information for private gain. Throughout the film, Hoback presents various opinions on privacy policies from people such as authors and analysts who expound upon Hoback’s argument that the world has reached the end of the age of privacy. Having an expert in a field relating to the argument at hand aids in persuading others to believe in the side the filmmakers are supporting. At various key points in the documentary, Cullen Hoback presents a situation through verbal communication or visual aid and then films experts speaking about the situation and the problems within the situation. One such example occurs when specialists Eli Pariser and Debra Williamson expound upon the differences in the anonymity of users in Google’s privacy policy from 2000 and 2001. By explicating the problems in the situation, the audience can explicitly understand the complications many companies create when selling information about their customers and users. Verifying that the documentary includes experts speaking about the problem instead of regular people enforces the trustworthiness of the speaker and his words albeit the slight bias some speakers may contain. The documentary does not include experts because the filmmakers want other people speaking about the problem, the film includes experts because the filmmakers desire experienced people, who will reinforce and fortify the argument the filmmakers are developing. Thus increasing the knowledge people will gain about different companies embezzling their private information for personal gain. The filmmakers utilize expert testimony to strengthen their allegation against corporations that focus more on money than privacy and trust. In addition to expert testimony, the filmmakers provide numerous personal accounts about the victims of manipulation by companies, and these people speak about their experience with the misuse of their information. This film exposes numerous accounts of the government and different businesses abusing the Internet through exceptions in privacy policies. The state police as well as SWAT searched and bombarded one man’s home because he posted a seemingly violent direct quote from a movie on Facebook, although he changed the location. By displaying various personal experiences with a misuse of personal information, the filmmakers show many different companies invading the privacy of the general public. Even hilarious exceptions in privacy policies, such as Game Station's “immortal soul clause,” exhibit the potential harm or damage a company can inflict on the average individual who does not read the terms and conditions before clicking “Yes, I Agree.” Using witness testimonies, the filmmakers connect the audience with people who are victims of cyber crime, and these victims are diverse from adults to children, women to men. By connecting the audience to the victims of the cyber crime of different companies, the filmmakers create feelings of sympathy and astonishment towards the treatment of various individuals by the police because companies include exceptions in the privacy policy, which allows them to sell their client’s private information for personal gain. In addition, the filmmakers provoke feelings of anger and trepidation within the public because they may become another victim of a similar crime. These emotions spur angry reactions towards the information the film is conveying towards the audience. The filmmakers want to provoke these reactions to ensure a call to action to create a change that benefits the public, to stop multiple companies from using their customers’ information for private gain. Showing witness testimonies leads to emotions that fuel the desire to end the abuse of companies such as Facebook and Google that sell information for money instead of protecting the information as promised. Moreover, throughout the film various sound effects play during scenes where the narrator is expounding upon the copious exceptions towards privacy policies and the effect those amendments have on other people in society. Repeating the same screeching, shrill sound during shocking reveals of the exploitation of different corporations increases the fear factor towards the daunting information. In the film during the opening scenes when the narrator begins explaining the corrupt actions of various companies, a chilling sound, that is comparable to a heart beating, resonates to indicate the frightening aspects of the information the narrator is disclosing. The sound effects are similar to those that appear in horror movies, intended to scare people by combining audio with visual to increase the fear in spooky scenes. By increasing the fear, the filmmakers increase the distrust numerous corporations will gain because people are afraid that those corporations will misuse their private information and generate complications that affect their lives such as being detained at an airport or bombarded at home for a misunderstanding of a humorous post. Furthermore, by expanding the distrust of the companies, people will doubt the dependability of the companies that may misuse their information. By playing a spooky track during explanations of the abuse of private information by various companies, the filmmakers increase the unease and concern towards corporations that do not respect their clients’ personal information.
In addition to auditory techniques, the producers include amusing cartoons within the documentary to provide entertainment, so the filmmakers can increase the attention towards the horrors the documentary is revealing.
Moreover, the cartoons connect with the younger generation, who are engrossed in amusing shows such as the Simpsons or South Park; and establishing that connection prolongs the amount of attention the documentary may receive. Cullen Hoback produced this documentary during an age of technology, when people have smartphones that contain every available possibility of entertainment such as music, television, and games. The attention spans of people of the technological generation are short because they focus on entertaining details more than the important facts and statistics. But the filmmakers took that fact into consideration when producing the documentary because the film includes multiple scenes with cartoons that are amusing and informing. Through the cartoons, the filmmakers demonstrate the consequences of the violations of privacy by many companies such as when Target accidentally revealed the unintentional pregnancy of one man’s daughter by sending her coupons on baby supplies because of her recent purchases. Not only do the cartoons present this information in an entertaining performance with vivid expressions and body motions, but also the cartoons simplify the information to enhance the understanding of the material the filmmakers are presenting. By incorporating entertaining cartoons, the filmmakers add some flamboyance and some energy to the film, so the film does not merely contain boring statistics and dull video
footage.
On one hand, the documentary effectively persuades people to believe the argument the filmmakers support because of the various tactics the filmmakers use, but on the other hand, some people disagree with the documentary because of the fallacies and faults in the argument of the filmmakers. Writer Simon Abrams assumes, “Hoback never explains, beyond soundbite-friendly remarks, how Facebook and Google have taken users information and used it.” (Abrams). Throughout the film, the producers provide multiple examples of the misuse of private information, so Hoback may not verbally and explicitly explain how Facebook and Google have abused user information, but he shows the abuse through video footage and personal interviews with various victims of the cybercrime. Another writer, Andrew Lapin, concedes with some of Hoback’s points, but he believes that Hoback needs to give credit towards Google and other companies for the good things that they have done as well. Lastly, Michael O’Sullivan does not think that the companies are the problem; he believes that the public’s apathy towards the situation is the main problem. “In other words, Facebook really isn’t the problem (nor are Google, Verizon, Instagram, Amazon or any other of many services that collect our data in order to monetize it, or, as we have learned through recent news stories, to hand it over to the government). Rather it’s our own apathy about the fact that they’re doing it.” (O’Sullivan). The people do not care or do not pay attention to the problem at hand, which is why there is much difficulty in finding a solution to the problem. This documentary may change the minds of the people who watch the film, but some people do not care about the abuse towards their private information. Most people are apathetic towards cyber crimes around the world until they become a victim.
Throughout the documentary, Cullen Hoback exhibits a myriad of propaganda tactics to bolster his argument against the organizations that disregard their clients because the organizations crave wealth over responsibility and trust. Hoback shows the way social media sites violate the privacy of their users because of exceptions in their privacy policies, which are not constructed to be able to read all the way through. Through multiple visual and audio strategies and devices, Director Cullen Hoback effectively explains and demonstrates the possibility of an invasion of privacy of the public by various companies around the world.