Printable View
Please help me find more information abou this Creepy Line movie. It relates to the kinds of problems Americans like us are having trying to get fair treatment from these Silicon Valley companies that are actively fighting on behalf of illegal aliens and against our organization.
When does this film come out?
https://youtu.be/HqlDtjnwyPA
‘THE CREEPY LINE’ TRAILER SHOWS HOW GOOGLE, FACEBOOK THREATEN SOCIETY, FEATURES JORDAN PETERSON
A documentary trailer released on YouTube Friday aims to expose how Facebook and Google not only exploit nearly every facet of their users’ lives for profit, but how they manipulate them, too.
“The war on your free will is already over,” a screen card reads during the trailer for “The Creepy Line.”
WATCH:
(VIDEO Trailer at Link and in Original Post)
The title got its name from an infamous 2010 speech by Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google at the time, who said his company’s policy was “to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it,” The New York Times reported on March 6.
The documentary has interviews with several high-profile public figures, including Canadian clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, who explain how these tech giants hold great power that threatens the fabric of society.
“These are all free services, but obviously they’re not,” Peterson said. “Your interaction with them is governed so that it will generate revenue.”
Others interviewed in the ominous trailer warn that “Facebook constantly manipulates their users. They do it by the things they insert into the news feeds and they do it by the types of posts they allow their users to see.”
Google can suppress certain results based on what they think one should be seeing, another declared.
“They don’t sell you anything. They sell you,” another voice said.
An August report by Digital Content Next illustrates how Google tracks its users, even when they turn off the tracking feature, which has subsequently led to a lawsuit against the billion dollar tech giant, The Daily Caller News Foundation reported. (RELATED: Google Tracks Users Regardless Of Privacy Settings, Here’s How To Delete It)
Facebook is constantly caught censoring conservative voices. The social media giant “mistakenly” removed multiple educational videos from PragerU on Aug. 17, TheDCNF reported.
“The Creepy Line” is a production of Wandering Foot Productions, is written and produced by Peter Schweizer, and is directed by M.A. Taylor.
The documentary was screened at the Cannes Film Festival in May and will be re-released on Sept. 17 in New York City, according to an event description.
Follow Kyle on Twitter @KylePerisic
Send tips to kyle@dailycallernewsfoundation.org
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/08/24/cr...rdan-peterson/
NYC Premier Of The Creepy Line With Q&A
Monday, September 17, 2018
Join us for a one-night only screeningof The Creepy Line in New York City! The screening will be follwed by a Q&Awith the film's director, M.A. Taylor, Dr. Robert Epstein and best-selling author, Peter Schweizer.
Doors open at 6:30pm and the screening starts at 7:00pm.
The Creepy Line reveals the stunning degree to which society is manipulated by Google and Facebook, and blows the lid off the remarkably subtle – hence powerful -- manner in which they do it. Our worst suspicions are confirmed that the meddling and intervening done by Google and Facebook on their supposedly “neutral platforms’ are not merely a money-making enterprise but that these actions, through the subtle digital magic of what is known as SEME (Search Engine Manipulation Effect), are being performed to mold, massage, and manipulate the public consciousness, influence opinion on a vast scale (including political opinion, leading to the tilting of election outcomes), with the goal of transforming society to fit their worldview.
Theater:
City Cinemas 123
1001 3rd Avenue
7:00pm - 9:30pm
https://www.eventbee.com/v/creepylinefilmnyc#/tickets
Google Crossed The Creepy Line, And It Owes Everyone An Apology
August 16, 2013
Ira Kalb
In response to a class action suit, Google lawyers argued in court that Gmail users, or anyone that sends emails to Gmail users, should not expect privacy. According to Consumer Watchdog, "Google is either lying to the court or to the public" because it has repeatedly said that it respects users' privacy.
Previously Google's Chairman and former CEO, Eric Schmidt, has said Google's policy was to "to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it."
Many believe with this latest revelation, Google has admitted crossing the creepy line. This has tarnished its image. Before it can repair the damage, it needs to assess the landscape and define the issues that need fixing.
How the information is used
According to the suit, Google regularly opens up, reads, and mines the content in emails to serve up ads it considers relevant to the parties involved. If this is done anonymously, perhaps one could argue "no harm, no foul." What is "creepy," however, is that Google employees could access this private information. If they do, it is impossible to know what they might do with it.
The issue is trust
Even if the public largely trusts Google, the Company has over 30,000 employees, and it is impossible to trust all of them - especially if they represent a cross-section of those that work in Silicon Valley. More than a few of us in the skeptical public are likely to believe that such as large barrel is bound to have a few not-so-perfect apples.
Moreover, this is not the only incident to erode trust in the Company. Google is already under pressure from watchdog groups for allowing the NSA to have direct access to user information via its Prism program. And Google has come under fire many times over privacy issues in the recent and distant past.
Don't be evil.
Google's informal motto is "Don't be evil." The problem with this is that it puts a target on Google's back. If any information comes to light that the marketplace interprets as evil, the bond of trust that exists between Google and its target audience is likely to erode - tarnishing Google's once "unblemished" image.
As a result, there is a certain sense of inevitability that the goody two-shoesbrand identity Google created at its inception will take a hit from time to time. The recent court revelation is just the latest incident that more than a few believe is evil.
Two points of view
In an effort to understand Google's point of view, the search giant's objective is to provide a better user experience and to make more money for its shareholders (as of this writing, the stock price is in the mid-$800s per share). There is nothing wrong with that. And it gives us many free services that we rely upon every day including search, Gmail, and maps.
The problem is that Google is telling one thing to the Court and another to the public. That only fuels suspicions about Google's intentions. The fact that it has so much information on so many of us, we are already concerned how it might use that information. Google seems to be taking a rather arrogant, "big brother" posture. It is asking the public to give it a blank check to do what it wants because Google knows what's better for us than we do.
Not the first time
This latest flap is not the first time the marketplace has sensed "evil-doings" at Google, and you can be sure it will not be the last. Over the years, there have been a series of missteps that have knocked Google off its perch as the world's most valuable brand - a position it held for four consecutive years according to brand valuator Millward Brown. Marketers view this as a tangible measure of the erosion of Google's image — especially when compared with competitors Apple and Facebook whose brand valuations have jumped higher over the same period.
Many think the first big evil deed was when Google introduced the Androidmobile phone platform long after Eric Schmidt, Google's then CEO, had been sitting on Apple's Board as the iPhone was developed and announced. Not surprisingly, the look and feel of Android was very similar to the iPhone. Steve Jobs called this outright theft and vowed to spend all of Apple's resources in court to right this wrong.
Then, in 2011, came revelations that Google was close to settling allegations that it made hundreds of millions of dollars by accepting ads from illegal online pharmacies.
More recently, Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace have accused Google of unfairly promoting search results of Google-owned properties, such as Google+, ahead of them. Many believe that search should be neutral and that organic search results should be ranked as they occur naturally. The concern is that the integration of Google's 60 services under one privacy banner will just make search results even more skewed in Google's favor.
Repairing the image damage
Now that a growing chorus of users and regulators believe that Google is violating its own "Don't Be Evil" mantra, what should Google do to mitigate the situation and even turn this negative into a positive?
1. Create a better marketing information system. Google needs to put in place a better marketing information system that collects data on complaints and problems in real time so they can be neutralized or fixed while still a "spark" and before they turn into a "conflagration." The huge backlash to the latest announcement indicates that they either don't have an adequate feedback system, or they are ignoring the signals.
2. Use crisis management tools to turn negatives into positives. Google needs to employ proven crisis management procedures to protect its image. For accusations that are true, the company should follow the fact procedure.
- Admit the problem. We do data mining to give results relevant to users.
- Apologize. We are sorry we did not make it clear how we use the information.
- Limit the scope (or put the allegations in perspective). We are not interested in private information users do not want to share.
- Propose a solution so it will not happen again. We will employ a credible 3rd-party organization to examine what we are doing and validate that we are not violating user privacy.
For allegations that are not true, the search giant should employ the rumor procedure.
- Don't publicize the rumor.
- Promote the opposite of what the rumor says.
- Provide proof to support the promotion of the opposite.
3. Stop promoting Google products over others in organic search results.When users employ Google to search for something, they should be able to trust that the results are naturally generated. Up until the recent changes, that is the way it largely worked (with the exception of paid links that are clearly indicated). Now, if users sign in via their Gmail accounts, results will be "tainted" with Google+ results.
4. Remove the target from its back. While the "don't be evil" mantra has been in the public consciousness since Google went public, perhaps Google should consider modifying it so that it does not motivate naysayers from finding evil in Google's every move.
5. Create a "Don't be Evil" fund. If they decide to keep this mantra, perhaps they should fund a "don't be evil" award, on par with the Nobel prize, where they recognize and reward people for doing good things. Similar to Mark Zukerberg's donationto Newark schools and his pledge to give most of his wealth to charity, this would have a positive effect on their image and support their branding.
6. Remind people of the heroic stands Google has taken. The public tends to easily forget the good things that a company does. Therefore, Google might remind people of the positive stands it has taken, such as its move to stop censoring search results in China or its refusal to provide the Justice Department with data on what people search for on the Web.
7. Move back across the "creepy" line
Eric Schmidt, Google lawyers, and employees do not get to decide what is creepy and what is not. Using its marketing information system (discussed in point 1), Google needs to (1) monitor what its customers think is creepy, (2) move back across the line, and employ the fact procedure outlined in point 2 above.
Any company the size of Google is going to have both fans and detractors. That is not the issue. Google needs to be concerned with its loyal base of advertisers and users (including so many of us) that like and use its products every day. We are the ones that should be able to trust Google to the extent that we believe the company will not use, or share, our information for doing evil. It is incumbent upon Google to convince us with undeniable proof it wants our business and loyalty.
Get the latest Google stock price here.
https://www.businessinsider.com/if-g...s-image-2013-8
Eric Schmidt: Google's Policy Is To "Get Right Up To The Creepy Line And Not Cross It"
October 10, 2010
Nick Saint
CEO Eric Schmidt doesn't make it easyfor Google's PR team. Speaking at the Newseum, The Hill reports, Eric said:
There is what I call the creepy line. The Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it.
If you don't cross the creepy line, we suppose by definition you aren't creepy. But making it a policy to go right up to that line "on a lot of things" is, well, something a lot like creepy.
Eric also jokingly responded to a question about implanting microchips in people's brains by saying that such a move would cross the creepy line "at least for the moment, until the technology gets better."
All in good fun, but Googlers really have a knack for saying things like this, and we suspect it doesn't make the company any more lovable. Founder and president Sergey Brin recently raised some eyebrows when he saidhe wanted Google to become "the third half of your brain."
Just yesterday, we were speaking to a Googler about the limits of machine translation. "Humans understand things that we don't," he explained.
Too true.
https://www.businessinsider.com/eric...oss-it-2010-10
How Google crossed the creepy line
https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/mul...w_1433488c.jpg
October 25, 2010
Shane Richmond
When Eric Schmidt, Google’s CEO, said that his company’s policy was “to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it” he will have provoked more than a few shudders. Schmidt’s remarks, made in an American magazine earlier this month, come with the company fighting privacy battles across the world.
The latest development, last week, saw Google admit that it had been collecting emails, passwords and web addresses from wireless networks across Britain. The data was collected by Google’s Street View cars, which traverse streets across the globe taking photographs that Google uses in its mapping services. Google apologised and a spokesman said that the company had not collected the data intentionally. “We are mortified by what happened,” said Alan Eustace, Google’s vice-president of engineering and research.
Nevertheless, Google’s critics see this as another step over “the creepy line” and the Information Commissioner’s Office says that it will reopen its investigation into Google’s collection of wifi data.
It is the latest in a long series of complaints about Google Street View. The faces of people who appear in Street View images are now blurred after criticism from privacy campaigners. Defence and security experts have warned of the danger of photographing sensitive sites and Google has been in protracted negotiations with the EU about the length of time that it retains photographs. Negotiations can only get you so far, however. Last year, the people of Broughton, in Buckinghamshire, formed a human barrier to stop Google’s Street View car from entering their village.
Street View is just one part of Google’s vast empire of data about us and our habits. Its search engine stores information on what you search for online, even if you are not logged in to a Google account, and Google scans the text of emails sent by Gmail users and delivers adverts based on the content. Turn on Google Latitude, the company’s location tracking app, and it will know where you are, too.
Earlier this year, Google launched a kind of online social network, called Buzz, which automatically connected people with their “friends” based on whom they emailed most often. The service was introduced without warning and many people found themselves connected with people that they would rather avoid. One user alleged that her contact details had been shared with her abusive ex-husband. Google apologised and made rapid changes to the service. Last month, Google paid an estimated $8.5 million (£5.5 million) to settle a legal dispute with Buzz users who complained that the search company had infringed their personal privacy.
In April, privacy officials from 10 countries, including Britain, Germany, France and Canada, wrote to Google to complain about its approach to privacy. They cited Google Buzz and Street View as being particular areas of concern.
Though Google’s PR statements are usually calm and conciliatory, the statements from Schmidt are frequently inflammatory. Late last year, in a statement that has become notorious, the CEO questioned whether people really needed secrecy over which websites they visited. “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know,” Schmidt said, “maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” More recently, he suggested that young people might in future change their names so as to escape the embarrassing web history built up during their teenage and student years.
By far the most alarming, though, for those who see Google as a threat, was talk of an implant under the skin that would connect you to the web, delivering vital information as and when you needed it. To do that, of course, it would have to tell various services, including Google, where you were and what you were doing. Still, Schmidt dismissed that idea as one that crossed “the creepy line” so privacy activists don’t need to worry about “chip ’ n’ skin” technology reaching the high street just yet.
Google’s experts are not the only ones positing skin implants. Some futurologists point out that having one’s medical records implanted under the skin could be helpful to medics and having passport data there too could save time at the airport. Even so, it’s hard to imagine the average person queueing for a chip.
Amid all these worries it’s worth noting that Google is far from the only technology company collecting mountains of data about us. Mobile phone networks are using what they know about where you are to deliver location-sensitive advertising.
Walk past the coffee shop down the street and you might find yourself getting a text offering you a cheap cappuccino.
Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people worldwide are happy to tell Facebook all manner of things about their personal lives, all of which are then set alongside advertising. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s co-founder and CEO, seems to see privacy as a challenge to be overcome. In his recent book, The Facebook Effect, David Kirkpatrick quotes Zuckerberg: “To get people to this point where there’s more openness – that’s a big challenge. But I think we’ll do it. I just think it will take time. The concept that the world will be better if you share more is pretty foreign to a lot of people and it runs into all these privacy concerns.”
Both Google and Facebook keep user data anonymously and go to great lengths to make sure that it is secure. And the wifi data that Google collected via its Street View cars was gathered from unsecured wireless networks; anyone who had taken the trouble to protect their network with a password would not have lost any data. Furthermore, Google didn’t do anything with the information it collected, nor did it plan to. It was, as the company says, an accident.
But it’s the principle of privacy that is at issue here. Rob Halfon, MP for Harlow, fears that Britain “is sleepwalking into a privatised surveillance society”. This Thursday he will open a debate in the House of Commons on the internet and privacy, which he hopes will lead to a Bill of Rights whichspecifies what can be done with our data and offers redress to those whose privacy is violated.
The idea of privacy in decline fits in very well with the aims of Zuckerberg and Schmidt, who want to sell advertising. In return, we get some great services and we don’t have to pay for them. At the most simple level, anyone who objects to Google’s privacy policies can simply stop using its services. The tension comes from where people draw the line in the trade-off. Making matters more complicated is the fact that we can now compromise each other’s privacy. If I post a photo to Facebook showing me and 50 friends at my wedding, am I really going to take the time to ask every single one whether he or she minds having their image online? And if one person objects, should their veto prevent me sharing the picture with the others?
The internet is too new for social norms to have developed and the pace of change is so rapid that it can be hard for even the tech-savvy to keep up. One of the criticisms of Google made after the Buzz fiasco was that its staff inhabit a different world from its customers. To Google engineers, being connected, sharing everything and exchanging data for services are the norm. Not so for the average web user. A recent survey found that 79 per cent of Americans want to keep the files and documents on their personal computer private. Almost half of those surveyed said they would be embarrassed about friends or family seeing certain files on their computer or smartphone.
If that survey is repeated in 10 years, perhaps the result will be different. Perhaps by then even the “creepy line” will have moved a little.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...eepy-line.html
Relevant.
Robert Epstein’s Midterm Warning: Big Tech Can ‘Shift Upwards of 12 Million Votes in November’
https://www.alipac.us/f19/robert-eps...-votes-361788/
Related:
GOOGLE CEO Refuses to Testify at Senate Hearing
https://www.alipac.us/f19/google-ceo...earing-361915/