(with a little bit of sarcasm:)<p>Oh I guess then it's safe to put my data on the American cloud again.<p>Just kidding, wouldn't do it. And neither should you.<p>It's sad, but as a foreigner I don't see that, regarding government policies, anything at all has changed since Snowden went public. I have nothing against the USA taking various leadership roles. Biggest democracy, newest technology etc, but since early 2000s it seems they are doing a bad job in many areas.<p>No thanks.
The EFF apparently cares a great deal about government surveillance but does not comment on corporate surveillance.<p>Is it a coincidence that some of the 6 star corporations who supposedly "have our back" are funding the EFF? Sigh.<p>A lot of the EFF's work seems to go into defending Google's rights rather than defending individuals' rights. This is bizarre behaviour for a privacy advocacy group. See also: <a href="https://twitter.com/EFF/status/466727797713825793" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/EFF/status/466727797713825793</a><p>I find that I can no longer support the EFF's work.
>Tell users about government data requests. To earn a star in this category, Internet companies must promise to tell users when the government seeks their data <i>unless prohibited by law</i>, in very narrow and defined emergency situations,[2] or unless doing so would be futile or ineffective.[3]<p>Those caveats make this a meaningless category, particularly the first one. Nearly all the data requests that people are concerned about have been coming with gag orders attached. Not to mention, how can the EFF even verify this? One assumes the criteria are assessed by the companies' policies, not by their actions, and that's clearly meaningless if the government is essentially compelling them to lie, keep silent or "massage the truth".
The PRISM companies have been <i>saying</i> they 'have our backs' since that story broke, and it's more clear than ever that they were lying in those statements. (notably, see the material in Glenn Greenwald's recent book <i>No Place to Hide</i> about direct surveillance agency access to severs, in spite of coordinated statements from the companies denying precisely that. Not that most people found them credible back then.)<p>What I'd like to know is who is <i>acting</i> to protect their users, and for a lot of the of the entries on this list I have negligible levels of trust that words and actions tell the same story.<p>Still, all the star categories here are at least somewhat verifiable, and giving bad actors credit for improving is a good thing.
I think this has limited value as a guide to what companies can be trusted, but great value as a survey about the response of U.S. society to the Snowden releases, and these trends look somewhat encouraging.
Thanks EFF, for pointing the spotlight.
It's funny that no one talks about credit card companies actually selling personal data to the highest bidder:
<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/credit-cards-sell-purchase-data-to-advertisers-2013-4" rel="nofollow">http://www.businessinsider.com/credit-cards-sell-purchase-da...</a><p>Not very hard to deanonymize a person's every card purchase.
They are basing this largely on statements by the companies in question, not on their actions or any proof that these companies actually abide by their promises. Seems a bit hollow to me.
If people are interested in a more in-depth view about this, check out <a href="https://transparency-reports.silk.co/" rel="nofollow">https://transparency-reports.silk.co/</a>. It covers other countries too and has more raw data on both companies and governments.<p>The EFF collaborated with us [1] on this and we're very excited about being able to provide the data in an accessible and easily comparable way on the web.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.eff.org/press/releases/which-tech-companies-help-protect-you-government-data-demands" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/press/releases/which-tech-companies-help...</a>
It is indeed a sad state of affairs when you have to read the title "Protecting Your Data From Government...".<p>It highlights the fact that government no longer works for us; that that majority of people either do not care about the issue, or they do care and democracy is a farce.<p>Of those options, I firmly believe that democracy is a farce.<p>My 90 year old Gran's father was one of the founder's of the British Labour Party. She says that if someone starts a revolution she she join in. She thinks she is too old to start it, and to be fair she is blind and deaf so she's doing pretty well. We need more people like her.
I am happy to see the significant increase in stars, but I do wonder if the same rules apply to both US and non-US users. The report is vague regarding this.
Significantly more stars than in 2013! [1]<p>This is a very good development, and it also suggests that these kinds of publications may have some positive effect in encouraging more companies to, well, "have your back".<p>[1] <a href="https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013" rel="nofollow">https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013</a>
So the EFF is now becoming the lobby for the US surveillance companies?<p>Several of these companies built their business model on commercial surveillance of their users with the purpose of monetizing their data directly or indirectly.<p>And these are the companies that are supposed to "have my back"? Really?
From the article:<p>> CREDO Mobile, a new addition to this year’s report, demonstrated through its exemplary policies that it is possible for a telecom to adopt best practices when it comes to transparency and resistance to government demands.<p>I'd never heard of Credo Mobile before.<p>Regardless of the intentions of Credo, since they appear to be leasing Sprint's towers, doesn't that ultimately put Credo's customers at the whim of Sprint in terms of who gets wiretapped / transparency reports / etc?<p>Or is it possible for a tenant on the infrastructure to be reasonably assured that outsiders can't intrude into their communications.<p>I know very little about it, but what I've seen of cell network security research, makes me assume that no such security exists for tenants leasing towers.
The problem with this list is that I can't tell if the starred company ALWAYS does the relevant action, or HAS done the relevant action at times. Does Google always tell users about govt requests for data? Or does Google sometimes tell users about govt requests for data? Because recent revelations indicated the government could retrieve their data without Google even being involved in each transaction, and they were legally barred from revealing fine-grained details about requests. But they did publicly oppose that policy after the fact and fought (or at least appeared to) the policy after it was revealed. So they get a star in that category now?<p>It's a bit like charting a flip-flopping political candidate's stances on issues. Does candidate X support issue Y? Yes! Does candidate X oppose issue Y? ... yes!
Could anyone explain how that list was assembled?<p>Why aren't there any of the services that actually have our backs on this list? Companies such as <a href="https://MyKolab.com" rel="nofollow">https://MyKolab.com</a> clearly seem to belong on that list.
How many of these companies have made key exchange and Web of trust easy to use and have put your data completely out of reach of snoops?<p>I know of one that makes the use of private keys and encrypted payload easy: Carbonite. Anyone else? Anyone? Bueller?
Lets all just trust these corporations who went behind our backs since start of the 90s.<p>EFF reports clearly shows now that the major corporations which backstabbed us are doing all they can now to serve our interests and not other agendas. Herd the sheep, and sheep will not say a thing. Well done EFF, show me the way to herd the sheep.