User:SH3RIFFO/sandbox

This, indeed is, an Awesome class.

Level II

Level III

Banana

banana

York U

Broken Link

York University is the best university.

500 WORDS ASSIGNMENT BELOW THIS LINE.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Ratings (Who Has Your Back)

Functions of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a non-profit organization that oversees the use of technological resources. It protects the rights and freedoms of those using modern technology. Some of their tasks include ensuring user privacy. It also facilitates free expression of opinions through media sources. The EFF promotes innovation through analyzing related policies, setting rules and protocols regarding their use, and developing supporting technologies. It regulates the use of open source software. There are mechanisms put in place by the body to ensure that unauthorized persons do not infiltrate encrypted files. It checks on and works towards curbing illegal surveillance by unauthorized parties.

Composition of the EFF

The EFF has employed several professionals to aid in their course. One, they have attorneys who deal with legal matters. The institution also works hand in hand with technologists to facilitate the development and smooth use of technologies. Activists that defend the users of technology and fight for their rights and freedoms are also part of EFF. Being a non-profit organization, EFF depends on the funding of citizens and other well-wishers to sustain its operations and continue offering its services.

Criteria for Evaluating Tech-companies’ Performance

The EFF believes that safeguarding technology users and developers’ rights and freedoms is having their back. They call for social media and technology firms to embrace the attitude of having their users’ back especially when the government comes calling. However, while some companies have performed exemplary, others have scored low upon research in how they protect the users and developers of their software. Surprisingly, the most prominent industries are the ones that rate poorest. Only a few tech companies have been able to get the full five-star rating of the EFF”s “Who has your back scorecard”. The five stars represent the following options: Adhering to industry-wide best practices. Alerting or notifying users to government requests for their data and protecting them from the same when possible, is another basis for evaluation. Fulfilling the promise to preserve user privacy and anonymity is another criteria used to rate these firms. Ability to challenge National Security Letters gag orders which comes along with the request to access user data depicts how active and robust a company is when it comes to protecting the rights of its users. Finally, such firms ought to ensure a pro-user public policy is followed. These five options are the criteria used for evaluating tech companies in the report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

"Who Has Your Back?" Reports and Ratings by the EFF since 2011

There are many reports released by EFF, rating various technology firms, with the most recent of them published this year. All these reports are five-star ratings based on the criteria or options described above. In the 2017 publication, technological giants that were given a clean pass in all the five determining factors were Adobe, Pinterest, Uber, Sonic, Credo mobile, Lyft, Dropbox, Wickr and WordPress. Those that came close to accomplishing the task with four stars were Google, Yahoo, Apple, LinkedIn, Slack, Microsoft and Facebook. The lowest rated ones included WhatsApp and Amazon with two stars, Comcast, T-Mobile, and Verizon all with one star. This low rating meant that their performance in some of the aspects was wanting.

Some companies have managed to achieve the incredible feat of high rating year after year, as indicated in the 2016 and 2011 reports. In the 2016 report which had six stars, Uber and Lyft earned credit in all aspects, as was the case in 2017. These companies had not yet come to be in the year 2011 when the EFF began its rating. However, a close look at the 2011 report shows considerable improvements by some companies to date. Apple, Microsoft, and Yahoo all who had a twenty-five percent star rating back then have now upgraded to an eighty percent rating. Dropbox has shown the most significant improvement, shooting from twenty-five to one hundred percent.

Extra / Opinion?

It is the responsibility of technology companies to protect the data of their users from being accessed by unauthorized parties. When the government comes calling, these firms have to ensure that they notify users before handing it over. If it is against the user’s wishes, or there are some suspicions over questionable dealings, it is up to them to protect this information and stand up even to the National security Letter orders. They should also initiate bills seeking to defend their clients in Congress and court.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3000 WORDS ASSIGNMENT BELOW THIS LINE.

'Who Has Your Back?' by the The Electronic Frontier Foundation

The Who Has Your Back reports have been published since 2010, by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, offering an overview of the policies large technology and communications companies adopt when confronted by law enforcement demands. The latest reports are written by Nate Cardozo (Senior Staff Attorney), Jennifer Lynch (Senior Staff Attorney), Andrew Crocker (Staff Attorney), Reiney Reitman (Activism Director) and Kurt Opsahi (Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel). The authors were assisted Hugh D’Andrade and Gennie Gebhart. The EFF has dedicated itself to ensuring proper channels are followed to protect users and their data from the government. This is because the boom of the “gig” economy has brought companies that give users the ability to sell and purchase services from each other. Aside from offering outstanding services to clients these companies maintain databases that contain sensitive user data collected through the digital fingerprint they leave online. Such data can show individual habits like where a person eats, sleeps and travels to. It is important that users are notified when law enforcement agencies request for their data. The EFF requires that data should only be made accessible when the agency requesting the data has a warrant from a court. The EFF reports have also encouraged companies to raise their standards to ensure that they protect user data from the government. The EFF also encourages that “gig” companies conform to their public policies regarding protection of user data.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is a non-profit organization that oversees the use of technological resources. It protects the rights and freedoms of those using modern technology. Some of their tasks include ensuring user privacy. It also facilitates free expression of opinions through media sources. The EFF promotes innovation through analyzing related policies, setting rules and protocols regarding their use, and developing supporting technologies. It regulates the use of open source software. There are mechanisms put in place by the body to ensure that unauthorized persons do not infiltrate encrypted files. It checks on and works towards curbing illegal surveillance by unauthorized parties. The EFF also publishes reports that evaluate the performance of technology and communication companies in response to government requests.

'Who Has Your Back' Reports

Since 2010, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has published reports offering an overview of the policies large technology and communications companies should adopt to ensure they protect users from data requests by the government, including telling users about such requests. The latest reports are written by Nate Cardozo (Senior Staff Attorney), Jennifer Lynch (Senior Staff Attorney), Andrew Crocker (Staff Attorney), Rainey Reitman (Activism Director) and Kurt Opsahi (Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel). Hugh D’Andrade and Gennie Gebhart assisted the authors.[4] The EFF has dedicated itself to ensuring proper channels are followed to protect users and their data from the government. This is because the boom of the “gig” economy has brought companies that give users the ability to sell and purchase services from each other. Aside from offering outstanding services to clients these companies maintain databases that contain sensitive user data collected through the digital fingerprint they leave online.[2] Such data can show individual habits like where a person eats, sleeps and travels to. It is important that users are notified when law enforcement agencies request for their data. The EFF requires that data should only be made accessible when the agency requesting the data has a warrant from a court. The EFF reports have also encouraged companies to raise their standards to ensure that they protect user data from the government. The EFF also encourages that “gig” companies conform to their public policies regarding protection of user data.

In its 2017 “Who Has Your Back?” report, the nonprofit found that every company under evaluation had adopted industry wide baseline best practices including that they all published transparency reports and required a warrant before they could give the government user information.[4] further, the study found that telecoms including AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Comcast were the worst performing companies as it relates to user privacy and transparency.[4] The report concluded that telecom companies have chosen to prioritize government’s data requests rather than prioritize user privacy. The report found that two technology companies, Amazon and WhatsApp, lagged behind other technology companies on various areas. One, they lack effective public policies relating to notifying users when government requests for their data, they have not made a public declaration to request for review of NSLS in the courts, and they failed to meet EFF’s criteria on revealing users. [4] The reports in 2011 show that companies like Twitter and Google have tried to conform to user data protection standards put forward by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[6] Twitter fights for the privacy of user data in courts and in Congress. Google also publishes a list of the users whose data was requested, and the demands made. This is in line with EFFs requirement to be transparent with users when the government demands access to sensitive information. This gives users the opportunity to defend themselves. [6]

According to a report by “Ars Technica”, WhatsApp, comcast and AT&T are among the lowest scorers in the latest Who Has Your Back reports.[4] The goals of the report are to describe how technology companies behave in regard to user data when government requests access to such data. The methodology involves evaluating companies based on five categories. They are a company follows industry best practice, promises not to sell out users, stands up to NSL gag orders, and a company is pro-user in its public policy. [3] Twitter has been hailed for how it dealt with requests from the Central Intelligence Agency to remit user data. This contrasts with how WhatsApp corporation dealt with user data. Despite embracing end to end encryption WhatsApp has not taken sufficient measures to earn a full star rating in the who has your back reports. Users are also encouraged to participate in ensuring their data is protected and that they are informed in case any government agency needs access to their data.

Criteria for Evaluating Tech-companies’ Performance

The EFF believes that safeguarding technology users and developers’ rights and freedoms is having their back.[4] They call for social media and technology firms to embrace the attitude of having their users’ back especially when the government comes calling. However, while some companies have performed exemplary on protecting the privacy of users and being transparent, others have scored low upon research in how they protect the users and developers of their software. Surprisingly, the most prominent industries are the ones that rate poorest. Only a few tech companies have been able to get the full five-star rating of the EFF” s “Who has your back scorecard”. The five stars represent the following options: Adhering to industry-wide best practices. Alerting or notifying users to government requests for their data and protecting them from the same when possible, is another basis for evaluation. Fulfilling the promise to preserve user privacy and anonymity is another criterion used to rate these firms. Ability to challenge National Security Letters gag orders which comes along with the request to access user data depicts how active and robust a company is when it comes to protecting the rights of its users. Finally, such firms ought to ensure a pro-user public policy is followed. These five options are the criteria used for evaluating tech companies in the report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Since, the publication of the first ‘who has your back’ report the criteria for evaluation has become more stringent. According the latest report, companies do not earn credit for having a public policy that protects user data from the government; they must notify clients before data is handed over to the client.[4] This has encouraged good practices in terms of privacy and more companies are adhering to these standards. Invasive access by the government is analysed in the report using specific and measurable guidelines. The evaluation criteria is quite tough for tech companies like WhatsApp and Amazon. According to the latest report, Amazon and WhatsApp have adopted the industry-accepted practices but have failed to adopt strong public policies to alert users of government requests. They have also failed to meet the EFF’s criterion of not selling out users. They do not openly promise clients to review NSL gag orders in court.

In addition to the above evaluation criteria, companies earned credit for supporting reforms to section 702 in the FISA Amendments Act (2008). This amendment will curb surveillance by the NSA on users because it challenges the agency’s mass internet surveillance.[4] The report considers positions, policies and practices that are publicly available. Privately held standards are not factored into the evaluation. According to the 2017 report, publishing public policies ensures that companies cannot change their policies due to pressure from government agencies. Privately held company standards can be changed easily; therefore, they are not practical approaches to evaluating the practice of a company with respect to privacy and protection of user data.[4]

Reports and Ratings by the EFF since 2011

There are many reports released by EFF, rating various technology firms, with the most recent of them published this year. All these reports are five-star ratings based on the criteria or options described above. In the 2017 publication, technological giants that were given a clean pass in all the five determining factors were Adobe, Pinterest, Uber, Sonic, Credo mobile, Lyft, Dropbox, Wickr and WordPress (Farivar). Those that came close to accomplishing the task with four stars were Google, Yahoo, Apple, Linked in, Slack, Microsoft and Facebook (Reitman). The lowest rated ones included WhatsApp and Amazon with two stars, Comcast, Amazon, T-Mobile, and Verizon all with one star. This low rating meant that their performance in some of the aspects was wanting.

Some companies have managed to achieve the incredible feat of high rating year after year, as indicated in the 2016 and 2011 reports. In the 2016 report which had six stars, Uber and Lyft earned credit in all aspects, as was the case in 2011. These companies had not yet come to be in the year 2011 when the EFF began its rating. However, a close look at the 2011 report shows considerable improvements by some companies to date. Apple, Microsoft, and Yahoo all who had a twenty-five percent star rating back then have now upgraded to an eighty percent rating. Dropbox has shown the most significant improvement, shooting from twenty-five to one hundred percent.

Technology companies have adopted better practices regarding user data and privacy since the publication of the first report in 2011. The Electronic Frontier Foundation through the ‘who has your back’ reports encourage companies to take advantage of the legal protections on privacy and user data. An analysis of the trends since the publication of earlier reports has shown that many technology and communications companies have scored credit in at least one of the criterion. By 2017, less than 50% of the evaluated companies committed themselves to adopting the required practices on privacy.

The ‘Who has your back’ reports have helped to raise awareness of consumers and industry stakeholders about issues of transparency and user privacy.[4] There is no evidence thus far that technology and communications companies mentioned in the report have adopted public policies and practices that protect users and the company from requests by the government because of being identified as poor scorers in the reports. According to the reports, several companies are yet to improve on their practices and policies to help safeguard users from government surveillance. Further legal action to help in EFF’s quest includes reforming of the FISA Amendment Act of 2008. Therefore, the EFF encourages companies to support this campaign since it will help strengthen privacy policies. The EFF also acknowledges companies that have fought NSL gag orders in court.

It is the moral and legal responsibility of technology companies to protect the data of their users from being accessed by unauthorized parties.[4] When the government comes calling, these firms have to ensure that they notify users before handing it over. If it is against the user’s wishes, or there are some suspicions over questionable dealings, it is up to them to protect this information and stand up even to the National Security Letter orders.

Composition of the EFF

The EFF was founded in 1990 by John Gilmore, Mitch Kapor and John Perry Barlow. It has employed several professionals to aid in their course. One, they have attorneys who deal with legal matters. The institution also works hand in hand with technologists to facilitate the development and smooth use of technologies.[2] Activists that defend the users of technology and fight for their rights and freedoms are also part of EFF. Being a non-profit organization, EFF depends on the funding of citizens and other well-wishers to sustain its operations and continue offering its services. [2]

The EFF has different departments headed by various individuals. Through their coordination, the EFF can perform its roles. The Chief Computer Scientist is Peter Eckersley. His main role is to lead the team of technologists in detection of threats to user freedom and devising ways to fix them. Eckersley and his team write code that helps to make sure the internet is safer, secure, open and adheres to the core principles of freedom. Peter Eckersley and his team started an initiative to address the issue if Artificial Intelligence and machine learning. They are involved in suggesting policies that should be adopted regarding AIs and users’ privacy. The team was also involved in security and privacy initiatives like, Lets Encrypt, HTTPS everywhere among other initiatives. Peter Eckersley holds a PhD from University of Melbourne in Computer Science and Law. The Executive Director is Cindy Cohn, she held the office of Legal Director at EFF from 2000-2015. She was named by the National Law Journal as among the top 100 most influential lawyers in the United States. As previously mentioned, the EFF has numerous employees. To help summaries the composition, each post will be named alongside the professional in charge. Andres Arrieta is the Technology Projects Manager, he joined EFF to help build tools that address security and privacy issues. Caroline Bokman is the Staff Accountant at EFF. Vivian Brown is the Software Engineer at EFF. She develops websites and maintains them for EFF. A more detailed list of employees and their jobs in the EFF is found in the EFF’s websites.[7] The main jobs at EFF are based on law, technology, security, activism and privacy. The list of employees is too extensive to fully summarize in this article.

Aside from employees, the EFF has a Board of Directors that oversees the activities of the organization in safeguarding privacy and security for internet users. John Perry Barlow who is among the Co-founders is an Entrepreneur, Lyricist and Writer.[8] The Board is chaired by Brian Behlendorf.[8] He is an entrepreneur and technologist who has been enthusiastic about the EFF since the 90s. He has headed several initiatives in the field of technology. [8] Sarah Deutsch; a lawyer and former corporate executive is also a board member.[8] She retired from Verizon Communications as Deputy General Counsel and Vice President. Deutsch was involved in the global Internet Protocol practice at Verizon. She handled patents, licensing, trademarks and unfair competition. She also worked as an advisor to the US on Copyright treaties. Before working for Verizon communications, she was an associate in Morgan Lewis and Bockius law firm. In 2014, she received an award at “America’s Women in Business Law Awards”. Sarah Deutsch is also a professional photographer. She was a member of the Board of Directors from 2005-2006. [8]

David Farber works at Carnegie Mellon University as a Professor of Computer Science and Public Policy. Before his involvement with EFF he was a Professor in several universities. He received the ‘ACM Sigcomm’ award for his contribution to the field of computer communications. In 1997, he won the ‘John Scott’ award for his contribution to humanity.[8] John Gilmore is among the board members and co-founders of EFF. He is a technologist and entrepreneur. Aside from the EFF, Gilmore is also the co-founder of Cygnus Solutions, Cypherpunks,Des Cracker and the ‘alt’ newsgroup. He is also a participating board member at CodeWeavers , Usenix Association and ReQuest. Prior to EFF, Gilmore worked as a programmer for 30 years.[8]

Brewster Kahle is well known for his efforts to provide universal access to all human knowledge.[8] Aside from being a board member at EFF, he is a cofounder of several services available in the internet. He invented the ‘Wide Area Information Server.[8] WAIS was the internet’s first publishing system. It was sold to America Online in 1995. He was also the co-founder of Alexa Internet which was sold to Amazon in 1999. Other board members include Pamela Samuelson, Bruce Schneier, Shari Steele and Johnathan Zitrain. Pamela Samuelson is the vice chairwoman of the board.[8] Aside from her role in the EFF board, she is a professor of law and information at University of California. She is the co-director at Berkley Center for law and Technology. She is an expert in intellectual property law.[8] The National Law Journal recognised her as among the top 50 most outstanding female lawyers 1998. Pamela was a Fellow of ‘Association of Computing Machinery’ and ‘John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’. She is also a writer, editor and a board member of the Northern California Chapter.[8]

Bruce Schneier is an author and security technologist. He has authored 14 books. The New York Times best seller ‘Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your World’ is a good example of his work. He also manages ‘Crypto-Gram’ a newsletter that has a wide reach. He is also a Fellow at Belfer Center and Berkman Center. Aside from being a board member at EFF, he is also an advisor to IBM Security and the CTO of Resilient.[8] Shari Steele worked at EFF as the Executive Director before joining the Board of Directors in 2015. Before her appointment as Executive Director she worked at EFF as the Legal Director.[8] Her job as Legal Director involved advising the NTIA, the US Sentencing Commission and the National Research Council on issues of hate crimes, sentencing guidelines and encryption policy respectively.[8] Johnathan Zitrain is a professor of international law at Harvard University. He is also a professor of computer science in Harvard’s school of Engineering and Applied sciences.[8] He is the current Vice Dean for ‘Library and Information Resources’ at Harvard Law School. He cofounded ‘Berkman Center for Internet and Society’. He worked with the OpenNet Initiative to conduct the first tests of Internet filtering in Saudi Arabia and China.[8] He was a fellow for the World Economic Forum. Zitrain was appointed as a Trustee of the Internet Society. He also authored ‘The Future of Internet and How to Stop It’.[8]

Follow Industry-Wide Best Practice

The Who Has Your Back report evaluates companies on three aspects. The companies must have a published public policy that protects users from unwarranted access of data. A company should publish reports that show how many times the government has requested data. In addition to that, the company must have a published law enforcement guide detailing how they respond to requests from any government agency. The ‘who has your back’ report will only give credit if these requirements are met.

User Awareness about Government Data Requests

To receive a good rating in this criterion, the company’s public policy must promise to alert users when the government requests their data unless in cases of emergency. In cases where notification may compromise an investigation the companies should notify users when the gag orders expire.[4]

User Confidentiality

A company can earn credit in this sector only if they their public policy assures users that data will not be given to the government outside the law enforcement policy. Exceptions to this criterion can occur when the customers or the company are the victims. In this case the company can submit data to help in investigations.

Stands up to NSL Gag orders

Companies earn credit in this criterion by challenging secret data requests by the government in court. This is possible due to the USA FREEDOM Act allowing companies to counter indefinite gag orders.

Pro-User Public policy: Reform 702

The reports awards credit to companies supporting the reforms in section 702 of the FISA Amendment act to protect users from mass surveillance by the NSA.