EFF in the News
One of Binge On's biggest critics is the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit Internet advocacy group.
Earlier this week, the EFF published a report on several tests that it conducted on T-Mobile's network.
The organization found that T-Mobile slowed mobile Internet speeds for Binge On users whether they were watching something live or downloading to view videos to watch later. The EFF also found "stuttering or uneven streaming" while watching higher quality videos.
"T-Mobile seems to be arguing that downgrading video quality is not actually throttling, but we disagree," EFF Staff technologist Jeremy Gillula told CNNMoney in a statement.
Gillula says that T-Mobile is forcing customers to use a smaller information pipe, which is just throttling by another name.
"This isn't semantics—it's apples and oranges," he said.
Last month, YouTube said T-Mobile is interfering with its video traffic by effectively throttling, or degrading, its traffic. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit privacy and advocacy organization, said this week that its tests confirm T-Mobile is throttling all video, regardless if the video is part of Binge On. The organization wants the FCC to investigate the practice if T-Mobile doesn't change it. "It's pretty obvious that throttling all traffic based on application type definitely violates the principles of net neutrality," the group said in a report. Jeremy Gillula, the staff technologist at the EFF who wrote the report, said the group wouldn't object to the program if T-Mobile made it clear that all video was being throttled and if customers could "opt in rather than have it automatically turned it on by the carrier"."We aren't big fans of the way that T-Mobile has gone about it," he said.
Listening in to people’s phone conversations is the most intrusive form of government surveillance, said Jennifer Lynch, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that defends civil liberties in the digital world.
“The average consumer would want to understand exactly what a particular company is doing,” said Sophia Cope, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a national nonprofit organization for digital civil liberties. “The expectations are even greater for parents with children in school.”
“It’s a transparency problem,” Cope said. “The companies are not, we believe, being totally upfront in explaining the technology. Districts don’t know what questions to ask before they sign these contracts, and they’re not informing the parents of what they’re doing.”Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/education/article52728555.html#storylink=cpy
“The Internet is still locked in a battle royal with Hollywood and its allies,” said Peter Eckersley, chief computer scientist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group that is supported by technology companies and often squares off against the entertainment business over copyright issues.
To us, 2015 appeared to be the year where major change would happen whether pro- or anti-surveillance. Experts felt a shift was equally imminent. "I think it's impossible to tell which case will be the one that does it, but I believe that, ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to step in and decide the constitutionality of some of the NSA's practices," Mark Rumold, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Ars last year.
“Most recipients of these things comply and don’t understand it’s just a request,” said Andrew Crocker, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights group.
Insecure mobile access is a bigger concern in developing countries where many people depend on their phones to access the Web, says Joseph Bonneau, a tech fellow at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "Of course, for many users they only have Internet access through their mobile devices, so insecurity of mobile browsing means insecurity of all of their browsing," he said in an e-mail.
Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy group, said the FBI's shift "means they realize their first strategy wasn't working." She added, "By shifting the conversation to a 'business model,' they may think they have more leverage against those people."
“In some of the schools we’ve talked to parents about, there’s literally no ability to say, ‘no,’” said Nate Cardozo, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.