Purpose of this edit request
This request proposes a substantial update and reorganization of the Electronic Frontier Foundation article, consistent with neutrality (WP:NPOV), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sourcing (WP:RS), and the layout guideline (MOS:LAYOUT). The current article is accurate but uneven: it leans in places on EFF's own pages and primary documents, carries "secondary source needed" tags, and trails the organization's recent work, finances, and leadership.
The revision pursues three things. It strengthens sourcing, drawing on independent secondary material and replacing the tagged passages in the Litigation section with text supported by independent reporting. It updates currency and balance, covering the leadership transition, current finances and size, and activity through early 2026, and adding sourced critical perspectives the current article omits: its emphasis on government over corporate surveillance, the Clipper chip dissent, and the questions over the Google settlement funding. And it improves structure, replacing the Activities, Awards, Software, and Support arrangement with a thematic "Issues and activities" section, a consolidated "Operations" section, a single chronological "History", and a trimmed "Publications" section.
Nothing here is written to promote the organization. The table below lists each change with its current text, proposed text, and reason and source, so the request can be reviewed item by item.
This table lists the changes from the current article (X) to the proposed revision (Y), with the reason and source for each (Z), in the order of the proposed article and ending with removed material and a structural summary. Citation markup is omitted from X and Y for readability; the full citations are in the complete draft, and column Z names the sources. Rows whose X cell reads "no counterpart" add new material; a few carry a "Note" where a fact shifts from the current article. Where a row covers a whole subsection, its Y cell holds that subsection's paragraphs.
| # | Current text (X) | Proposed text (Y) | Reason and citation (Z) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an American international non-profit digital rights group based in San Francisco, California. It was founded in 1990 to promote Internet civil liberties. |
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is an international member-based non-profit digital rights organization based in San Francisco, California, United States. It was founded in 1990 to promote online civil liberties, and quickly became involved in legal advocacy. It gained attention for its involvement in landmark litigation involving online rights, such as Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service. |
Reframe the opening: drop "American", state that EFF is member-based, and add its founding purpose and its landmark early case (Steve Jackson Games). Lead summary, cited in the body. |
| 2 |
It provides funds for legal defense in court, presents amicus curiae briefs, defends individuals and new technologies [...] monitors and challenges potential legislation [...] and solicits a list of what it considers are abusive patents [...] (the full second lead paragraph) |
Over time, EFF expanded its role in intellectual property and information security, challenging copyright enforcement practices that restrict consumer rights. Beyond litigation, the organization has developed privacy protection tools and led activism efforts in support of personal freedoms and online innovation. It is active worldwide in advocating for public policy and legislation relevant to digital rights. |
Replace the run-on activities catalogue with a concise summary of EFF's domains, matching the body. |
| 3 |
The EFF regularly brings and defends a wide range of lawsuits [...] Many of the most significant technology law cases have involved the EFF, including MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., Apple v. Does, and others. (the example sentence carried a "secondary source needed" tag) |
EFF's current work is structured around three areas: litigation, activism, and technological development. The main issue areas are free speech, privacy, creativity and innovation, transparency, international, and security. It has pursued and supported litigation relating to online rights across its areas of focus, with an emphasis on intellectual property and free speech. A 2012 analysis found litigation involving EFF to have a success rate of 77%. |
Replace the vague litigation lead-in (which carried "secondary source needed" tags on its Grokster and Apple v. Does examples) with a structured overview and the sourced 77% success-rate finding. Apple v. Does is dropped; Grokster is kept in History. Sources: SMU Science and Technology Law Review (Nhan and Carroll, 2012); EFF "Issues" page; The Free Speech Center (Hudson, 2024). |
| 4 |
(no counterpart in the current article; new material) |
EFF's free-speech advocacy includes opposing age gating legislation and associated bans on virtual private networks; investigating government involvement in the removal of ICEBlock and similar anti-ICE apps; opposing the TAKE IT DOWN Act; and opposing the GUARD Act, which proposes to ban use of certain AI chatbots by children. It has also been involved in investigating censorship of abortion-related information on social media, advocating to platforms to stop this practice and advising users on how to avoid posts being taken down. |
New material: recent free-speech advocacy. Sources: Privacy Daily (2026); TechRadar (2026); The Register (2025); Prism (2025); Biometric Update (2026); Associated Press (2025); MM+M (2025). |
| 5 |
The EFF is a supporter of the Email Privacy Act. (otherwise no counterpart; this is the current article's "Legislative activity" section) |
EFF's activities in the area of privacy include analysis of police use of Flock Safety devices for investigating protests and developing guidance for crossing the US border with electronic devices. It also created a class on digital security specifically for journalists crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, in partnership with the Freedom of the Press Foundation. In 2023 it published "Privacy First: A Better Way to Address Online Harms" advocating an alternative framework for the protection of online privacy. EFF supported the Email Privacy Act and opposed the Patriot Act's surveillance provisions. EFF's position on online privacy "has created friction with law enforcement" as privacy protections can inhibit surveillance activities. Critics have noted that EFF's focus on government surveillance contrasts with its responses to corporate use of personal data, for example related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal. A profile in the Stanford Social Innovation Review credits EFF for the proliferation of privacy and technology offerings in US law schools. It also provided funding for the Tor Project. Since 2011 EFF has issued an annual report, "Who Has Your Back", analyzing the privacy-related activities and policies of major companies. |
Mostly new material; the Email Privacy Act support is relocated from the former "Legislative activity" section, and sourced criticism is added for balance. Sources: The Guardian (Mahdawi, 2026; Bhuiyan, 2025; Gibbs, 2017); Editor & Publisher (2026); developpez.com (2023); The Verge (2016); SMU Science and Technology Law Review (2012); The Baffler (Levine, 2018); Stanford Social Innovation Review (Bernholz, 2019); Sydney Morning Herald (2006). |
| 6 |
It has filed a lawsuit to invalidate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and has long taken a stance against strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) [...] (the SLAPP clause carried a "secondary source needed" tag) |
In the area of creativity and innovation, EFF has targeted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for limiting the ways in which consumers can use media. It has also advocated against patents that limit innovation and online expression. EFF has called on universities to sign a Public Interest Patent Pledge to ensure patents that they licensed or sold would be used responsibly. Recent work in this area includes advocacy against state initiatives in California and New York that would impose limits on 3D printing. EFF challenged several patents relating to 3D printing, including one which would allow printing of chocolates. EFF began the EFF AI Progress Measurement project "to measure progress in artificial intelligence innovations and understand the legal, political, and technical issues potentially raised by those inventions". It concluded that broad patents issued for AI tools and techniques had the potential to significantly limit innovation in the field. |
Replaces the current DMCA/SLAPP litigation sentence (which carried a "secondary source needed" tag on the SLAPP clause); the SLAPP and "Protect the Protest" material is not retained. Adds 3D-printing advocacy and the AI Progress Measurement project. Sources: The Guardian (Doctorow, 2016); Ars Technica (2008); opensource.com (2016); The Register (2026); Make Things (2026); TechCrunch (2013); Intellectual Property Watch (2018). |
| 7 |
(no counterpart in the current article; new material) |
EFF advocates for government transparency, particularly as it relates to use of technology. For example, it sought transparency on the use of artificial intelligence in the administration of Medicare through a Freedom of Information Act suit in 2026. Beginning in 2015, EFF and MuckRock have annually awarded "The Foilies" to "identify the most surreal document redactions, the most aggravating copy fees, the most outrageous retaliation attempts, and all the other ridicule-worthy attacks on the public's right to know". In 2020, EFF launched an Atlas of Surveillance tracking police use of surveillance technologies across the United States. The atlas was built in collaboration with students from the Reynolds School of Journalism at the University of Nevada, Reno. It received the James Madison Freedom of Information Award for Electronic Access in March 2021. |
New material. Sources: Becker's Hospital Review (2026); Charleston City Paper (2022); VentureBeat (2020); Nevada Today (2021). |
| 8 |
(no counterpart in the current article; new material) |
EFF has supported online civil liberties initiatives beyond the United States. It has been involved in advocacy around international legislation and treaties, such as the UN Cybercrime Treaty and the Trans-Pacific Partnership's provisions on copyright. It has been active in advocating to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), for example in opposing the Broadcast Treaty and supporting the Marrakesh Treaty to facilitate access to publications for those with vision impairments. It has also advocated against regional and national legislation that would impact online freedom, such as Marco Civil da Internet and the Fake News Bill in Brazil, and Chat Control in the European Union. It has joined other organizations in advocating for the release of imprisoned technology activists, including Alaa Abd El-Fattah and Ahmed Mansoor. It also documented the use of remote access trojans targeting Syrian activists and opposed the killing of journalists during the Gaza War. In 2021, it co-founded the DSA Human Rights Alliance to monitor and advocate around enforcement of the Digital Services Act in the European Union. "¿Quien Defiende Tus Datos?" ("Who Defends Your Data?") is a series of studies carried out in Spain and Latin America coordinated by EFF. It is an expansion of EFF's "Who Has Your Back" report. |
New material. Sources: Scientific American (2024); Education International (2012); Creative Commons (2012); Brill (Sztobryn, 2024); Access Now (2023); Intellectual Property Watch (2013); Policypress (2025); OMCT (2024); GCHR (2017); SC World (2012); Child Rights International Network (2024); liberties.eu (2026); ADC (2018). |
| 9 |
The EFF has developed some software and browser add-ons, including HTTPS Everywhere and Privacy Badger. In 2014, EFF released its Secure Messaging Scorecard [...] (the current article's "Software" section) |
EFF began the Surveillance Self-Defense project in 2009. Its initial goal was to "provide a guide to using the Internet for political activists in repressive regimes". The resource includes sections on basic online privacy issues, tools for protecting privacy online, and scenario-based educational resources for specific contexts. Coders with EFF have developed several tools to support user security online, including Privacy Badger, a plug-in which prevents websites from tracking visitors, and HTTPS Everywhere, a browser extension co-developed with the Tor Project to support automatic encryption of online traffic. In 2026, EFF instituted a new policy that contributors could submit code generated by large language models after review and testing, but that comments and documentation must be human-generated. |
Replaces the standalone "Software" section; adds the Surveillance Self-Defense project and the 2026 LLM-code policy. The Secure Messaging Scorecard moves to History (row 25). Sources: Springer (Ziccardi, 2013); Public Services Quarterly (2025); Stanford Social Innovation Review (Bernholz, 2019); PCMag Encyclopedia; The Register (Fay, 2026). |
| 10 |
As of September 2025[update], Charity Navigator has given the EFF an overall rating of 100% as a four-star (out of four) charity. (from the current "Support" section; the "Financial" subsection on the Google and Facebook settlements moves to History) |
Electronic Frontier Foundation is a non-profit designated as a 501(c)(3). As of September 2025[update], Charity Navigator has given EFF an overall rating of 100% as a four-star (out of four) charity. It has a fourteen-member board, which includes the executive director. As of 2025, it has 125 employees worldwide and is headquartered in San Francisco. In 2025, it reported having 30,000 members. In 2024, EFF reported revenues of $29.4 million and expenses of $21.9 million. Around 75% of its revenues come from contributions. Donations to the organization increased tenfold after the Snowden disclosures. It has previously received foundation grants from sources including the MacArthur Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the Ford Foundation. |
Consolidate organizational facts and current finances into a new Operations section (the Charity Navigator rating is retained from the former "Support" section). Sources: ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer; Charity Navigator; San Francisco Examiner; Washington Post (Timberg, 2013); MacArthur, Sloan, and Ford grant pages. Note: the references named "hoge" (125 employees) and "kelly" (30,000 members) are cited but undefined in the draft and will throw cite errors unless their full citations are added. |
| 11 |
The EFF Awards, until 2022 called the EFF Pioneer Awards, are awarded annually to recognize individuals who in its opinion are "leaders who are extending freedom and innovation on the electronic frontier." |
The EFF Awards (formerly the EFF Pioneer Awards) annually recognize individuals who in its opinion are "extending freedom and innovation on the electronic frontier." First awarded in 1992, notable prior recipients include Hedy Lamarr, Jimmy Wales, and Cory Doctorow. |
Move the EFF Awards into Operations; add the 1992 first year and notable recipients. Sources: EFF Pioneer Awards page; KQED (2014). Note: the current article says the awards were renamed in 2022; the draft gives no year. |
| 12 |
The Electronic Frontier Foundation was formed in 1990 by John Gilmore, John Perry Barlow and Mitch Kapor. [...] (the full "Foundation" subsection, covering Operation Sundevil, the FBI visit, the floppy disks of Apple ROM code, the WELL post, Kapor's funding offer, the Rabinowitz law firm, and Gilmore and Wozniak's support) |
EFF was founded in 1990 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, by John Perry Barlow and Mitch Kapor, with financial support from John Gilmore and Steve Wozniak. Both Barlow and Kapor were questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in relation to a Secret Service effort to combat cybercrime. Both were also participants in The WELL online community, where Barlow posted about being questioned. Considering the FBI and Secret Service's heavy-handed tactics during several high-profile raids and arrests relating to online activities, Barlow argued that the need for a civil rights organization was self-evident. They decided to found EFF for the purpose of defending online civil liberties. They officially announced its creation at the National Press Club on July 10, 1990. According to the Stanford Social Innovation Review, it was "the first US nonprofit to focus specifically on the intersection of digital systems with everyday people's daily activities and civil liberties". It initially received corporate sponsorships from a number of technology and communications companies. |
Rewrite the founding account; condense the Operation Sundevil narrative (the Harper's conference, the Apple ROM floppies, the agent-tutoring anecdote, the Rabinowitz firm), which is not retained. Sources: Encyclopedia of New Media (Jones, 2002); Stanford Social Innovation Review (Bernholz, 2019); NYT Magazine (Bromberg, 1991); Duke Law & Technology Review (Cohn, 2019); The Baffler (Levine, 2018). Notes: the current article lists Gilmore as a co-founder (the revision makes him a financial supporter and adds Wozniak); and it says the early offices were in Boston (the revision says Cambridge). |
| 13 |
The organization was originally located at Mitch Kapor's Kapor Enterprises offices in Boston. |
The organization was incorporated in Massachusetts and initially headquartered at Kapor Enterprises offices in Cambridge. In its early days, EFF was "trying out different mixes of educating, lobbying, and litigating". One of its earliest significant efforts was Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Service. The Secret Service conducted a raid on the offices of Steve Jackson Games, seizing computer equipment and deleting personal emails. They also contended that the company's upcoming book GURPS Cyberpunk encouraged cybercrime. The Secret Service ultimately did not bring charges. EFF received publicity for its participation in a successful lawsuit against the Secret Service claiming that the seizures were illegal. It hired Mike Godwin as its first staff counsel. |
Correct the early HQ to Cambridge (Kapor Enterprises), add the Massachusetts incorporation, and add Steve Jackson Games and the hiring of Mike Godwin. Sources: Encyclopedia of New Media (Jones, 2002); Encyclopedia of Computer Science (McCandlish, 2003); LA Times (Harris, 2002); Stanford Social Innovation Review (Bernholz, 2019). Note: Boston in the current article becomes Cambridge. |
| 14 |
By the fall of 1993, the main EFF offices were consolidated into a single office in Washington DC, headed by Executive Director Jerry Berman. During this time, some of the EFF's attention focused on influencing national policy, to the dislike of some of the members of the organization. |
Early in its history, EFF was described in the media as "hacker defenders". It convened a policy forum in 1991 as part of a push into policymaking. It also began including activism opportunities in its newsletters in 1991, with a call for readers to oppose a proposed encryption ban. In the early 1990s, EFF began the discussion of moving its headquarters to Washington, DC, in an effort to have a more significant influence on policy. This discussion caused tension between the board and supporters, the latter of whom wanted to continue to emphasize litigation and develop formal chapters. Ultimately the move went ahead, and Jerry Berman was appointed executive director. |
Expand the Washington move (the "hacker defenders" label, the 1991 policy forum and newsletter activism, the board-supporter tension), with Berman as executive director. Sources: Encyclopedia of New Media (Jones, 2002); Stanford Social Innovation Review (Bernholz, 2019). |
| 15 |
(no counterpart in the current article; new material) |
In Washington, as part of the coalition Digital Privacy and Security Working Group, EFF lobbied against increased wiretapping by the FBI. However, unlike the American Civil Liberties Union, EFF did not advocate against the introduction of the Clipper chip. This decision caused alienation among its members, with Wired author Rogier van Bakel writing that "it was Washington that had reverse-engineered the EFF, driving it into dissension, debt, disgrace—and right out of town". Some EFF supporters continued to see the move to Washington as "selling out," particularly given that much of its funding during this period derived from corporations, which conflicted with the ideology of its "strongly libertarian online grassroots community". |
New material: the Washington period, including the Clipper chip decision and resulting member alienation (added critical perspective). Sources: Encyclopedia of New Media (Jones, 2002); Stanford Social Innovation Review (Bernholz, 2019); Wired (van Bakel, 1996). |
| 16 |
In 1994, Berman parted ways with the EFF and formed the Center for Democracy and Technology. [...] In 1995, under the auspices of Executive Director Lori Fena [...] the organization moved offices to San Francisco, California. |
These conflicts culminated in a restructuring in 1995, with EFF board voting to exit policymaking. Jerry Berman was fired as executive director and Kapor left EFF. Esther Dyson replaced Kapor as chair of the foundation. Berman founded a spinoff organization, the Center for Democracy and Technology. With EFF in significant debt, a much smaller staff moved to new headquarters in San Francisco. Gilmore donated its operational funding and office space. |
Revise the mid-1990s restructuring. Sources: Encyclopedia of New Media (Jones, 2002); NYT (Lewis, 1995); Encyclopedia of Computer Science (McCandlish, 2003); Stanford Social Innovation Review (Bernholz, 2019). Note: the current article dates Berman's exit and the CDT's founding to 1994 and credits Lori Fena with the San Francisco move; the revision dates the restructuring to 1995 and makes Esther Dyson chair. |
| 17 |
(no counterpart in the current article; new material) |
Over the next few years, EFF refocused on "its roots as a resister of government overreach". It initiated the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign, which saw hundreds of websites display a graphic opposing the Communications Decency Act. One of its first significant cases in the area of opposing online censorship was Bernstein v. United States (1996), in which the court ruled that computer code is considered speech and has the same protections as free speech under the US Constitution. In a similar case in 2000, Junger v. Daley, the court ruled that computer programs are protected free speech. Similarly, in MBTA v. Anderson (2008), EFF defended students from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who wanted to publicly present their academic work on a security vulnerability in the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's fare collection system. |
New material: early free-speech cases (Blue Ribbon Campaign, Bernstein, Junger, MBTA v. Anderson). Sources: Encyclopedia of New Media (Jones, 2002); Ars Technica (Farivar, 2015); Case Western Reserve Law Review (Cohn and Tien, 2007); The Tech (2008). |
| 18 |
(no counterpart in the current article; new material) |
In 1996, executive director Lori Fena agreed to co-launch TRUSTe, a set of voluntary standards for the tech industry related to privacy policies and practices. However, others in EFF "grew increasingly uncomfortable with such corporate relationships," and it was spun off into its own organization with Fena as its head in 1998. Fena also assumed the role of board chair from Dyson, and was replaced as executive director by Barry Steinhardt. At the time, the organization had an annual budget of $1 million and 3,000 members. |
New material: TRUSTe, Fena's move to board chair, Steinhardt as executive director, and the period's budget and membership. Sources: Stanford Social Innovation Review (Bernholz, 2019); CNET (1998); Wired (Vesely, 1998). |
| 19 |
By the mid-1990s the EFF was becoming seriously concerned about [...] key recovery [...] EFF coordinated and supported the construction of the EFF DES cracker (nicknamed Deep Crack) [...] costing $250,000. This brought the record [...] down to 56 hours on 17 July 1998 [...] (the full "DES cracker" section) |
EFF coordinated and supported the construction of the EFF DES cracker (nicknamed Deep Crack), which solved the second of the DES Challenges in 56 hours in July 1998. This demonstrated shortcomings in the Data Encryption Standard (DES). The next year on 19 January 1999 in conjunction with distributed.net it found the cipher in under 24 hours. Within four years the Advanced Encryption Standard was standardized as a replacement for DES. |
Condense the standalone DES cracker section into the timeline. Sources: Wired (Glave, 1999); IEEE Security & Privacy (Burr, 2003). Note: the revision drops the key-escrow framing, the $250,000 cost, and the exact "17 July 1998" date. |
| 20 |
(no counterpart in the current article; new material) |
Tara Lemmey was appointed executive director in February 1999. Internal dissent relating to corporate copyright protection resulted in another reorganization in 2000. Shari Steele assumed the role of executive director. Steele sought to diversify EFF's funding streams, including sales of promotional merchandise and coordinating the organization's first major foundation grant – $600,000 from the MacArthur Foundation in 2003. This funding allowed it to establish a focus area on digital intellectual property rights. In Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc. (2004), EFF successfully opposed DMCA take down notices for an archive of internal Diebold emails posted by Swarthmore College students. It defended the use of file-sharing software before the United States Supreme Court in MGM v. Grokster (2005), and although they were unsuccessful, "EFF portrayed it both then and now as a partial win" since the court overturned the Betamax doctrine. |
New material: Lemmey and Steele, the 2003 MacArthur grant, Diebold, and Grokster. Sources: Wired (1999); Encyclopedia of New Media (Jones, 2002); Stanford Social Innovation Review (Bernholz, 2019); Stanford Center for Internet and Society (2004); Ars Technica (Farivar, 2015). |
| 21 |
The Patent Busting Project is an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) initiative challenging patents that the organization describes as illegitimate and suppress innovation or limit online expression. The initiative launched on April 19, 2004, and involves two phases [...] (from the current "Patent Busting Project" section under Activities) |
The Patent Busting Project was an EFF initiative challenging patents that the organization describes as suppressing innovation or limiting online expression. The initiative launched on April 19, 2004, and involved documenting the damage caused by these patents, and submitting challenges to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In 2012, Mark Cuban endowed EFF's Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents to continue work on patent reform; he and Markus Persson both donated $250,000 to the effort. |
Relocate the Patent Busting Project into the timeline (past tense) and add the 2012 Mark Cuban Chair. Sources: Ars Technica (2008); ComputerWorld (2004); Wired (Mitroff, 2012). |
| 22 |
The EFF has long been an advocate of paper audit trails for voting machines and testified in support of them after the 2004 United States presidential election. Later, it funded the research of Hariprasad Vemuru [...] Since 2008, the EFF has operated the Our Vote Live website and database. (the "Enfranchisement activism" section) |
EFF has advocated for paper audit trails for voting machines and testified in support of them after the 2004 United States presidential election. In 2005, EFF announced it had decoded printer tracking dots, which link printed documents with specific printers. It subsequently developed an online tool to allow users to interpret dot patterns. |
Keep the paper-audit-trail advocacy; add the 2005 printer tracking dots work. Sources: Ars Technica (Lee, 2007); Al Jazeera/AFP (2005); BBC (2020). Note: the Vemuru EVM research and the "Our Vote Live" website are not retained. |
| 23 |
In the spring of 2006, the EFF announced the opening of an office again in Washington, D.C., with two new staff attorneys. |
By 2006, 60 to 70% of its work was in litigation. In that year, it reopened a Washington office, with two new staff attorneys. One of its most significant losses in the area of online privacy was Hepting v. AT&T (2006), a class action lawsuit against telecommunications companies for their cooperation in warrantless wiretapping by the National Security Agency. The FISA Amendments Act (2008) granted the companies retroactive immunity, rendering the suit moot. A similar case also filed by EFF, Jewel v. NSA (2011), was also unsuccessful. In an amicus brief for US v. Arnold (2008), EFF argued that searches of laptops by US Border Patrol officers constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. EFF represented Human Rights Watch in a 2015 lawsuit agains the Drug Enforcement Administration regarding the use of surveillance to counter drug trafficking; they dismissed the case after the government halted the program and destroyed its records. |
Expand the 2006 period (litigation share, reopened DC office) and add the major surveillance cases. Sources: Sydney Morning Herald (2006); CNET (McCullagh, 2006); Ars Technica (Farivar, 2015; Cheng, 2008); Wired (Kravets, 2009; Grauer, 2015); Christian Science Monitor (2015). Minor: "agains" should read "against". |
| 24 |
In 2011, the EFF received $1 million from Google [...] The Electronic Privacy Information Center and seven other privacy-focused nonprofits protested that [...] An additional $1 million was obtained from Facebook [...] In 2012, the EFF decided to move its headquarters from the Mission District to Eddy Street in San Francisco. |
In 2011, EFF was approved to receive $1 million in funding from Google as part of their settlement of a class-action lawsuit involving privacy violations by Google Buzz. It received a similar settlement from Facebook in 2012. It moved into its current premises on Eddy Street in 2012. |
Consolidate the Google and Facebook settlements and the Eddy Street move. Sources: Courthouse News (2011); Fortune (Parloff, 2012); Mission Local (2012). Note: the current article's detail that EPIC and others protested the Google settlement funding is not retained; consider keeping it for balance. |
| 25 |
In 2014, EFF released its Secure Messaging Scorecard which "evaluated apps and tools based on a set of seven specific criteria [...]" (from the current "Software" section; see row 9) |
EFF was one of the co-founders of Let's Encrypt, a non-profit that aimed to support implementation of HTTPS, in 2012. By 2016, Let's Encrypt had become the second-largest certificate authority worldwide. EFF launched a "Secure Messaging Scorecard" in 2014 outlining minimum standards for encryption of secure messages. In 2016, it launched Certbot, a Let's Encrypt client for website providers. In 2026, EFF announced the "Encrypt It Already" campaign to promote end-to-end encryption. |
Add the encryption-infrastructure history (Let's Encrypt, Certbot, "Encrypt It Already"); the Secure Messaging Scorecard moves here from the former Software section. Sources: University of Michigan (2016); Vice (2014); Security Week (2016); Dark Reading (2026). |
| 26 |
(no counterpart in the current article; new material) |
It helped coordinate the 2012 protests against SOPA and PIPA, opposing anti-piracy bills that would infringe online freedom of speech. The campaign generated more than one million letters to the US Congress and halted the bills. EFF submitted the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance to the UN Human Rights Council in 2013. |
New material: the 2012 SOPA/PIPA protests and the 2013 UN surveillance principles. Sources: Stanford Social Innovation Review (Bernholz, 2019); San Francisco Business Times (2013). |
| 27 |
(no counterpart in the current article; new material) |
EFF supported efforts by Public.Resource.Org to make available government documents and standards. Beginning in 2013, it represented Public.Resource.Org in several lawsuits in which standards organizations asserted copyright over works such as building codes which had been incorporated into law. |
New material. Sources: Cyberlaw Clinic (2020); Courthouse News (2013). |
| 28 |
(no counterpart in the current article; new material) |
EFF submitted an amicus curiae brief for the Supreme Court case Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014), which "held that an abstract idea is not eligible for a patent simply because it has been implemented on a generic computer". In 2017 it launched a series called "Saved by Alice" to profile businesses who benefited from the Supreme Court decision. |
New material: the Alice Corp. brief and "Saved by Alice". Sources: IP Watchdog (2014); Center for Internet and Society (2018); EFF (2017). |
| 29 |
(no counterpart in the current article; new material) |
Steele was replaced as executive director by Cindy Cohn in 2015. In Lenz v. Universal Music Corp (2015), a mother's clip of her toddler dancing to the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy" was subject to a takedown notice, and EFF successfully argued that the video was an example of fair use. In the same year, EFF successfully challenged Personal Audio's patent on podcasting. TechCrunch termed the decision, upheld on appeal in 2017, "a massive relief for the vibrant and ever-growing medium". It was among the leaders in the 2015 development of the Manila Principles, a set of international guidelines for online free expression. |
New material: Cohn as executive director and the 2015 cases (Lenz, Personal Audio, Manila Principles). Sources: Observer (2014); Stanford Social Innovation Review (Bernholz, 2019); BBC (2015); TechCrunch (Heater, 2017); Ars Technica (Moody, 2015). |
| 30 |
(no counterpart in the current article; new material) |
In 2016, EFF announced the formation of the "Electronic Frontier Alliance" (EFA). The EFA was "a grassroots network of community organizations in the United States supporting digital rights in their local communities". Local activities of EFA member groups included supporting community control over police surveillance in St. Louis and supporting a requirement for recorded explicit consensus for stop-and-frisk searches in New York City. The EFA was retired in November 2025. |
New material: the Electronic Frontier Alliance (2016) and its 2025 retirement. Sources: EFF (2016); Truthout (2017); Boing Boing (2018); Privacy Guides (Aragon, 2025). |
| 31 |
(no counterpart in the current article; the current article carries only an image caption, "EFF logo used until July 2018") |
In 2018, EFF introduced a new logo. It was designed by Michael Bierut for free because EFF defended Kate Wagner of McMansion Hell against a takedown request by Zillow. |
New material: the 2018 Bierut logo and the McMansion Hell defense. Source: Fast Company (2018). |
| 32 |
In the spring of 2018, the EFF joined the Open Technology Institute (OTI) [...] in writing The Santa Clara Principles. [...] Six months later, the same organizations sought the support of roughly 80 others [...] In 2019, the EFF and OTI delivered testimony about the Online Harms White Paper [...] Also in 2019, the EFF launched the website "TOSsed out" [...] (the full "Content moderation reform" section) |
In the spring of 2018, EFF joined the Open Technology Institute (OTI), the Center for Democracy & Technology, the ACLU Foundation of Northern California and four academics in writing The Santa Clara Principles: On Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation. The document sets out guidelines for social networks. In 2019, it was a leader of the SaveDotOrg campaign to present the sale of the Public Interest Registry to a private equity firm. Also in 2019, EFF delivered testimony about the Online Harms White Paper in the United Kingdom, commenting that several proposals to increase the amount of regulation on social media were open to abuse. |
Condense the content-moderation material into the timeline and add SaveDotOrg. Sources: TechCrunch (Hatmaker, 2018); PBS NewsHour (2020); Multichannel News (2019). Notes: the Santa Clara guideline bullets, the 80-organization Facebook letter, the sock-puppet update, the "TOSsed out" site, and the Cohn quotation are not retained; and "to present the sale" should read "to prevent the sale". |
| 33 |
On March 26, 2026, Nicole Ozer was named the Executive Director, succeeding Cindy Cohn, effective June 1, 2026. |
Nicole Ozer is scheduled to take over from Cohn as executive director in the summer of 2026. Ars Technica reports that she "plans to broaden support for EFF, bringing more unconventional voices into courts to spark a social movement strong enough to block the next wave of possible government tech abuses coming in the AI age." |
Update the leadership transition with sourced framing. Sources: The Register (Claburn, 2026); Ars Technica (Belanger, 2026). Note: the current article says Ozer was named March 26, 2026, effective June 1, 2026; the revision says "summer of 2026". |
| 34 |
The current "Publications" section: the three books (The Big Dummy's Guide to the Internet / Everybody's Guide to the Internet; Protecting Yourself Online; Cracking DES), Pwning Tomorrow with its list of 22 contributors, and a "How to Fix the Internet (podcast)" subsection. |
EFF's first book was published in 1993 as The Big Dummy's Guide to the Internet. MIT Press published it in paperback form in 1994 as Everybody's Guide to the Internet (ISBN 9780262571050). The organization's second book, Protecting Yourself Online (ISBN 9780062515124), an overview of digital civil liberties, was written in 1998 by Robert B. Gelman and EFF Communications Director Stanton McCandlish, and published by HarperCollins. A third book, Cracking DES: Secrets of Encryption Research, Wiretap Politics & Chip Design (ISBN 9781565925205), focusing on EFF's DES Cracker project, was published the same year by O'Reilly Media. A digital book, Pwning Tomorrow, an anthology of science fiction, was produced in 2015 as part of EFF's 25th anniversary activities. EFF's podcast "How to Fix the Internet" won Bronze at the Anthem Awards in 2024. |
Keep the three books and the podcast; trim minor detail and update citations. Sources: Wired (1993, 1998, Brown 1998, Sterling 2015); Social Science Computer Review (1995); Anthem Awards. Notes: the Pwning Tomorrow 22-author list is removed; and the podcast entry now specifies it won Bronze at the 2024 Anthem Awards (the current article says only "won a 2024 Anthem Award"). |
| 35 |
Three passages from the current article: the Hachette v. Internet Archive subsection; the EFF Cooperative Computing Awards (the $50,000 to $250,000 prime-number prizes) and the two-sentence "Awards" section introduction; and the "Other" subsection under Support (the 2011 Psychological Industries fundraising buttons and the June 2014 anti-surveillance blimp flown with Greenpeace over the NSA's Utah Data Center). |
(removed) |
These passages are not retained. The Cooperative Computing Awards intro is dropped because the EFF Awards move to Operations (row 11); the "Other" items are minor and largely primary-sourced. Note: the Hachette v. Internet Archive case was significant (the Second Circuit ruled against the Internet Archive in 2024), so consider keeping a brief sourced mention rather than removing it. |
| 36 |
Current section structure: Lead; History (Foundation; Expansion and development; DES cracker); Activities (Legislative activity; Litigation, with a Hachette v. Internet Archive subsection; Patent Busting Project; Enfranchisement activism; Content moderation reform); Awards (EFF Awards; EFF Cooperative Computing Awards); Publications (How to Fix the Internet podcast); Software; Support (Financial; Other). |
Proposed section structure: Lead; Issues and activities (Free speech; Privacy; Creativity and innovation; Transparency; International; Security); Operations; History (a single chronological narrative); Publications. |
Reorganize the article into thematic and chronological sections, improving topical organization and currency. Images were also updated (for example, the National Security Agency logo, the Privacy Badger logo, the Patent Busting Project logo, a Cindy Cohn portrait, and the Blue Ribbon Campaign graphic replace several video-conferencing background images). |
Displaying EFF_change_log_condensed.txt.