The methodology is simple enough. The EFF looks at 18 prominent tech companies including Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, Apple, and Amazon, and judges them based on 6 different categories (up from 4 last year). It then awards stars to the companies if their actions in those categories are on the side of protecting user rights.

This year, Twitter and ISP Sonic.net were the only two companies to receive full 6-star ratings from the EFF. Last year, they were the top two performers in the report, scoring a 3.5 and 4 star rating, respectively.

Here are the 6 categories that the EFF looks at for their report:

1. Does the company require a warrant for content of communications?
2. Does the company tell users about government data requests?
3. Does the company publish transparency reports?
4. Does the company publish law enforcement guidelines?
5. Does the company fight for users’ privacy rights in court?
6. Does the company fight for users’ privacy in Congress?

Verizon and Myspace received zero stars, while Apple, AT&T, and Yahoo received 1 star. On the flip side, Dropbox, Google, LinkedIn, and Spideroak got nearly perfect marks, coming in with 5 stars out of 6.

Readers of this year’s annual privacy and transparency report should be heartened, as we are, by the improvements major online service providers made over the last year. While there remains room for improvement in areas such as the policies of location service providers and cellphone providers like AT&T and Verizon, certain practices – like publishing law enforcement guidelines and regular transparency reports – are becoming standard industry practice for Internet companies.

And we are seeing a growing, powerful movement that comprises civil liberties groups as well as major online service providers to clarify outdated privacy laws so that there is no question government agents need a court-ordered warrant before accessing sensitive location data, email content, and documents stored in the cloud.

Remember: you entrust most of these companies with almost everything in your digital life – photos, personal info, location, financial info. It’s important to know exactly where each stands in terms of protecting that info against prying eyes. The EFF warns that the absence of a star doesn’t necessarily mean that the company is thwarting user rights in that category – it simply may mean that they haven’t been given the chance to defend user rights in that arena. Here’s the EFF’s full star report:

Gaymer is a broad term used to describe members of the LGBT community, who also happen to be avid gamers. The terms has been around since the early 90s, according to the EFF.

r/gaymers is a subreddit with over 21,000 subscribers. There, members of the gaymer community discuss games, host video chats, schedule multiplayer sessions – you know, gamer stuff. A lot of the content posted to r/gaymers doesn’t necessary have to do with gaming – some of it centers on the LGBT experience. They’ve been under attack from Chris Vizzini, “gaymer” trademark owner and operator of the website gaymer.org. He sent a cease and desist letter to r/gaymers back in August of 2012, requesting that reddit “cease and desist any further use of gaymer in association with reddit’s services and requested that reddit respond to the letter by assuring Registrant of reddit’s compliance with the terms of the letter.”

Instead of complying with that request, members of r/gaymers lawyered up and now they have the EFF on their side, who have filed a petition against Vizzini’s registered trademark on the “gaymer” term.

You can check out the full petition here.

Vizzini has taken to reddit (about 4 months ago, around the time of the cease and desist letter) to defend his position:

As a trademark and word mark holder, it’s my responsibility to defend the marks, otherwise I could lose them.

I started Gaymer.org in 2003 and began to build Gaymer as a brand. Thats why I trademarked and word marked the name. At that time, there was only one other site around dedicated to gay gamers. I have spent countless hours and thousands of dollars on Gaymer.org. I have done so gladly as it’s brought happiness to many people.

I have received many nasty emails and comments on my site, not to mention what’s been said on the reddit site.

I cannot stress this enough. I have no problem with other gay gaming sites. I think it’s great others exist. The only problem I have is when the Gaymer name is used. That infringes on the word mark. A perfect example of this is gaygamer.net. Its a great website for gay gamers but does not use “gaymer” in its name therefore I have no problem.

He went on to say that he didn’t want the r/gaymer subreddit removed, just renamed.

Member or r/gaymer and the EFF don’t buy it, however.

“This registration should never have been granted,” said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. “Gaymer is a common term that refers to members of this vibrant gaming community, and we are happy to help them fight back and make sure the term goes back to the public domain where it belongs.”

And here’s what r/gaymer mod ozuri had to say in a lengthy post:

Personally, I rely on intellectual property law for my livelihood. I work in video games and my career benefits directly from the existence and enforcement of trademark and copyright law (though I am acting here simply as an individual and do not represent my company in any fashion). So I’m not someone who is anti-intellectual property protection. For me, digital IP protection is about not penalizing creative people in the digital space simply because they lack the ability to protect their ideas the same way they can in the physical world. I also believe that spurious claims like the one asserted by gaymer.org undermine the legitimacy of the system and give breath to a vocal group of individuals who believe that the system is inherently broken.

Second, reddit is not a haven for trademark infringement. They will not protect you if you infringe a trademark. But this case isn’t about infringement, it’s about harassment and the enforcement of an illegitimately granted trademark. Specifically, we believe that an entity should not be allowed to co-opt a group’s identity for personal enrichment, power, or ego.

So the actions we have taken are not because we don’t believe in intellectual property protection. They are because we believe the term “gaymer” is a word that should remain in the public domain, free for use and not “owned” by any particular individual or organization.

It’s an interesting case, as it appears that reddit’s LGBT gaming community isn’t backing down. What do you think about the trademark? Should the term “gaymer” be able to be registered?

Mark Cuban and Markus “Notch” Persson have each donated $250,000 dollars toward the EFF’s goal of reforming software patent laws. Cuban is the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks and Notch is the outspoken creator of the popular video game Minecraft.

“The current state of patents and patent litigation in this country is shameful,” said Cuban. “Silly patent lawsuits force prices to go up while competition and innovation suffer. That’s bad for consumers and bad for business. It’s time to fix our broken system, and EFF can help. So that’s why part of my donation funds a new title for EFF Staff Attorney Julie Samuels: ‘The Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents’.”

Cuban has been outspoken in the past about his hatred of patent trolls and poor patent laws. Back in April 2012, Cuban ranted about the current state of technology patents while discussing a lawsuit between Facebook and Yahoo.

Notch pioneered a pricing model for Minecraft based on how finished the game was at the time of purchase. He also founded Mojang, a new Swedish indie-game developer that has taken in over $80 million since the release of Minecraft.

“Temporary fixes aren’t good enough – we need deep and meaningful reform to protect software development and keep it as free and democratic as possible,” said Notch. “New games and other technological tools come from improving on old things and making them better – an iterative process that the current patent environment could shut down entirely. This is a dangerous path we’re on, and I’m glad to help EFF move us in the right direction.”

The EFF’s Defend Innovation project proposes seven ways in which the U.S. patent system could be reformed for the better, including shorter terms for software patents; allowing winning parties in patent litigation to recover fees and costs; and protecting inventors who independently invent an already patented idea. The organization stated that the Cuban/Notch donations will go to the hiring of a new attorney experienced in patent reform and to the organization’s continuing efforts to push for patent reform through the courts, activism campaigns, and public education.

The EFF announced today that it has uncovered four patents that “seem overly broad and dangerous to the open source community.” They fear that the applicants could use these patents to create a monopoly on technology that “was known or was obvious before the patent was filed.”

To achieve their goals, the EFF is calling upon volunteers to look for documents published before the filing of the patents. These documents must prove prior art so that the patents in question will not be granted on the grounds that the techniques described in them already existed.

The EFF has already done much of the grunt work. Each of the four patents have links to some prior art that the group has already found. There’s always a need for more, however, as more evidence of prior art will help convince the patent office that the patents in question are illegitimate.

Here’s the four patents that the EFF is currently targeting with the links to each patent’s prior art documents:

Target 1: U.S. PATENT APP. NO. 12/976,111
PRINT HEAD ASSEMBLY FOR USE IN FUSED DEPOSITION MODELING SYSTEM

This application relates to inkjet-style removable print head cartridges used in Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) printing.

Target 2: U.S. PATENT APP. NO. 12/976,204
PRINT HEAD FOR USE IN FUSED DEPOSITION MODELING SYSTEM

This application relates to a print head cartridge with a liquefier pump assembly for use in FDM printing.

Target 3: U.S. PATENT APP. NO. 12/687,996
METHOD FOR GENERATING AND BUILDING SUPPORT STRUCTURES WITH DEPOSITION-BASED DIGITAL MANUFACTURING SYSTEMS

This application relates to a method of building up support structures layer-by-layer for 3D-printed objects.

Target 4: U.S. PATENT APP. NO. 13/043,876
BUILD MATERIALS AND APPLICATIONS THEREOF

This blandly-titled application relates to 3D printing with a material that can be cured (particularly with UV light), and also claims every object that is printed with such a method.

If you happen to find any more cases of prior art for the above patents, you can send them over to the EFF at 3dprinting@eff.org.

It’s not guaranteed that these patents will be granted. Even if they are, the applicants may not use them to restrict 3D printing in any noticeable way. With that being said, we’re already seeing companies who own 3D printing patents suing startups that are creating cheaper 3D printers. The complaints may be legitimate, but some feel that established 3D printers are trying to squash competition before it becomes too big of a threat to their business.

Android players, and PC gamers, can pay as much, or as little, as they want for five excellent games. Those games are Splice, Eufloria, Waking Mars, Crayon Physics Deluxe and Superbrothers: Sword & Sworcery EP. Those who beat the average of $5.89 will also get the charming Machinarium. All the game sare playable on Android, Windows, Mac and Linux.

Many of these games are already available on the PC, Mac, Linux and iOS, but it’s the first time any of these games have been available on Android. Superbrothers: Sword & Sworcery is an especially welcome addition as iOS players have been gushing about the game for over a year now. Android players will finally get to experience one of the finest games, and soundtracks, of the touch generation.

In the past, the Humble Bundle has brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars for developer and groups like EFF and Child’s Play Charity. Even if you already own some of the games on offer, it’s always good to send some money to the groups working to make the world a better place.

Even better, you could gift the games to a friend who doesn’t own any of them. It’s a cheap early Christmas gift that offers many hours of entertainment.

As the EFF points out, many of the core patents regarding 3D printers have expired or will soon expire. This opens up the potential for a whole new wave of innovation in the 3D printing scene from independent engineers and others. The only problem is that there are those who would file or extend patents in 3D printing to keep this technology out of the hands of the open hardware community, and the EFF says that’s no good.

So what are they going to do about it? They’re asking for the community’s help in identifying new patents that threaten the open nature of 3D printing. They’re doing this through the America Invents Act, a new law that lets regular folks submit prior art to patent examiners. The EFF and the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society will use these prior art submissions to challenge 3D printer patent applications that threaten the future of the technology.

Patents can be used for good, but they are increasingly being used to stifle creativity and innovation. 3D printing is one technology that does not need this as most of the major innovations in the field over the last few years have come from the open hardware community. Overzealous patent litigation could only hamper innovation in a field that is just starting to realize its utmost potential.

Ars Technica reports that Hepting v. AT&T – a class-action lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the immunity provision – has been rejected by the Supreme Court. This knocks the ruling back down to the Appeals Court who ruled in favor of the government’s right to protect telecoms from legal action over their wiretapping program.

It’s important to note that this particular case was about the immunity provision. All this ruling means is that telecoms have immunity when it comes to handing over your data to the feds. The Obama administration argued that allowing lawsuits to go forward would imperil national security. How? Telecoms would be unwilling to hand over customer data if they could be sued for it. It’s apparently imperative that the U.S. government know your late night drunk texts if they’re going to stop terrorism.

There’s still one more chance to kill off FISA’s warrantless wiretapping provisions. The EFF will be proceeding with Jewel v. NSA shortly. This particular case goes after FISA’s jugular by fighting to prove that the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens is unconstitutional. It also targets those responsible for signing the FISA amendments into law, including former President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and other members of the former administration.

Unfortunately, Jewel v. NSA is probably going to be shot down by the Supreme Court as well. The consensus among those in government is that your privacy can be completely destroyed in the name of your safety. Never mind the possibility that hackers could easily gain access to this information and destroy countless lives before terrorists even have a chance to act. In an increasingly digital world, we need laws that protect privacy. Eroding privacy in the name of physical safety only opens us up to far more devastating cyber attacks.

Are you concerned about this new addition? Let us know in the comments.

Almost as soon as the Blogosphere was able to react to the news, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) put out its own post about it. Julie Samuels and Mitch Stoltz with the EFF write, “Earlier this summer, we applauded Google for releasing detailed stats about content removal requests from copyright holders. Now that we know how they are going to use that data, we are less enthusiastic.”

The two go on to express concerns with how “opaque” Google is being about the process, despite Google’s claim that it will “continue to be transparent about copyright removals.”

The EFF’s concerns are the vagueness of what Google considers to be a high number of removal notices, how Google plans to make its determinations, and how “there will be no process of recourse for sites who have been demoted.”

Google does say that it will “continue to provide ‘counter-notice‘ tools so that those who believe their content has been wrongly removed can get it reinstated.”

“In particular, we worry about the false positives problem,” says the EFF. “For example, we’ve seen the government wrongly target sites that actually have a right to post the allegedly infringing material in question or otherwise legally display content. In short, without details on how Google’s process works, we have no reason to believe they won’t make similar, over-inclusive mistakes, dropping lawful, relevant speech lower in its search results without recourse for the speakers.”

“Takedown requests are nothing more than accusations of copyright infringement,” the EFF addds. “No court or other umpire confirms that the accusations are valid (although copyright owners can be liable for bad-faith accusations). Demoting search results – effectively telling the searcher that these are not the websites you’re looking for – based on accusations alone gives copyright owners one more bit of control over what we see, hear, and read.”

The EFF concludes by saying that Google’s “opaque policies” threaten lawful sites and undermine confidence in search results.

The EFF is not the only group to quickly speak out about the announcement. Public Knowledge, a consumer rights group, also put out a much longer response.

We also received the following statement from Public Knowledge Senior Staff Attorney, John Bergmayer:

“It may make good business sense for Google to take extraordinary steps, far beyond what the law requires, to help the media companies it partners with. That said, its plan to penalize sites that receive DMCA notices raises many questions.

“Sites may not know about, or have the ability to easily challenge, notices sent to Google. And Google has set up a system that may be abused by bad faith actors who want to suppress their rivals and competitors. Sites that host a lot of content, or are very popular, may receive a disproportionate number of notices (which are mere accusations of infringement) without being disproportionately infringing. And user-generated content sites could be harmed by this change, even though the DMCA was structured to protect them.

“Google needs to make sure this change does not harm Internet users or the Internet ecosystem.”

It’s going to be quite interesting to see how Google’s new policy/signal holds up to abuse, and whether or not we see fair use significantly jeopardized.

Tell us what you think about the change in the comments.

The Internet Defense League is the latest group to fight for civil liberties online. They’re not as well-established as the ACLU or EFF, but their latest idea might just put them on the map. They are going to help celebrate the launch of The Dark Knight Rises by shining a “cat signal” via massive spotlights in cities around the world.

The IDL will begin shining the lights across the sky or onto buildings starting Thursday night. They currently have five cities set up to get the cat signal, but they need your help to make it a reality. They are currently holding a Kickstarter-like fundraiser on their Web site with a goal of $19,000. They are currently at $12,852 which is enough to completely fund two cat signals and prepare three more cities for the signal once they get the funds.

So what kind of goodies do you get if you donate to this wonderful project? A donation of $30 gets you a personal cat signal torch light. If you want to get your own large cat signal, you’re going to have to donate at least $350. That amount nets you an industrial-strength digital projector for one night which can project the cat signal onto buildings or low-flying clouds.

What if you want to go all out though? For $2,000, they will get you a “ridiculously powerful” spotlight to shine the cat signal wherever you want. There are only eight of these things in the United States so the money is well worth it.

If you want to take part in the cat signal Batman party on Thursday night, these are the currently confirmed cities – San Francisco, New York, Washington DC, London and Ulaar Bataar, Mongolia.

All in all, it’s a great idea that has the Batman fan in me pretty excited. I would have loved to see the real Bat signal in the sky, but a cat signal is definitely more in line with what the Internet is about. Let’s just hope the signal doesn’t attract the real Catman.

BART allegedly had information from a “credible” source that protesters had planned to disrupt transit on August 11, 2011, to demonstrate against the killing of Hill. BART believed that the protesters had planned to organize via cell phone communication, so between 4PM and 8PM, the time that protesters had planned to gather, BART shutdown cell phone service throughout parts of its system.

The attempt to disrupt the protesters was widely condemned and it’s been said that the move may even have been illegal. Pro-democracy groups have decried BART’s decision to jam cell phones, saying it’s a violation of rights protected by the First Amendment. Sherwin Siy, of Public Knowledge, detailed the ways in which such an action by a government entity violates the Federal Communications Act. The EFF has submitted comments to the FCC about the cell phone jamming, comparing the act to similar practices in countries with oppressive governments, Egypt and Syria, and saying that it violates the public’s First Amendment rights.

Yesterday, BART defended its actions in a letter to the FCC, saying that the temporary interruption of cell phone service was “a necessary tool to protect passengers and response to potential acts of terrorism or other acts of violence.” The letter, written by BART General Manager Grace Crunican, goes on to enumerate fantastic scenarios including cell phones disguised as bombs used to kill passengers and flood the transit tunnels.

As much as that is a truly spectacular fantasy, the act of protest is much, much older than cell phone technology and so, even though protesters may have been relying on the devices as a means to organize, shutting down cell phone service is no way to prevent protesters from causing disruptions in the transit system. Further, the shutdown hindered the ability of transit passengers who probably need that service, too.

Although BART has since ratified a new policy that states the organization will not turn off cell phone service in circumstances like that of the August 2011 shutdown, the actions of BART set a dangerous precedent for other governments to use similar tactics. It is with this caution that the advocacy groups have requested that the FCC expressly forbid any body of government from resorting to a cell phone shutdown in the future. Hopefully, the FCC will take their words to heart.