The PRISM companies have been saying they 'have our backs' since that story broke, and it's more clear than ever that they were lying in those statements. (nota

The PRISM companies have been saying they 'have our backs' since that story broke, and it's more clear than ever that they were lying in those statements. (notably, see the material in Glenn Greenwald's recent book No Place to Hide about direct surveillance agency access to severs, in spite of coordinated statements from the companies denying precisely that. Not that most people found them credible back then.) What I'd like to know is who is acting to protect their users, and for a lot of the of the entries on this list I have negligible levels of trust that words and actions tell the same story. Still, all the star categories here are at least somewhat verifiable, and giving bad actors credit for improving is a good thing. I think this has limited value as a guide to what companies can be trusted, but great value as a survey about the response of U.S. society to the Snowden releases, and these trends look somewhat encouraging. Thanks EFF, for pointing the spotlight.