No, they spend an enormous time commenting on actions by private companies, including corporate surveillance. Maybe you've just paid attention for the last few days?
Meanwhile reliable critics of Google like Cory Doctorow have also been criticizing the ruling by the European Court of Justice, and if you read the link in that tweet
you'll see that the implications of that ruling actually are troubling. I think on the contrary, implying that being troubled by the ruling is equivalent to "defending Google's rights rather than defending individuals' rights" is disingenuous and intellectually lazy.
You can disagree with them, but it shouldn't be hard to empathize here: imagine someone who strongly believes in an American-style right to free speech; surely it's not beyond the realm of possibility that that person can't be both a vociferous defender of individual's rights while also worried about how this ruling will itself erode those rights?
If you believe that an (American style) right to free speech overrides the right to individiual privacy, you are not a privacy campaigner.
If you believe that Google and Facebook deserve full marks on any measure of privacy, and that deserves to be one of your key press releases, you are not a privacy campaigner.
I empathise with these attitudes amongst proponents of free speech, yes, even though I don't agree. If Cory Doctorow supports this, I disagree with him but I am not outraged. However, I don't empathise here: not at all. Here, I am outraged. EFF put 'privacy' as one of their key areas of work and they are amongst the best known privacy campaign groups.
When the European principles of Data Protection are upheld correctly (which rarely happens), the EFF creates a campaign which is against that ruling and in favour of Google's right to ignore the principles. They are speaking out against a fundamental of privacy: a basic principle regarding processing personal data. IMHO that is extremely anti-privacy.
Both of these points significantly harm real privacy campaigning, from a group which places itself as one of the defenders of privacy.
Meanwhile reliable critics of Google like Cory Doctorow have also been criticizing the ruling by the European Court of Justice, and if you read the link in that tweet
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/hidden-in-plain-sight
you'll see that the implications of that ruling actually are troubling. I think on the contrary, implying that being troubled by the ruling is equivalent to "defending Google's rights rather than defending individuals' rights" is disingenuous and intellectually lazy.
You can disagree with them, but it shouldn't be hard to empathize here: imagine someone who strongly believes in an American-style right to free speech; surely it's not beyond the realm of possibility that that person can't be both a vociferous defender of individual's rights while also worried about how this ruling will itself erode those rights?