The problem is, it's mostly supported by individuals, not the industry. And there are a lot more individuals interested in gun rights than electronic rights. It has a budget that's a tiny fraction of the NRA's.
In the sense that they're defending our rights, yes you could say it's EFF.
But I'm a little worried about the idea of EFF having to lobby Congress the way NRA does (by paying them). I wouldn't want EFF to become a corrupted organization because it starts receiving a ton of money from the industry instead of the users.
> I wouldn't want EFF to become a corrupted organization
I don't think any NRA member thinks they are corrupted. They are doing the exact job they are supposed to given the rules of Washington DC. Like the ACLU and other rights organization they know to defend the extremes because the first compromise will not be the last. Sadly, there is no room for reasonable where rights are concerned.
I don't think any House or Senate member fears the EFF during election time. If we want the 4th amendment to be defended, then we need an organization they do fear.
Yes, but there is a big difference (at least in my mind). While the notion of the right to bear arms is conceptual, what it aims to protect is actually tangible (Iron and Lead) and people would feel impacted (can't go hunting, or could not 'protect themselves', the latter being less tangible.)
So it would have to appeal to people differently. Psychologically, 'privacy' is higher up the hierarchy than 'security' and 'food'. I think that's one of the main hurdles.
Is gun industry bigger than Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, eBay, Rackspace, Godaddy, etc. combined? The latter are directly affected by the government policies regarding privacy and certainly their clients would appreciate their companies standing up for their rights. The users should just be more vocal in expressing it. Maybe if you're just a hobbyist who nobody knows your voice won't be heard, but if you're a known person in tech would, people would take notice.
The total revenue of the gun industry (which doesn't count a lot of ancillary things like hunting lodges) is 1/8th of Google's---which points out one way this analogy isn't useful. We gun owners are powerful because they're are a lot of us, we're organized, and we vote.
Getting Google et. al. to resist this requires an entirely different approach.
But, then again, it's only because we're politically organized, and had to do so in self-defense starting in the '70s, that this came about. But if a prominent Internet company lost 40% of its business due to privacy issues that would get serious attention.
The problem is, it's mostly supported by individuals, not the industry. And there are a lot more individuals interested in gun rights than electronic rights. It has a budget that's a tiny fraction of the NRA's.