Here are some ways XMission protects your privacy:
Requires a warrant for data requests X
Informs users of government data requests X
Publishes a transparency report X
Publishes law enforcement guidelines X
Fights for users' privacy rights in courts X
Fights for users’ privacy rights in Congress X

Additionally, XMission goes above and beyond EFF criteria:
Supports net neutrality X
Against data mining of user information for marketing purposes X
Will establish peering relationships with anyone X
Supports open, municipal networks X

XMission Has Always Had Your Back

Our Response to the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Here are some ways XMission protects your privacy:
Requires a warrant for data requests X
Informs users of government data requests X
Publishes a transparency report X
Publishes law enforcement guidelines X
Fights for users' privacy rights in courts X
Fights for users’ privacy rights in Congress X

Additionally, XMission goes above and beyond EFF criteria:
Supports net neutrality X
Against data mining of user information for marketing purposes X
Will establish peering relationships with anyone X
Supports open, municipal networks X

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has decided not to include XMission in their 2014 “Who Has Your Back?” report. This report rates large, corporate content, cloud, and Internet providers based on their ability to protect user data from government requests. The EFF's hopes these behemoths will pay attention and maybe change their ways.

According to the EFF, the exclusion of XMission and many other established tech companies comes as a result of the EFF not having enough time and energy (“bandwidth”) to do research on regional providers. However, XMission feels like the EFF has not given local providers enough attention or credit. We have defended our customers privacy for 20 years–long before the NSA began mining the Internet and much longer than many of the corporations on the EFF list. If a mobile app founded in 2012 makes the list, why not XMission?

If the EFF won't take the time to review us, we'll review ourselves using their criteria.

  1. Requires a warrant for content

    EFF criteria:

    In this category, added to the report in 2013, companies earn recognition if they require the government to get a warrant supported by probable cause before they will hand over the contents of user communications.

    XMission's stance:

    XMission requires judicially-sanctioned court orders before handing over customer data. While we cooperate with law-enforcement when presented with valid warrants for specific information, we do not consider it our business to police our customers or their content.

  2. Tells users about government requests

    EFF criteria:

    This category requires a company to make a public promise to let users know when the government seeks access to their data, unless providing notice is prohibited by law or a court order.

    XMission's stance:

    As a customer of XMission, your data belongs solely to you, and we will do our best to safeguard your rights. XMission has consistently turned away all unconstitutional warrants and subpoenas during the past twenty years and will continue to do so. When we receive a warrant or request for information from the government, we will inform the affected user(s) unless prohibited by a court order. Our Transparency Report includes a full list of information requests from the federal government and XMission's response.

  3. Publishes transparency reports

    EFF criteria:

    In order to earn a gold star in this category, companies must provide reports on how often they provide data to the government. Users make decisions every day about which companies they will entrust with their data. It’s vital that companies are forthcoming about how often they hand that data to the government.

    XMission's stance:

    XMission presents a complete list of information requests and our response to those requests on our Transparency Report .

  4. Publishes law enforcement guidelines

    EFF criteria:

    We also evaluated whether companies publish their guidelines for law enforcement requests for user data. Law enforcement guides might provide insight into issues such as:

    • Whether a company requires a warrant for content;
    • What types of data a company retains, and what kind of legal process the company requires for law enforcement to obtain various kinds of information;
    • How long data is generally held by the company, and how long will it be held in response to a retention request;
    • Whether the company has an exception for specific emergency or other kinds of disclosures; and
    • Whether the company asks for reimbursement for the costs incurred in complying with a request for data.

    XMission's stance:

    • Whether a company requires a warrant for content;

      On our Privacy Policy, XMission states the following: All information logged by our various systems is also used for internal purposes only, and will not be released unless under a court issued warrant with the proper jurisdiction. XMission customers will be notified of all government and law-enforcement requests for their private data, whether done according to U.S. and Utah constitutions with a court issued warrant or improperly without.

    • What types of data a company retains, and what kind of legal process the company requires for law enforcement to obtain various kinds of information;

      XMission retains customer website client access logs indefinitely for analytics, but will remove or rotate them upon customer request. We retain server logs for up to 30 days for debugging purposes. XMission honors specific law enforcement requests for preservation; however, we require that law enforcement serve warrants for extraction. Our Tor server has zero log retention.

    • How long data is generally held by the company, and how long will it be held in response to a retention request;

      XMission will hold data for up to six months upon receipt of a specific retention request. If a subsequent warrant for the data is not served in that time, the data will be discarded.

    • Whether the company has an exception for specific emergency or other kinds of disclosures; and

      XMission makes a single exception for sharing customer contact information when processing a credit card. Otherwise, no customer data or demographic information is sold or shared without a warrant.

    • Whether the company asks for reimbursement for the costs incurred in complying with a request for data.

      Yes, XMission charges $250 per hour for administrative services.

  5. Fights for users' privacy rights in court

    EFF criteria:

    Companies earn recognition in this category by going to court to fight for their users’ privacy interests in response to government demands for information—companies that have actually participated as litigants and made legal arguments defending their users’ privacy rights. Such an action is powerful proof of a company’s commitment to user privacy and its willingness to fight back when faced with an overbroad government request.

    XMission's stance:

    XMission responded to the Utah Administrative Subpoena law by refusing all requests upon a constitutional basis. If the Utah Attorney General's office had chosen to challenge this in court, XMission would have met them. Thankfully, they most likely realized their challenge would fail for the same reason XMission refused to respond.

  6. Fights for users' privacy rights in congress.

    EFF criteria:

    While company policies are important, we shouldn’t be dependent on them to protect our privacy. The law should clearly protect the privacy of users even as technologies change. This is particularly important in the wake of the recent disclosures about mass surveillance, which show how far the government’s interpretation of the law has wandered from the statutory language and Congressional intent and how extensively the government has manipulated the legal language to try to provide leeway for surveillance abuses.

    XMission's stance:

    XMission has written letters and lobbied our congressional representation to protect the privacy of individuals on the Internet, not only against government overreach, but also against undisclosed commercial tracking.

Unlike the EFF, we feel that consumers benefit from additional issues often championed by the local or regional provider. These include:

  1. Supports net neutrality

    XMission's stance:

    XMission will not and will never inspect, control, or discriminate Internet traffic for monetary gain. If you buy a connection from XMission, you get unfettered, unrestricted access to the Internet, no matter if you’re a small nonprofit, or a large Fortune 100.

  2. Against data mining of user information for marketing purposes

    XMission's stance:

    With the exception of data required to provide service or facilitate billing, XMission will not sell, share, or rent any customer data or metadata to others. Please read our privacy policy to learn more.

  3. Will establish peering relationships with anyone

    XMission's stance:

    XMission knows that expanding our connectivity to major Internet peering points allows us to deliver client and hosting services faster and more reliably than ever. Because of this, XMission will always peer with other technology companies and content providers. XMission is open to colocating content caches for any entity for rapid delivery to our customers.

  4. Supports open, municipal networks

    XMission's stance:

    XMission believes that increased competition on open, municipally-owned networks leads to a better experience for consumers. If customers using municipal fiber have a poor experience with one provider, they simply switch to someone who better meets their needs and expectations.

    Having access to fiber-to-the-home means that American consumers can also compete internationally. For years, nations across the globe have enjoyed much faster Internet speeds than our incumbent telecommunications providers have offered. With municipal fiber, we can finally begin to catch up.

Please ask your provider how they stand on these issues. Buy local, and protect your rights!