If only the EFF had bothered to take up such Principled Stances against the prior Administration, which put all this infrastructure in place.
2016 - https://www.scmagazine.com/eff-files-amicus-brief-to-persuad...
2014 - https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-sues-nsa-director-nat...
2013 - https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/firstunitar...
2012 - https://www.wired.com/2012/08/eff-spy-documents/
2011 - https://www.wired.com/2011/12/dragnet-surveillance-case/
2) A FOIA case isn't exactly criticizing the administration on policy.
3) 4) and 5) the NSA suit originated against the GW Bush Administration. Quoting their own press release: "Specifically the EFF wants the government to make public a secret court ruling that found that the feds had broken a 2008 wiretapping law that was intended to legalize President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program."
To be intellectually honest about the public stances they take on issues they claim to support and rights they claim to defend, compare their press releases[1] from during the Obama Administration versus during the Trump administration (or GWB administration) with respect to identical, specific acts by the Obama administration.
Note specifically their silence on Internet Privacy (lost under Obama, then reimplemented in a weaker way and delayed) and on Net Neutrality (also lost under Obama and limited to a half-assed after-the-fact regulation change).
And they didn't even bother writing a press release on the subject[1].
The TPP is an interesting example given a lot of liberal media was very against it until it became a Trump issue and they flipped.
However this doesn't apply to the EFF that I've seen. The EFF is very consistent in their principles and they don't play partisan politics.
Building cases and maneuvering takes a long time and they have to be efficient with their funding.