State's power to intrude closes net on citizens' right to privacy

The exposure of extensive United States governmental surveillance of American citizens' phone calls, emails and internet usage by Edward Snowden, a quickly-fired contractor for the National Security Agency, provoked memories of the 1950s, the time when I came of age in the US.

It was a time of fear. World War II's ending brought momentary exultation but, in fear of "the bomb", we kids drilled against attack with our heads under our desks. Soon many adults were trying to keep their heads down in the era shaped by McCarthyism.

Named after one Wisconsin senator and his "investigating" committee, the spate of committees dedicated to rooting out "un-American" activities fostered an atmosphere of suspicion and persecution, particularly of those who had in some way expressed sympathy or admiration for America's former ally, the Soviet Union.

At uni, a much-admired professor of neuroanatomy, Dr Marcus Singer, refused to name names before the much-dreaded House un-American activities committee on the grounds of honour and conscience.

The transcript indicates that the committee would not recognise "honour and conscience" as grounds for refusal, and Dr Singer was quarantined from contact with all students. It's a small irony that committee chairman J Parnell Thomas was, himself, later convicted and imprisoned for corruption.

But the chilling effect of those years meant that young people became fearful of signing any petition, no matter how inconsequential. The government had succeeded in squelching domestic dissent.

Snowden admitted he leaked the fact of surveillance. He claimed he did it so that American citizens could debate whether such surveillance was warranted, but instead he became the subject of debate.

A few defended his actions in the name of governmental transparency - many more excoriated him for making the secrets public and for breaking his oath of confidentiality.

The betrayal of trust by the government, by contrast, has not achieved as much attention. President Barack Obama's post-revelation claim that he welcomes debate about the issue of security versus protection of privacy seems weak - this was the same man who, as a candidate, railed against the Bush policies and claimed that we needed to be mindful lest in fighting those who would destroy us, we destroyed our own values.

There continues to be the most muted of debates, and two major arguments have been adduced in support of governmental surveillance:

One, the instrumental argument holds that we, as consumers, be it shopping or social networking, have - as a matter of convenience - ceded our privacy, putting private information, whether credit card numbers or personal preferences or more intimate personal details, freely on the internet.

Then there's the security argument - that such surveillance is necessary to protect citizens from attack.

The counter to these arguments is simply that however ill-advised may be the self-revelation on the internet, it is voluntary and done with some degree of informed consent. Governmental surveillance is an imposed intrusion.

As to security, the government has yet to give an example of a plot foiled through this technology. Attacks which have happened - from 9-11 to the Boston Marathon bombing - occurred despite intelligence warnings, largely due to inept communication between intelligence and police agencies.

Meanwhile, the Obama government, like this one in New Zealand, claims its actions are "legal" even if authorised after the fact. These governments say: "You have nothing to worry about if you've done nothing wrong." To these ears, those words asking for implicit and explicit trust in the government are themselves cause for concern, sounding eerily like George Orwell's "Big Brother".

Perhaps the current crop of government mean no harm to the democracy, but granted that power - and governments don't easily relinquish power - how can we be sure about the bunch to follow, or the ones after that?