This doesn't follow. All it shows that it increases transparency and a goverment can't pretend to be a democracy while running a total surveillance operation ag

This doesn't follow. All it shows that it increases transparency and a goverment can't pretend to be a democracy while running a total surveillance operation against public interest and funded by the public on the side. Non democratic governments are not the benchmarks for democratic behavior by definition. Governments in countries like Kazakstan and China have already made it clear they are not interested in privacy and its for their citizens and social structures to respond. Countries like the US and UK claim to the defenders of democracy but are running equally intensive surveillance operations on the side, and in this case without outliers like Snowden we won't even know. So let this debate happen in the open so citizens and the state can reach an acceptable consensus on checks and balances. It would also be a good idea to remove the emotional threats of terrorism that are used to manipulate and manufacture outcomes from this debate. There is a long history of government abuse of power that citizens cannot ignore. There needs to be more accountability of US and UK relations with Saudi Arabia and its 30 year funding of wahhabism globally. The effects of this and geopolitical games cannout be brushed aside as they are fundamental to terrorism today. Without terrorism there is essentially no debate and citizens will not give up their rights for day-to-day law and order problems.