There are a lot of ways to answer this question (for example: by appealing to human nature of those in power; appealing to 1984's description; appealing to hist

There are a lot of ways to answer this question (for example: by appealing to human nature of those in power; appealing to 1984's description; appealing to history, such as all the governments where anybody had to watch what they say over the telephone.) But the simplest is this: suppose someone gets to watch whenever my girlfriend and I have sex, and make comments about us (interrupting, us, etc.) and suppose that someone is the government and we have no choice about whether to have a live commentary. Is it possible that this does not equate to totalitarian rule? No, it is not possible, because nobody would choose to have that happen, people have an expectation of privacy and so it is totalitarian for the government to have a say into this private communication and relationship. This is a generalization of private communication and privacy: people simply have a right to a "protocol" of privacy. That means the government is automatically by definition totalitarian if it removes the possibility of this protocol, by acknowledging that it is overseeing it. (This is an extreme example, but imagine you can no longer tell your friend a joke, because you have to include the government in on the joke. If they don't get it they will just come up to you later ask, "Hi, I'm the one who was surveilling you. Could you explain the joke about the blonde and the physicist, I didn't get it.") You may think that my two examples are extreme: but they're not - on a human protocol level, this is exactly what happens when surveillance of private communication and relationships occurs and is acknowledged. It's not possible for it not to be authoritarian. That's why I am very happy that these things are denied by the government. It would be a much scarier, and far worse world, if they weren't. People simply have a right to privacy, that you and I and everyone enjoys, it's best if it is never broken by anyone. They relinquish that right only when they do something like create a ransomware virus or some brazen criminal act that hurts everyone. You can't say it doesn't happen, because it does every day. If the government has no extraordinary powers in these cases, that means it's up to everyone to personally armor up. That's a ridiculous waste of resources, and one of the primary reasons we have a government to begin with! (Public safety.)