Jay Cline: A growing cultural divide on privacy

First of all, America is split on Snowden. American adults have maintained a steady ambivalence about the leaker throughout the summer, President Carter and the EU notwithstanding. Quinnipiac University ran the only outlier polls, which in July and August reported that 55% of adults thought Snowden was a hero, versus 35% thinking he was a traitor. The average of all these polls is a 41% to 41% tie.

What's going on here? Are Americans simply divided along the familiar red-conservative and blue-liberal battle lines?

The new Lares Institute poll released last week sheds new light on these questions.

When allowed to choose from a variety of statements about him, less than a third say he fully deserves either the title of hero or traitor. By a 3-to-1 ratio, respondents think he was probably intending to help instead of harm the United States, but by a 4-to-1 ratio, they think he should have made his case in the American courts.

If Snowden hadn't sought refuge with America's geopolitical rival Russia, he'd be soaring in the polls right now. He'd be a neo-Patrick Henry instead of the latest Benedict Arnold. The first thing our views of Snowden say about us is that we value loyalty to the country as much as or more than we value reforming the country.

The Lares poll taught us the second lesson: that our views vary by region. Adults in New England more than any of the other eight U.S. census regions believe that Snowden's actions, however flawed, were well intentioned. What this means is that politicians from New England stand the most to gain by championing Snowden's cause.

Our views also vary by age. All age groups measured by Lares registered more people saying Snowden was a traitor than a hero, except one: those aged 18 to 25 (see Chart 3). This finding is important because it suggests that the longer America's surveillance programs persist at their present level of invasiveness, the more they could lose support if this youthful opposition is a permanent generational mind-set instead of a passing phase of youth. There will be more young Snowdens.

Chart 3: American adults' views of Snowden's actions, by age

When asked which of six statements about Snowden they agreed with, 22% of respondents aged 18 to 25 agreed that he was a "hero," and 18% said he was a "traitor," yielding a 1.2 ratio.

Has the surveillance been worth it?

I wrote last month that Snowden seems to be making the anti-CISO case: that all of the money spent on the U.S. government surveillance programs and their potential threats to liberty has not produced a worthwhile security return on investment. Americans are evenly divided on this question as well.

Here's a wrap-up of how we're valuing the security/liberty trade-off:

* The Patriot Act threatens liberty. The EconomistYouGov polls asked three times this summer if the Patriot Act "goes too far and poses a threat to civil liberties." The combined results: 44% said yes, while 37% said the act is necessary to fight terrorists.

* Freedom has been lost. The AP-NORC poll on Aug. 15 asked: "As a result of steps taken by the government to fight terrorism, do you feel you lost some of your own personal freedoms, or not?" A slight majority, 51%, said no, while 48% said yes, a statistical tie.

* But it was necessary. The same AP-NORC poll asked respondents if this loss of freedoms was necessary. A stronger 53% said yes, while 44% said no.

* It was almost worth the cost. The EconomistYouGov polls posed the following question on June 10 and again on Sept. 9: "Since September 11, 2001, the United States has fought against the threat of terrorism through military operations abroad and increased security and surveillance inside of the United States. Do you think these actions have been worth the cost?" The combined results: 38% said no, and 37% said yes, a statistical dead heat.

* But it won't get any better. The AP-NORC poll looked forward and asked: "Looking ahead 10 years from now, which comes closest to your view of how the rights and liberties you have will have changed?" A solid 52% said, "On balance you will probably lose more freedoms than you will gain," while only 37% agreed with the choice "There won't really have been any net loss or gain in the amount of freedoms compared with what you have today."

All these polls taken together reflect an America that is mostly resigned to accept the current security/freedom trade-off -- but not happy about it, and so very much primed to change its mind.

Which surveillance measures most gall our sense of freedom?

It may well be that our uneasy equilibrium with the current surveillance state depends on our perception about the types of surveillance measures that are employed. If those perceptions change as a result of further revelations, our support could also change.

On three occasions in June, the EconomistYouGov poll asked respondents for their views on what level of judicial approval, if any, is required for an array of different surveillance measures. Table 1 summarizes the clear results: The widest majorities of Americans believe intrusions upon the private space of home, personal device and vehicle require a warrant. We next value the privacy of our personal communications, followed by the metadata of our transactions, and lastly by our movements within public view.

Table 1: American adults' views of surveillance measures requiring a warrant

Snowden's leaks so far portray a surveillance apparatus that primarily monitors the public space and personal metadata. If the promised series of articles of Glenn Greenwald -- the Guardian reporter who interviewed Snowden in Hong Kong and reportedly received 50,000 files from him -- show the government intruding upon private data and private space, American public opinion could start to move more decidedly into the Snowden camp and against Washington.

Endgame: Falling public trust

The Snowden leaks are playing out against a broader backdrop of eroding public trust in just about every institution. The 2008 financial crisis undermined our confidence in the financial sector and "too big to fail" corporations. Plagiarism and the perception of increasing partisanship within the mass media have prompted a loss in their credibility. Similarly, heightening partisanship within Congress and even the Supreme Court has sunk our support of them to record lows. Table 2 summarizes the most recent trust numbers across key public and private institutions.

Table 2: Americans' levels of trust and support

in public institutions