Are we doomed to a national surveillance state?

BUZZARDS BAY, Mass. — In the week since the UK’s Guardian newspaper broke the news that the US National Security Agency is monitoring the phone and web records of tens of millions of Americans, sales of George Orwell’s "1984" have skyrocketed.

A sudden interest in this 1949 dystopian classic — coining the phrase “Big Brother is watching you” — may indicate Americans are not quite as sanguine about government snooping as recent polls suggest.

Edward Snowden, who leaked the extraordinary details of US government eavesdropping, has certainly gained some global free-information cred. The revelations about the NSA's far-reaching PRISM surveillance program have vexed some of America's closest allies.

The UK government, already uneasy about housing WikiLeaker Julian Assange,  also appears concerned about becoming a haven for yet another fugitive uber-leaker. The British authorities have warned the world's airlines not to allow Snowden to fly there.

If nothing else, Snowden’s extraordinary decision to sacrifice his job, his home and perhaps even his freedom to bring the issue of government surveillance to the fore has ignited a heated debate over the acceptable limits of such monitoring.

Despite President Barack Obama’s spirited defense of the NSA program, many are calling for the program to be curtailed.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit this week against the Obama administration to stop the indiscriminate collection of call logs, and is asking that a judge order the compiled records destroyed.

The president has said that he welcomes the debate, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat of California, has offered to hold monthly hearings if necessary to put citizens’ concerns to rest.

The Senate Appropriations Committee promptly jumped in on Wednesday, summoning the NSA's director, Gen. Keith Alexander, to testify.

In his answers to senators’ questions, Alexander was at some pains to justify his agency’s conduct.