We create the idea of privacy in the U.S.

We choose to give away our privacy to commercial systems.

We vote for representatives who enable legislation that lets the government act as it does.

What Snowden's PRISM revelations illuminate are contrasts between commercial and civic approaches to our privacy. I think we're talking about two related notions:

1. An exchange of value

2. Respect for the customer/citizen

In a commercial system, I trade my preferences, connections, money and actions for the means to interact with various communities. I get something from the transaction. Both parties admit there are rules and there is an exchange.

In the civic realm, it's much less clear what, if any, benefits I derive from my government's decision to monitor all of my electronic communications. Maybe I voted for this. I know my taxes funded it. But the exchange is far from evident.

And that's the crux of our government's problem: By masking the exchange -- even going so far as to threaten legal prosecution for revealing there is a (one-sided) exchange -- the government is showing a lack of respect for its customer/citizens.

We can't handle the truth -- even though we paid for it?

The story of PRISM and privacy is all about power, of course. It is about fear. It's about who is "good" and who is "bad." It's about who is doing "right" and who isn't; who is achieving their goals, who isn't. It's about a few feeling they know better than the rest of us. It will be about covering ass and serving judgement.

This is, more or less, the same story we continue to see transpire in the commercial world after the arrival of the Internet.

And those brands who disrespect customers and the exchange ultimately suffer.

The customer/citizen can and should be trusted, empowered, welcomed.And transparent exchange works best -- for all parties.

We have the power to make these ideas work. Will we?