Disempowerment is a common theme here - it is the case that the 'general public' (read majority non-technical) are concerned about the current and future ramifications of this surveillance but feel disempowered because of how widespread it is, and i think this is because it is difficult to make reasonable changes in the immediate term to effect anything. This is of course excluding publicising/talking about the issues from a political point of view.

If telecoms company A proved to be betraying the trust of its customers, customers might find it reasonable to move their custom to telecoms company B - however the issue is that if both telecoms company A and B are both guilty of surveillance there is no feasible choice for the consumer.

The same can be said about political parties. If all major political parties support mass surveillance there is no viable alternative to support.