It's not that surprising when you look at the arguements used in both cases. One of the most popular arguments against state intervention in social or economic matters, is that everyone should be responsible for themselves. The probably most common argument for PRISM & the likes is that if one has nothing to hid, he's got nothing to fear. Both are based on a very individual outlook on the world in general.
Besides, it's a general pattern that those in favor of "big government" usually are opposed to an increase in military activity and the likes.
The cyber world isn't going to stop anytime soon, its going to get worse. We will see more cyber attacks as a kind of warfare than the kind of warfare the world blames the US for. Anyone can attack anyone at anytime, literally, its as easy as finding out how online and giving yourself the time to teach yourself.
Here, and by the sound of many posting on Tuz, anyone pro-government is left of center. Ironically, those blaming the government for eavsdropping/spy are completely fine with the government telling them everything else they can/can't do: healthcare, school, careers, mandatory military time, etc.
Big obtrusive government but shame on you for spying.
- - - Updated - - -
Or people that are against big government are pro regulating what people on welfare buy. Or people that are against big government are pro spying. Yeah, it can be confusing at times. Not strange though, double speak in politics is nothing new.
Double speak. Good way to put it.