The recent news of the PRISM surveillance program, authorized by federal judges working under the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it possible for the US National Security Agency to indiscriminately gain access to servers of nine Internet companies, namely Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple, and sweep up massive amounts of data, has triggered a new round of debate on the controversial trade-off between personal privacy and national interests.

It seems that this time the American public is in favor of the government's intrusion into personal privacy for the sake of national security. According to a survey of 1,004 people conducted by Pew for the Washington Post, 56 percent stand with the government and accept that this secret program helps fight terrorism, while 41 percent view it as unacceptable. By way of defense, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that PRISM is "entirely appropriate for a program to exist" because it can safeguard national security interests. However, a still considerable number of people fear that their private communications are no longer private in a nation that has long prided itself on its freedom.

In fact, the answer to the question of which is more important - national interests or privacy - has long been a controversial one. For a long time, the interests of the country indisputably came before interests of individual. With the continuous growth of the awareness of individual rights, the absolute dominant position of national security has had to give way to public concerns over privacy. 

A balance has to be struck between the two, as US President Barack Obama said in response to public concerns over PRISM: "You can't have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience." However, the difficulty lies in defining the critical point in the relationship between the two and how to strike that balance, not only in the US, but also in most countries across the world.

The development of Internet technology is reshaping the boundaries of the relationships between different societies and different nations. In terms of capability, the US is undoubtedly a superpower in the Internet and can determine its fate. To a great extent, the future of the Internet - whether it becomes a dark forest that follows the law of the jungle or a public tool serving the interests of mankind - depends on the choices the US makes.