An ever growing proportion of our lives are now lived out in the public domain and taking this into consideration, what rights do we have to privacy in the digital age? Is it the case that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear from surveillance? What do we understand by the concept of privacy in the age of social media and digital communication technologies and how is this changing?

These questions and many others were explored and vigorously debated during a public lecture I attended here at LSE on Wednesday 5 February by a panel line up of David Omand (former Director of GCHQ), Matthew Ryder QC (barrister at Matrix Chambers), Hazel Blears MP (MP for Salford and Eccles and member of the Intelligence and Security Committee) and Annie Machon (former MI5 Intelligence Officer and whistleblower).

David Omand began by asserting that the global nature of the coverage of the NSA documents leaked by Edward Snowden had threatened national security and went on to suggest the media had deliberately confused the public with its simplification of a complex issue. He also made a valid point that with citizens now exercising their rights electronically, the actions of the Government must also take place electronically as laws need to adapt, he argued, to the realities of the digital spaces citizens now inhabit.

Matthew Ryder QC gave an impassioned defence of the vital role of journalism in our democracy in holding our Governments to account, as demonstrated in the case of the Guardian’s coverage of the NSA leaks story. He argued that if this fails to happen, certain issues which are firmly in the public’s interest will never see the light of day. The two key questions raised by the Edward Snowden story, he stated, can be summed up as: are we happy with the collection of vast amounts of meta data about our lives and what rules should be put in place to regulate Government information sharing?

Hazel Blears praised the public debate over privacy and national security sparked by the NSA leaks as a good thing, although cautioned that it is all a matter of balancing out secrecy and transparency. Blears asked the question, what is surveillance about in the digital age? In light of increasing public concern she raised the issue of commercial and corporate surveillance, which is wholly unreported in the press and indicated that the buying and selling of personal data done in the corporate world is immense. According to Blears the role of the security services is to protect and keep us safe, although she added that they must also be held accountable.

Annie Machon outlined how lack of privacy could be incredibly corrosive to democracy and result in increasing attempts to self-censor actions and words as what we say or do today in the digital world can easily be used against us in the future. Privacy is a fundamental right, Machon stated, and one which we must not give away unthinkingly. Finally she indicated that national security is difficult to define and subsequently often mistakenly conflated with both national and public interest.

Interesting questions were raised by the audience with Guardian journalist Jill Treanor providing a passionate defence of the actions of the Guardian, without whom she pointed out, the public lecture and the global public conversation that has started about our Intelligence Services and sparked by this leak would not even be taking place.

So where does the debate over privacy and security go from here? How do we define what is and is not in the public interest? Do we need to set new boundaries about what should remain secret?

From the debate it is evident that privacy and security are both thoroughly contested and complex concepts, which are historically difficult to define and subject to change. In a digital age where information and meta data are distributed globally and electronically with an unprecedented speed and frequency, large questions must be answered which relate to oversight, accountability and transparency. At the end of the day, as all the speakers agreed, only the public have the power to decide where the debate goes from here.