"The telescreen received and transmitted simultaneously. Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it, moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard."
George Orwell, 1984

Joseph Cannataci, the first UN privacy chief, a position created in response to the Edward Snowden revelations, makes a strong case that Big Brother was an amateur compared to today's surveillance state.

“It’s worse,” he said. “Because if you look at CCTV alone, at least Winston [Winston Smith in Orwell’s novel 1984] was able to go out in the countryside and go under a tree and expect there wouldn’t be any screen, as it was called. Whereas today there are many parts of the English countryside where there are more cameras than George Orwell could ever have imagined. So the situation in some cases is far worse already."

It's scary that it's almost impossible to argue with that point.
Cannataci isn't alone in this observation. Edward Snowden shares this opinion.

“The types of collection in the book — microphones and video cameras, TVs that watch us — are nothing compared to what we have available today. We have sensors in our pockets that track us everywhere we go,” he said. “Think about what this means for the privacy of the average person.”

Swedish Pirate Party founder

There are always those who will say that "the world hasn't ended" because of this total surveillance state that we now live in, and that many willingly surrender their privacy.
But is that really a reason to excuse the situation, or to damn us? Shouldn't we consider the fact that universal surveillance was once considered a horrifying dystopian future?
Just how big of cowards would Orwell's generation think of us for so easily surrendering those hard-won civil rights? How big of fools would they think of those who justify omnipresent spying for cheap partisan political points?

“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”
- George Orwell

This doesn't even address the non-online threats such as facial recognition software and stingray tracking devices.
Almost none of these tools are ever used by law enforcement against actual terrorists as commonly understood.

Cannataci's solution is that the world needs a Geneva convention style law for the internet. What does it say about this world that there isn't a global push for this already?

Why isn't there a push for privacy and civil rights? Unsurprisingly, the answer is money.
An estimated 70% of the NSA’s $10.8 billion budget is going to private firms, and the NSA is only one-fifth of the overall National Security Program budget of $52.6 billion, which includes such agencies as the CIA.

More importantly, thousands of former domestic spies have gone on to work at military contractors and other firms doing the same sorts of jobs.
Because the real source of the danger to your privacy isn't the government. It's the private sector.

Companies like Booz Allen, former employer to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, have become a new destination for promising young hackers and spies. In fact, the growth of private sector spying has grown so quickly it’s caused a “brain drain” at the Central Intelligence Agency, which has seen 91 of its upper-level managers leave for the non-government jobs over the last decade...
Typically, any company the NSA or the CIA asks for information will hand it over with few complaints or problems—but typically would not alert the public..
But the brands we know and love continue playing coy, in an effort to keep consumer outrage at bay. However, the New York Times reported that many social media companies seemed eager to spy on Americans for the expressed purpose of benefitting the real spies in Fort Meade.
Google and Facebook, for example, went so far as to propose a secure “portal” through which they could digitally pass on user information directly to the NSA—a fast lane for violating their user’s privacy. As Mother Jones put it in late 2013, “Where does Facebook stop and the NSA begin?”

You might point out that Big Brother tortured some folks and we...well, we do that too.
But Big Brother jailed people without due process, and we...well, we do that too.
But Big Brother had inhumane gulags, and we...well, we have those too.
But Big Brother used a Forever War for controlling the populace and...you already know the answer.

But Big Brother jailed people for disloyal 'thought crimes' and we don't do that, amirite? Well, we don't do that yet.

“If these people,” Clark added, referring to Islamic extremists, “are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle, fine. It’s their right and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict.” He did not, however, indicate how long the “duration” of an undeclared war against a non-state power might last.

"I worry that we are moving toward an Orwellian society.."
-Bernie Sanders, 2015