An overwhelming majority of Americans are worried about losing control of their privacy, particularly when it comes to personal details they post on social networking sites, according to a study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center. But most people seem to find it difficult to abstain from putting their information online.

The idea that government monitors routine correspondence emerged from the realm of conspiracy theories to, essentially, a foregone conclusion after Edward Snowden leaked confidential documents detailing NSA surveillance last year. The Pew report, which surveyed more than 600 adult Americans, found that 87% of respondents had heard at least something in the news or elsewhere about the government’s efforts to monitor potential terrorist activity by gathering information about the public’s telephone calls, e-mails and other forms of communication.

What’s more, it seems that most Americans now feel that their own privacy is more or less out of their hands when it comes to the government or businesses trolling for information. The Pew study, titled “Public Perceptions of Privacy and Security in the Post-Snowden Era,” found that a whopping 91% of people surveyed feel to some degree that consumers can no longer control how companies access their personal information and how it is put to use. And, 80% of respondents either “agree” or “strongly agree” with the sentiment that government monitoring of personal phone calls and Internet correspondence is a cause for worry.

When it comes to social media, 80% of those surveyed are worried about marketers and companies getting a hold of the information they post online while 70% are at least somewhat concerned that the government is monitoring their social media presence without their permission.

In fact, the survey’s respondents felt the least comfortable when using social media sites, with 81% saying that the did not feel secure sharing private information on social media. That’s compared to 67% of people who said they feel at least somewhat secure sharing information over a landline telephone.

Still, users’ concerns don’t necessarily stop them from sharing information online. More than half of the survey’s respondents said they have shared information or posted comments online using either their real name or a screen name that is associated with them. Only 42% of respondents said they have shared information online anonymously.

“Just because you can do it, doesn’t mean you should do it,” Schmidt said during a hearing in Palo Alto, Calif. hosted by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

The hearing on Wednesday came weeks before a potential Congressional vote on the USA Freedom Act, a bipartisan bill that would stop the NSA from collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens. The event was designed to gin up public support for the legislation while giving Silicon Valley executives a venue to vent about how recent revelations about government spying threaten their businesses.

For years, Sen. Wyden had suggested the NSA was engaged in questionable surveillance practices. But it was not until former government contractor Edward Snowden leaked top-secret documents last year, confirming widespread monitoring of online communications, did the issue gain worldwide attention.

“In 2011 on the floor of the United States Senate, I warned that people were going to be stunned and angry when they found out how the U.S. government has been secretly applying its surveillance authority,” Sen. Wyden said. “And it turned out I was right about that.”

The event, held in the gym of Palo Alto High School, was carefully choreographed as an outlet for outrage at government surveillance. Executives were uniformly critical of the NSA, mostly answering softball questions lobbed by Sen. Wyden, who had attended the school long before the Internet industry grew up around it.

The scene, itself, was a bit surreal. Over 100 high school students sat on the basketball court in the bleachers as executives spoke and, at one point, interrupted the proceedings by leaving en masse after the school bell rang to signal the end of a class period.

Joining Schmidt were Microsoft Executive Vice President Brad Smith, Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch, Dropbox General Counsel Ramsey Homsany and John Lilly, a venture capitalist with Greylock Partners.

Revelations about the surveillance have tarnished the reputations of many Silicon Valley companies. Some documents have suggested that U.S. tech giants were complicit in handing huge amounts of customer information to the federal government, an accusation that the executives vehemently deny. Rather, they say they only respond to legal demands for user data. Any wholesale surveillance, they insist, was done without their help or knowledge.

Whether the companies should even be collecting so much personal data never came up. Digital rights groups have been particularly critical of the practice, saying it leaves users vulnerable.

“You own the email or text messages or content you create,” Smith said, eliciting applause from the audience. “Even if when you put your content on our data centers, you still own it, and you're entitled to the legal protections from the Constitution. That's one of the reasons we need Congress to act.”

Many tech executives have voiced concerns about customers defecting to other services or foreign companies avoiding their products because of the NSA surveillance. To them, the issue is more of a matter of profits than a legal debate.

U.S. tech companies could lose as much as $35 billion through 2016 because of canceled contracts and opportunities stemming from the NSA scandal, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.

According to a report released by the Open Technology Institute in July, 26% of Americans polled said they began shopping and banking online less after learning of the NSA’s activities. Meanwhile, countries like India, Brazil and Germany have since argued for so-called “data localization.”The practice, if enforced, would require tech companies to store data in countries from which it was collected. Data for a Facebook user in India, for example, would have to remain in that country where it would, in theory, be safer from U.S. spy agencies. As it is, U.S. tech companies like Google and Microsoft MSFT store data where ever they want.

Storing data internationally would not only increase company costs for new servers that must be based in those countries but also cut demand for U.S. workers -- a scenario tech companies like Facebook FB , Google GOOG and Yahoo YHOO want to avoid. Indeed, executives like Schmidt and Stretch have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

Facebook General Counsel Colin Stretch contended the practice creates other problems beyond financial like slower service and new security loopholes, among others.

“The Internet is a medium without borders, and the notion you'd have to place data and data centers used to serve particular countries within the region is fundamentally at odds with the way the Internet is architected,” he argued, saying the result would be a Web that is slower and less personalized.

Schmidt echoed those comments, saying “I think the simplest outcome is we're going to end up breaking the Internet.”

On Thursday, Alex Stamos, a security researcher for Yahoo YHOO announced the company would develop an encrypted email system that will let users send messages to other Yahoo users, as well as Gmail users, that only the sender and recipient can read. This enhanced form of security will begin rolling out as an option for users in the fall.

Yahoo’s security measures follow on the heels of recent steps by Google GOOG to encrypt users’ email. According to The Wall Street Journal, Yahoo will rely on a kind of PGP encryption, which hasn’t been cracked. Previously, most email services stored data like user names and passwords, but PGP goes one step further by storing unique security keys on users’ actual devices.

Yahoo and Google offer the two most widely-used email services on the Web today, accounting for 600 million-plus users combined, according to ComScore. The news that both companies plan to encrypt email marks a significant effort to ramp up security after Edward Snowden leaked information from the National Security Agency last year revealing -- among other eye-opening secrets -- the vulnerabilities in tech companies’ data practices. Yahoo and Google’s so-called “end-to-end” encryption efforts will help protect users’ sensitive data from the prying eyes of hackers, the government, even the Webmail services themselves. Web companies are increasingly competing for users based on security and publicly bragging about their extra protections to gain an advantage, or at least keep those in place from defecting.

Google, in particular, isn’t stopping with email. On Wednesday, the company disclosed in a blog post that it is now taking into account whether Web sites use encrypted HTTPS connections, and that those that do could appear higher in Google search results.

“For now it’s only a very lightweight signal -- affecting fewer than 1% of global queries, and carrying less weight than other signals such as high-quality content -- while we give webmasters time to switch to HTTPS,” wrote Zineb Ait Bahajji and Gary Illyes, both of whom are webmaster trends analysts for Google.

Regardless, the long-term message is abundantly clear: the more secure your site, the better your search ranking and the higher your chances of increased Internet traffic. Eventually, the webmaster and the web surfer wins.

But today, there is a very real risk of this universality going away.

Recently, I attended a meeting with government officials and business executives about the issues surrounding the recent National Security Agency scandals. We had an in-depth conversation about the challenges the corporate and public sectors face in determining how to balance upholding the sanctity of the Internet with the need of the U.S. government to protect its citizens.

Unsurprisingly, this topic is extremely complex. And as with most arguments, there are many instances where each side doesn't always understand the other, at least initially. The government's requests for data from technology providers has occurred far less than at least some popular stories and reports would suggest. But, equally, the U.S. administration has likely underestimated the damage recent revelations have caused for service providers doing business abroad. The mere potential for impropriety, regardless of what the facts may be, can drive foreign governments, companies and citizens to take pause.

It has already begun. Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff championed a bill that would require that substantial user Internet data be kept within the country (this was eventually dismissed as technically infeasible). Germany and France have initiated similar conversations, with Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel suggesting that, “one could build up a communication network inside Europe.” Even the German parliament has confirmed it’s looking into using non-electronic typewriters to avoid moving important communications over the Internet. Tim Berners-Lee must be cringing.

Some of this is unrealistic political posturing, but all of it is bad for the progress of the Internet. In the face of the obvious and important privacy implications that fill most of the news stories, we've nearly forgotten the economic consequences.

The power of the Internet rests in its ability to be a universal and global medium. It spans nearly all nations and belongs to no single country. And as the world continues to become more globalized, the Internet’s role as a trusted and secure backbone for communication, commerce and collaboration is more important than ever before.

As we transition from the industrial age to the information age, geographical boundaries are shrinking. The competitive advantage companies once built up by concentrating on individual regions crumbles in an interconnected world. No company can merely transact with local suppliers and partners — and if it does, it will be at a steep disadvantage. Nations that don’t embrace this trend halt their own progress.

The fabric that binds us all in this new economy is the Internet.

The Internet is the broker for individuals that want to earn extra income by renting out a spare room on Airbnb; it’s the marketplace for the small businesses in China that want to sell their products around the globe on Alibaba; and it’s the tissue that connects the partners, suppliers and customers of global organizations like GE. Whether you’re an individual, small business, or one of the world’s largest enterprises, the Internet increasingly is driving your economic opportunity, and making that opportunity global.

The Internet singularly enables this flatness, and it should be connecting the world, not separating it. The last thing we can afford is a balkanization of the web, yet we run this risk if things continue on their current track.

For its part, the Obama administration seems motivated to tackle these challenges. But that won’t be enough. What's needed is a discussion that transcends the interests of a single nation: we need multilateral discussions on the future of the Internet and governments’ role in protecting (and policing) it. The U.S. government may have started this chain reaction, but it will require far more than the U.S. government to halt it.

There are many ways of tackling this, and none of them will be easy. What is ultimately needed is a set of international standards, rules or operating principles that major governments, corporations and privacy advocates buy into. This wouldn’t be without precedent, as many commercial and economically-critical multinational interests like airspace, maritime and energy laws are governed by the United Nations. This clearly moves the power away from any single government and brings more trust back into the system.

What must be avoided, at all costs, is a balkanized approach to Internet policing, where each government is on its own without regard for the collective.

For the next two decades of the Internet to be as good as the last two, things need to change. I'm hopeful that this will be an ongoing dialogue as we move towards fulfilling the promise of an Internet that connects the world and powers the global economy.

Aaron Levie is co-founder and CEO of Box, an online content sharing and collaboration service for businesses.

News reports based on documents provided by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden have detailed U.S. spying on foreign countries including tapped the cellphone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Talks between the two countries to reach a “no-spy” agreement fell apart earlier this year.

“The pressures on networks as well as the risks from highly developed viruses or Trojans are rising,” Germany’s Interior Ministry said in a statement Thursday. “Furthermore, the ties revealed between foreign intelligence agencies and firms in the wake of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) affair show that the German government needs a very high level of security for its critical networks.”

Germany said it has plans to totally overhaul its communications network to ensure its security, with German company Deutsche Telekom taking over for Verizon. The contract with Verizon VZ , which was put in place in 2010, was set to expire next year.

Several news outlets have reported that Detlef Eppig, the head of Verizon’s German unit, has said that the unit has always acted in compliance with German law.

There's a strong need for enterprises to be able to capture public input in a place where customers feel safe in order to turn that feedback into action. But, before that can be done, let's look at why anonymous social networks are taking off.

This month marks the one-year anniversary when documents leaked by Edward Snowden began popping up in the Guardian and the Washington Post. Following the scandal and stories surrounding the National Security Agency and other government surveillance programs, customers are more reluctant than before to share private information. While the debate rages on, anonymous social networks make it easy for online users to feel safer about sharing their opinion. Not only will their information be private, but the information shared will never link back to them. There is no one to hold a user accountable for what comes out of their keyboard, creating the perfect platform for a safe sharing environment.

Before Snapchat came along, sharing photos and videos was limited to sites, services, and applications that encouraged ongoing information sharing. People created a trail, and that trail was linkable to other networks for an easy registration option. More often than not, that information was then sold to businesses for target advertising. For users that don't want to risk leaving a trail for fear of creating an online legacy, or allowing strangers into their personal information, anonymous social networks are the ultimate social media solution. Furthermore, staying anonymous online is the perfect recipe for sites like 7 Cups of Tea that offer anonymous therapy.

If not for anonymous social networks, where else can users be truly honest and yet heard without being somehow profiled? There is some truth to the online confessional claim, but from a business perspective, it's an asset not yet capitalized on. A perfect example of honesty, as Secret co-founder and CEO David Byttow put it, is “People go on Facebook and say they just got engaged. But what you don’t see is ‘I am going to propose today.'" As humans, we're social animals and we want to share (hence the rise of Facebook, Instagram and so on), but sometimes we just can't.

When Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram first launched, few understood the purpose behind the social sharing sites and hardly anyone believed that they were more than a place for self-expression and narcissism. But it's much clearer today that Facebook is valuable--it's a leader in display advertising, raking in $2.75 billion in 2013. Instagram ads, just six months old and limited to a select group of 15 brands, are already showing promising results, according to data given to Adweek by the social photo-sharing site.

People and companies alike aren't sure just what to do yet with anonymous social networks, but as Facebook FB , Twitter TWTR and the like history shows, their usage will soon explode and companies will have to be in the wings, quick to leverage for marketing efforts.

Over the last decade, the convergence of social, mobile, and cloud technologies has resulted in extremely informed customers. Before ever engaging with a company, customers know almost everything they need to, leading to massive changes in the way they buy. Customers are no longer passive observers–they've become active participants, educating themselves about products prior to making a purchase via social media and online review sites.

Still, there are many customers who fear where their information is going and how it's being used. Anonymous social networks provide protection–a shelter for unsolicited information that won't be used for advertising or surveillance; businesses have to start taking anonymous social networks seriously by listening and acting on the feedback.

There's also an opportunity to capitalize on these networks from a marketing perspective--just think of all the conversations a business can start and information it can capture. On the one hand, businesses can create accounts and tune into what people are saying. Are they complaining about a brand, or are they happy with it? Do parts of a product need changing? Does customer service need improvement?

Sometimes it doesn't matter just who is saying these things, it only matters if it's honest. On the other hand, businesses can also create discussion. Perhaps a retailer wants to know what customers think about a hot new color this season. All they have to do is begin conversation and see people react. While there is big potential in this type of approach, ambiguity remains.

That's why at the same time, businesses should begin working with their customers directly, enabling them to share amongst themselves and with a company via an insight community, a secure online environment where customers feel comfortable that their information isn't misused, sold elsewhere, or exploited.

Andrew Reid is the founder, president, and chief product officer of Vision Critical, a cloud-based customer-intelligence platform provider that is based in Vancouver. Follow him @reidandrew

"I have absolutely no respect for him," she said Wednesday at Venture Scape, the National Venture Capital Association's annual convention in San Francisco. "He's not a hero, he's a traitor."

Rice, who also served as President George W. Bush's National Security Advisor, insisted that Snowden should have gone through proper channels to report any illegal surveillance instead of going to the media. Challenged about whether the agencies would have reacted to his concerns, she demurred, saying "at least he could have tried."

"Edward Snowden didn't go to work for Disney," Rice said. "What did he think the N.S.A. did?"

MORE: Edward Snowden makes his case

Critics of the surveillance program scoff at the idea that Snowden or anyone else could have prompted a serious review of government spying through internal channels. Several members of Congress who supposedly monitored the programs have said that they were largely in dark about most of its details or lied to about the extent of the surveillance.

Rice is a polarizing figure who invariably raises the blood pressure of opponents. She played a major role in the Iraq War and the huge expansion of government surveillance, including warrantless wiretaps.

Snowden's leaks, she said, gave a confusing picture of U.S. spying that even she couldn't understand. "If I can't figure out what s going on, I can guarantee you most people can’t figure out what's going on," she said. Still, Rice gave qualified support to a review of the current surveillance policies because, as she put it, such programs tend to go "on auto-pilot."

"I don't rule out the possibility that there needed to be a review or culling or stopping some of these programs," Rice said. "But how you get that done is you don't do it by leaking to the Guardian or Washington Post."

MORE: New York Times replaces top editor Jill Abramson

As for Snowden, who is currently in exile in Russia, Rice said he had better watch his back. Russia, which gave Snowden a temporary visa after U.S. officials withdrew his passport, doesn’t like traitors either, she said.

“If I were Edward Snowden, I’d watch what I eat,” Rice said.

Rice's track record - particularly the surveillance part - came back to haunt her last month when Dropbox, the online file storage service, named her to its board. Users of the service attacked the company for appointing someone so closely tied to government surveillance and raised concerns about the service's commitment to privacy.

In response to the uproar, Drew Houston, Dropbox's chief executive, took to his company's blog to defend Rice and her appointment.

"There's nothing more important to us than keeping your stuff safe and secure," he wrote. "It's why we've been fighting for transparency and government surveillance reform, and why we've been vocal and public with our principles and values."

"Dr. Rice understands our stance on these issues and fully supports our commitments to our users," Houston continued.

Asked about her new role at Dropbox, Rice praised the company and its management, but didn't address the privacy concerns involving her other than to say that privacy issues are hard and companies like Dropbox are struggling with very important issues.

MORE: What’s next for Dropbox

Earlier this week, Rice's past flared up again when students and faculty at Rutgers University, in New Jersey, expressed outrage at her being chosen as commencement speaker. To defuse the situation, Rice cancelled her scheduled address.

Venture capitalists filling the room at VentureScape, the annual conference of the National Venture Capital Association, gave Rice a far warmer welcome. No one held up protest signs or jeered. In fact, Rice spoke to the choir in terms of her support for immigration reform. Silicon Valley companies widely support the effort, which would make it easier to import engineers and attract foreign entrepreneurs.

But despite intense lobbying by business interests, the immigration bill is stalled in Congress over opposition by House Republicans. They want to revise a Senate bill that would give undocumented immigrants a path to getting U.S. citizenship.

Rice, who has held a number of roles at Stanford University and is currently a professor of political science there, couched the problem in simple terms: You don't want to chase off someone who just graduated from Stanford.