We’re soon approaching the one-year anniversary of the Snowden revelations, a day that may have changed how we view privacy forever. Although it is perhaps too soon to measure, we have already begun to see societal changes: in the way we talk about surveillance and privacy, in our politics, and in our behavior online.

Just a few short months after the first set of documents were published, the Pew Research Center’s Internet Project released a study stating that 86% of surveyed Internet users have taken measures to avoid being surveilled online. A full 55% of Internet users reported having taken steps to avoid observation by specific people, organizations, or the government. While these statistics speak to an awareness of online spying, the PEN American Center’s November 2013 survey of its members discovered an even more chilling effect: one in six members stated that they had avoided writing or speaking publicly on a subject they thought would subject them to further surveillance.

As time goes on, and further information is revealed, these societal shifts will become more apparent, and more severe. Right now, we are living amidst a crisis: of conscience, of politics, and of action. And not unlike other crises of our time, we must approach the crisis of surveillance from all angles; with policy solutions, public education and awareness-raising, and personal responsibility.

Last week at the re:publica conference in Berlin, I gave a talk with security researcher Jacob Appelbaum in which we compared the response to the Snowden revelations to that of the AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 1990s. Back then, we recalled, the common response was often one of two things: total panic, or “it can’t happen to me.” The former, as a strategy for harm reduction, may not have been a terrible thing, although surely it harmed individuals’ quality of life. The latter, on the other hand, was a death wish.

While the consequences of surveillance differ from those of disease and vary greatly from person to person, the thinking around personal responsibility is quite similar. Harm reduction is typically defined as a set of practical strategies and ideas aimed at reducing negative consequences. When we talk about HIV, this means educating the public on the risks of unprotected sex and how to mitigate those risks. But it also means being realistic about human behavior: we know people will continue to engage in sexual activity, so we must meet them where they are and offer them practical solutions to avoid infection.

The same should, but often does not, go for avoiding surveillance. As Jacob mentions in our talk, we have both encountered security experts whose attitude seems to suggest that those without the skills to protect themselves deserve whatever harm comes their way. There is an attitude among large swaths of the technical community that dismisses the very real difficulties average individuals face in trying to use privacy-enhancing technologies like PGP.

It’s time for these attitudes to end. We must respond to the crisis of surveillance with the same compassion we did the AIDS crisis and we must meet people where they are. As Appelbaum stated during our talk: “we should look to these movements and look to our cultures and our communities that we’re a part of and internalize some of these values and bring them to the places where we spend our time.”

Here’s where we start: first, we need to meet people where they are. While a large swath of the population has identified surveillance as a concern, there are still plenty of individuals who claim they have “nothing to hide.” Trying to convince them otherwise may prove fruitless, but helping them to understand that their actions affect their entire network is important. This is particularly true for journalists, who may be willing to take huge personal risks but will not understand how their behavior puts their sources at risk.

This also means taking positive steps to raise the public consciousness. We know that shaming people doesn’t work, so instead, we must start from the beginning. Dr Seuss’ seminal children’s book, The Lorax, had an undeniable impact on the environmental movement of the 1970s. That kind of engagement – like what the artists at Juice Rap News are doing – is desperately needed.

Furthermore, it’s imperative that we treat anti-surveillance measures as a matter of harm reduction, not harm obliteration. Defending ourselves against surveillance is not an all-or-nothing proposition. While we still have a long way to go, the proliferation of well-designed, easier-to-use technologies over the past few years makes online privacy and anonymity a lot easier. Tools like TextSecure and CryptoCat are great for beginners, who can then work their way up to more complicated tools like PGP and OTR.

Finally, our movement must be inclusive. Surveillance self-defence has centered around technologists for a long time, which is part of the reason that so many of the tools available are technologically superb but difficult to use. A strong movement against surveillance includes not only technologists and policymakers, but designers, artists, teachers, students, and many others.