First they came for everyone and I didn't speak out because I'm not one of them.

Finally, the review of the NSA's powers we should have had already

So, the Obama administration cares more about Angela Merkel's privacy than US citizens'. Never mind – if the NSA is reined in

Jeff Jarvis

What are we, we citizens of the United States and nations of the world: chopped liver?  

As Edward Snowden's leaks revealed that millions of Americans and their metadata were ensnared in the National Security Agency's collect-it-all dragnet, the White House and most of Congress – Senator Dianne Feinsteinleading the defense – would brook no reconsideration. Citizens of other nations were treated as if they simply had no rights to avoid the NSA's widening glare. 

But when German Chancellor Angela Merkel complained about reports that her mobile phone had been targeted for more than a decade … well, that is the moment when President Obama considers hitting the brakes on the NSA and stopping them from snooping on heads of state. That was the moment when Merkel herself stopped defending a policy of aiding the NSA and started questioning it. And that is the moment when Feinstein finally concedes that:"

A total review of all intelligence programs is necessary.

Can't they see what this says to the rest of us? That when members of their own club, foreign or domestic, find themselves spied upon, that is worth outrage, apology, and change. But the rest of us? Chopped chicken liver. Everybody else? They're nobodies. Or to paraphrase the good pastor Niemöller:

First they came for everyone and I didn't speak out because I'm not one of them. 

No matter how it is inflicted, I'll take the chink in the NSA's armour. At long last, by whatever definition, someone in power is finally recognizing that the NSA has gone too far. So now can the debate begin?  

President Obama told ABC News:

What we've seen over the last several years is their capacities continue to develop and expand, and that's why I'm initiating now a review to make sure that what they're able to do doesn't necessarily mean what they should be doing.

At last, we stare down at the line between could and should. 

If Merkel is right to feel violated by American spying – and she is – then why aren't we all right to share her anger? If Americans are angry, then why can't German and French and Spanish and Brazilian and British citizens be? If none of us is supposed to be surprised that governments spy on each other, can we at least be surprised now that so many of us fell under the net?

Senator Feinstein defended the collection of dots. But I wonder whether ever more dots makes it easier – or indeed, harder – to connect them. We and our communications and actions and connections and lives are merely dots in a database to them. Those dots are moments in our lives – and now theirs.  

But moving past understandable emotions of surprise, violation, and anger, can we now get to the heart of the matter: what does the NSA accomplish? What is the price of its curiosity? What are its limits? What are the principles we uphold even in the face of threats? What are our rights as citizens to know what our government is doing to us and to others on our behalf?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/30/review-nsa-powers-angela-merkel