The PATRIOT Act was an awful idea, one that most of us decried at the time. The PATRIOT Act is what allows the sort of nonsense recently brought to light again (this is not the first time, we've known about all this for some time, though it's had different names...) to exist and be quasi-legal.
And the PATRIOT Act was, in fact, debated in a highly public manner and voted on by our representatives. To that extent, there's only so much complaining that "Americans", as a broad group, can do. We okayed this.
But it's certainly time for a re-examination. One that hopefully ends with the repeal of the PATRIOT Act. If elected officials complain about this without putting forth their voice to repeal the PATRIOT Act, they are hollow men and women.
My main problem with all this is that our government, the one we elected that is "for" us, will not level with us about the risks nor the processes involved. If they would simply detail what this level of intrusion allows us in terms of security, and detail the level of intrusion, the voters could say, "ok" or "not ok". But the total lack of transparency from Bush and Obama on the subject has rendered the process totally undemocratic and un-American.
Either they need to stop what they are doing, or tell us what they are doing and why it's important so that we can make our own choices via votes on where the slider falls between "privacy" and "security". It will never be 100% one or the other, but we own the government and own the right to say, collectively, where the slider is set.
Obama's second term is under attack. And in some cases rightfully so. But in order to salvage the obvious good that can come of it (immigration reform and implementation of the imperfect health insurance reform among the most obvious examples), someone in the upper circle needs to push for transparency. Not for increased privacy or increased security, per se. Just for giving the American people the information needed to make that choice. If Americans really still want to give up their privacy in order to prevent some awful catastrophe, fine. Whatever. But to deny citizens that choice through denying them information? Inexcusable, and wrong.