Angela Merkel's call yesterday for a European network "so that one shouldn't have to send emails and other information across the Atlantic" is hardly surprising given the revelations of how German and other European citizens have had their data indiscriminately collected as they use web services based overseas.
Even though US President Barack Obama announced a reform of American programmes earlier this month, it doesn't mean there are no threats left. Companies now hold more information about their customers than ever before: not just their names and addresses, also their likes, dislikes, profession, religion and political convictions.
Some of the most memorable headlines of 2013 involved personal privacy, data security and intelligence gathering issues from all corners of the globe - from the US to Brazil, from Australia to India. But what has bothered me about the conversation to date is the way it has been framed by some defenders of mass surveillance programmes. We must choose, they say, between security or privacy, protection or liberties.
For 27 years, Vanunu has been deprived of his liberty - for blowing the whistle, for telling the truth. It is a moral and geopolitical disgrace. We cannot afford, in good conscience, to forget the plight of Israel's Snowden. To quote the Northern Irish Nobel peace laureate Mairead Maguire: "We cannot be free while he is not free."