USA TODAY EDITORIALIZES: Metadata mining fight far from over: The good guys lost the House vote, but they’ll be back.

National security officials have tried to make it sound as if their intrusions are modest, testifying they used the authority to “query” particular phone numbers just 300 times last year from a database of tens of millions. But for each number queried, analysts may go out two or three “hops.” This means an analyst will look at everyone a target has called (the first hop), then at everyone those contacts have called (the second hop) and then at all the numbers called by those contacts. With all this hopping, the National Security Agency has likely looked at the communication patterns of millions of people, the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffer testified last week. This bears closer scrutiny.

The administration has overplayed the effectiveness of its approach, initially testifying that the phone program and another that involves international e-mails had helped disrupt “potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11.” When pressed, however, it turned out that the e-mail program has been most successful in thwarting terrorism; the phone database “contributed” to understanding 12 events and not necessarily to preventing them.

The administration and its allies have underscored the oversight provided by congressional intelligence committees and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But lawmakers on the committees are muzzled by their oaths of confidentiality. And the court operates in secrecy, hearing only the government’s side.

This is grossly excessive, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., hinted this week that there is more still that has not been disclosed.

A month ago, just a handful of senators was warning that the security programs had gone too far. With more than 200 House members joining the chorus, the program might finally get the intensive public review that it so badly needs.

Wow.

UPDATE: How Nancy Pelosi Saved The NSA Surveillance Program. “It’s an odd turn, considering that Pelosi has been, on many occasions, a vocal surveillance critic.” Mostly on occasions when there was a Republican in the White House.