Oversight is definitely the key to limiting the possibility of government overreach, but it is wrong on the populace's part to think that just because they aren't privy to the oversight that it isn't there.
There is much the same problem with those who work in the political realm in D.C. They are constantly derided as do-nothing on a macro scale, but on an individual basis a lot of effort is put into how laws are constructed and amended. This is analogue to the situation in the intelligence community -- a lot of work is done by individuals and the organization they are a part of to preserve civil liberties, but disclosing the nature of their collection abilities in the interest of the transparency of their protection of civil liberties is absolutely counter-productive. A big difference between the two, is that the political worker can disclose their work while the intelligence worker can not.
I'm not denying that there are instances of overreach, but I'm merely making the point that the framework for protection of civil liberties is not a piece of glass that shatters on the first stone thrown against it. It is an organic process, which is subject to upper and lower bounds in order to come to rest at a medium level with which both the public is suitably comfortable, and which gets the job done.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, but respectfully, this seems to still be begging the question.
> ...it is wrong on the populace's part to think that just because they aren't privy to the oversight that it isn't there.
The populace seems to be decreasingly comfortable with the information currently available, especially when much of that information seems contradictory or deliberately deceptive. I have no doubt that you're right, that a more complete picture would obviate a lot of the public's concerns; so it's sensible for the public to demand a more complete picture.
I don't doubt that the oversight is there, but I fully expect it to be ineffective and without teeth. I reckon most violators get a slap on the wrist or at worst get fired. This is exactly what has happened on Wall Street, even after lots of public attention that some politician would normally placate through token prosecutions. However, whenever everything is done in secret, there is almost no motivation for anyone to rock the boat by prosecuting a violator and demanding a just punishment. You simply don't gain political brownie points for prosecuting someone for a crime that no one knows even happened.
There is much the same problem with those who work in the political realm in D.C. They are constantly derided as do-nothing on a macro scale, but on an individual basis a lot of effort is put into how laws are constructed and amended. This is analogue to the situation in the intelligence community -- a lot of work is done by individuals and the organization they are a part of to preserve civil liberties, but disclosing the nature of their collection abilities in the interest of the transparency of their protection of civil liberties is absolutely counter-productive. A big difference between the two, is that the political worker can disclose their work while the intelligence worker can not.
I'm not denying that there are instances of overreach, but I'm merely making the point that the framework for protection of civil liberties is not a piece of glass that shatters on the first stone thrown against it. It is an organic process, which is subject to upper and lower bounds in order to come to rest at a medium level with which both the public is suitably comfortable, and which gets the job done.