I really enjoyed this article, although I feel like it raises more questions than it answers. This quote from the introduction to the linked Washington Post article really crystallizes many of my concerns:

The draft [State Department speech] stated that “if U.S. citizens disagree with congressional and executive branch determinations about the proper scope of signals intelligence activities, they have the opportunity to change the policy through our democratic process.”

But the White House counsel’s office told me that no, that wasn’t true. I was instructed to amend the line, making a general reference to “our laws and policies,” rather than our intelligence practices.

I've had the growing feeling that parts of our government are beyond democratic control. I suspect that maybe it has always been this way and my perspective is just a symptom of my young age (less than 30 and only politically aware/active since Bush Jr.) and having grown up educated with a brand of American idealism (nobody is above the law, constitutional rights are fundamentally inviolate, democracy & freedom, and so on). I have to question, what exactly are these non-democratic parts of our government and how can I, as a voter, hope to address them? I suppose on some level, most people don't want to care, or if they do, upon further investigation, feel discouraged and confused, so it's easier to not concentrate on the problem. Opacity and apathy are their biggest defense mechanisms. I love talking and learning about FISA Sec. 702 or Sec. 215 of the Patriot Act or, in this case, E.O. 12333 but bringing them up to friends or family in daily conversation isn't easy, and even for me, sitting down to read them and really understand what and how they're authorizing this surveillance is a challenge.

For all the hand-wringing and finger pointing among people who do recognize the serious dangers posed by a lack of respect for civil liberties, I find it so difficult to see a clear path forward on the issue. I mean, if it is an executive order that authorizes this activity, can't an executive order stop it? Between Congress and the President (in theory), I fail to see where they lack the power to address these issues. Despite a handful of Congressional representatives who might gum up the works from time to time in the interest of civil liberties, both major parties seem to be on the side of the intelligence community. Perhaps that is the mechanism which allows these deep government organizations to operate without democratic control?

Regardless, I'm glad to see another person with Snowden-esque motives approaching the problem from a different (and more legal) direction. Unfortunately without real evidence indicating the scope of their activities, I suppose it makes it easy to dismiss his claims. It turns into a catch-22: Snowden provides proof, but in doing so, breaks the law and ostensibly helps American opponents, so he is easy to vilify; on the other hand, this guy breaks no laws, but also doesn't bring the bacon, so he can be dismissed as some tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.