I'm not sure how to get this through to you; but let's try.

Imagine that every time you go through airport security, a full body scan is made of your kids and wife and they are sent around to a thousand or so unknown people (most of whom aren't even directly employed by the government) for salacious reasons or to be mocked. Now, there's a law that protects your kids scans from being sent anywhere (like HIPPA for doctors!), but incidentally it's a government institution and thus, according to themselves they do not need to follow the law. - despite that law existing for the only purpose of protecting your kids from the government.

When the information gets out that this is happening (this part happened before Snowden btw), everyone involved, including the head of the organisation, knowingly lies to the "Oversight committee" which is democratically elected, is transparent and wants to protect your kids. The "Oversight Committee" have no choice than to just trust airport security at their word, for "security" reasons. (this was one of the things proven to have happened in the Snowden leaks: IE; General Alexander knowingly lied to the US Senate).

Lying to the "Oversight committe" in this case is also a crime, but such flagrant disregard for the law has become pretty standard.

This is what we're discussing here, not just that there was laws being broken, not that there was surveillance after all: their job is surveillance.

The fact is here: that you, dear citizen have a right to privacy enshrined in the constitution. The reason that protection exists at all is to protect the very democracy that you uphold: freedom of expression.

A rogue government agency that lies to your democratically elected leaders, that breaks laws indiscriminately and does so under a thick blanket of secrecy -- while wielding a very powerful hammer to discredit and chase people to the ends of the earth -- that's what was exposed.

Not "the good guys". If they were "good" they wouldn't be lying to the US Senate. They wouldn't be assassinating the character of the people that expose them- these things would have clear answers and when exposed people would shrug.

Remember: people are using tools like XKeyscore to spy on people they personally know (ex-lovers, spouses etc; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... )

You can't defend it by saying "it's national secrecy". Tell me how spying on your ex is in the national interest? Tell me why there can't be oversight?

Disgusting, and so is anyone who defends it.

Thanks, this reply was much better than my comment deserved.

"does the US spy on its citizens?" "Not wittingly" your write explains it well, but I guess privacy has been eroded so much. people have trouble with the mindset.