Edward Snowden's Surveillance Practices

In May 2013, Edward Snowden, a consultant working for the National Security Agency, began copying documents on the agency’s domestic surveillance practices, which included spying on millions of American citizens. One program was called PRISM. Snowden supplied those secret documents to news outlets, and the following month the Guardian and the Washington Times released Snowden's published information on the NSA program that allowed real-time information collection on American citizens. A flood of information followed, and the US Government and the American people demanded to either hear more about it or have Snowden arrested.1
Legal opinions issued by the Office of Legal Counsel have historically supported the Executive Branch’s use of surveillance

on the grounds that the President has broad powers when it comes to national security, particularly in times of war and conflict. These legal opinions are not just recent, but go back to the 1930s2. The courts have also more recently supported the concept that the information supplied to third parties, such as Google or Verizon, including our daily telephone usage or internet searches, are not private information, but instead public information3. Under the Supreme Court’s third party disclosure rule, the FBI can, if it wants, obtain telephone, Internet and credit card usage information from third parties even if there is no suspicion of wrongdoing, and without any warrant or hearing.
There seem to be few limits to the government’s power to collect such information except for the public’s concern and outcry. The collection of such large pieces of data by the NSA bring into question potential violations of both the first and fourth amendments to the Constitution, freedom of speech and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, respectively. People that oppose the use of these modern surveillance techniques argue that it violates people’s privacy, and that privacy is both valuable and protected under several of the Constitution’s amendments, even if not specifically stated in the Constitution.
One possible solution to help protect people’s privacy is for the courts to have more rigorous oversight of the government’s surveillance programs rather than the current processes of approving all programs. A panel appointed by and answerable to Congress could further oversee Court oversight. This would provide a further check to a very loose and dangerous system.