I think the bunch of us here agree on some basic ideas, and maybe not how to accomplish them. I TOTALLY agree that NSA and big government powers need check and balances, or else they get corrupt and over-reaching. NSA over-reaches! Other areas of government too. But to me, checks and balances need to be in the law, and actions must stay within the law, otherwise we still give government too much power (because they can arrest us for breaking the law). It's just my starry-eyed ideal.
I like checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution for branches of government checking each other. Legislative, judicial, executive. It was well visioned. And many disagree, but I believe that the basic right for citizens to bear arms is key to that balance. I think government thinks twice about dictating unscrupulously if the people have some power of masses rising up in civil war. Yeah, contradicts my other point about Law a bit.
The idea of a Snowden checking and balancing NSA power and corruption makes me smile, because I believe our government uses its covert powers in corrupt ways (as well as un-corrupt ways). So Snowden-like rogues may bring out corruption, but also damage the good work that is done. I'd rather see NSA be corrected by transparency to a Congressional Committee... of course, with the current party system, THAT committee is prone to financial sway and corruption itself. Basically, reform how people and companies can buy influence, and all of this should work fine, checked and balanced, like the founders originally intended, and we wouldn't need Snowdens to do what they do.
My two cents.
Manfred