So the problem with revolutions is that there is usually little thought given to the system of order that will replace the current system - people are unhappy with the current one and they want change now. Historically, the result is something that ends up being worse than the original because the sudden loss of order has unintended second and third order effects. Dan Carlin has some great insights into this, with lots of historical examples. I would argue it's generally a good thing the government moves so slowly on things - as frustrating as it can be - the Founders intentionally set it up that way. In this case, it's hugely important that the press has re-gained some of its function as an investigative agency, as opposed to the role it took in the post-9/11 world as too often a mouthpiece of the powers that be. Awarding the Pulitzer is not something to be taken so lightly.

In the end, the people at the NSA still have a job to do (because people crave security), and whether or not you agree with their methods, will do whatever they think is necessary (within the bounds of the law, as they interpret it) to protect the country. If we take away the tools that Snowden exposed, do you really believe they will stop coming up with new surveillance methods? They will still manage to find ways to do their job, which you probably would not agree with either, but we would feel more secure knowing they're out there doing it. It's part of the social contract that we have with the government.

Like Snowden, I used to be a part of this community, and I would echo his early comments on how almost all the people he worked with did care about making the world better and were generally good people. These people are our family, friends, and neighbors. We vilify these agencies, but what I think Snowden is really trying to expose is how the entire system is set up in such a way that creates these incentives for national leadership and agencies to do these things. That system changed dramatically after 9/11, but I believe (and I'm sure Snowden believes) the system can be brought back to a more balanced state, it just has to be done slowly.

So maybe I'm too optimistic, but I don't believe rapid change is the answer we're looking for.