>This is why we are SUPPOSED to have congressional oversight.
Gongressional oversight, in the form of some special briefings, and meetings and such, means nothing. In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. Congress itself doesn't have that oversight (what with gerrymandering et al).
If you mean "in the context on secret spying on citizens what would that entail" then the answer is that not all contexts are appropriate for a democracy. Those who are not should be altered to fit democratic procedures or be abolished.
If spying needed to happen, the procedures should be open and transparent. All the stuff Snowden brought forward, should have been released officially in advance.
But before of that, the democratic thing for such a mass offense against privacy would be a referendum: "We need to massively track you, including such and such information and sources. Yes / No".
Furthermore, nothing secret should go on that's not explicitly voted, e.g. absolutely no sharing of the data meant for national security with police departments to head-start a case against a citizen etc.
No indefinite storage of those items either. Delete them with a rolling delete every few years or so.
Gongressional oversight, in the form of some special briefings, and meetings and such, means nothing. In a real democracy what you should have is oversight by the people, in an open and transparent system. Congress itself doesn't have that oversight (what with gerrymandering et al).