I'd argue today's situation is, despite many problems, still comparatively better than the past: the Hoover era, as the most salient example, was vastly more corrupt and undemocratic.

It's crucial in this regard to distinguish two issues: (a) to what degree do these institutions wield power unchecked by democratically-elected/legitimized institutions (President/Congress/Courts), and (b) those institutions commanding certain secret programs you (or I) disagree with (i. e. the stuff Snowden revealed).

Despite some regression in the last two years, there is still at least _some_ accountability, as the current whistleblower demonstrates. But, of course, the safety margin is shrinking. With enough turnover in some key positions, a future whistleblower may just find their legitimate complaint buried.

> there is still at least _some_ accountability

The whistleblowers mostly got put into prison for the current executive branch to save face. At least those that we heard about from. There also weren't any repercussions for the mass surveillance we are still subjected to.

I don't think there is evidence of the situation improving at all. This is not a problem confined to America and these specific agencies, of course.

The state having access to all forms of digital communication is a too powerful tool to suppress democratic dissent and I think we have recently seen bad actors in leading positions. The security benefits these mechanisms provide are marginal, so regulation should be the rational way to go.

The CIA is still torturing people and is currently headed by a known torturer.

https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/documents/RDI/190710-...

I don't think you can honestly say 'things are fine compared to Hoovers time'.

> With enough turnover in some key positions, a future whistleblower may just find their legitimate complaint buried.

Couldn't you say this has already happened with e.g. Snowden?

Did Snowden try to go they official channels? I don't think he did, Snowden (mostly rightly) decided to bypass the existing reporting systems.

He didn't, and I recall that Snowden was motivated to do so outside the reporting systems after he saw the Director of National Intelligence straight-up lie to Congress.

Snowden was pretty smart; it's quite a good thing that he chose to act in good faith.

> Did Snowden try to go they official channels? I don't think he did, Snowden (mostly rightly) decided to bypass the existing reporting systems.

I believe he was deterred from pursuing action through official channels after seeing how William Binney and other whistleblowers were treated.

> Would it be safe to say that CIA (and NSA and other parts of the intelligence community) is the actual "State within the State" (i.e., the so-called "Deep State")?

This shouldn't be done or said because it absolves the state of it's absolute willingness. When the CIA backed Pinochet, the state was absolutely interested in getting rid of Allende, and the same can be said of any other CIA-backed coup.