Maybe you should try to be less myopic on these things when paying attention though. Historically both the judicial and the legislative system have slowly pushed back on unchecked executive privilege. Before FISA, the executive could basically spy on any foreigner for any reason without any reason given to the other branches. Congress pushed back, putting into place the Senate Intelligence committee.
The problem isn't that all branches are in on it, it's that they aren't. There isn't communication between the three branches, so when the gory details get revealed ,be it Hoover's FBI antics, Nixon's abuses, or now, the NSA's eagerness, other branches fight back.
If you look at laws regarding privacy historically, there's a general tendency for more, not less. One step back doesn't invalidate a whole system.
We're in a new era of surveillance, where Nixon's abuses look like schoolyard pranks compared to what governments are doing today. Even the excesses of Hoover's FBI can't touch what is being done now. Considering how little (read: next to nothing) was done about those past excesses, it won't shock me to see nothing at all done about those conducted in the present-day. We've seen legislatures, presidents, and courts all lining up on the same page, with more than enough rubber-stamping to go around. Creating oversight bodies means another set of rubber stamps.
The problem isn't that all branches are in on it, it's that they aren't. There isn't communication between the three branches, so when the gory details get revealed ,be it Hoover's FBI antics, Nixon's abuses, or now, the NSA's eagerness, other branches fight back.
If you look at laws regarding privacy historically, there's a general tendency for more, not less. One step back doesn't invalidate a whole system.