In his speech last Friday, President Barack Obama addressed the privacy concerns that have been spurring debate for months across the nation, finally offering some proposals to reassure the American people that our National Security Agency is not overstepping its bounds.

His remarks acknowledged the difficulty of balancing national security with civil liberties, and while some of the proposed changes are promising, it’s tough to say if it will be enough to quell the outrage that has arisen in the wake of revelations about mass data collection of U.S. citizens’ correspondence. This “metadata” collected by the feds does not include content or names of callers, but does include phone numbers, times and length of the calls. Email correspondence and Internet use is also easy to track, and the public has come to expect that online life is not private.

We’re glad President Obama acknowledged that the government can’t simply say “”˜trust us’ ”¦ for history has too many examples when that trust has been breached.” The government surely must do something to safeguard our constitutional rights, as the Fourth Amendment ”“ which requires U.S. citizens to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable search and seizure ”“ is under attack.

His proposals, outlined Friday, make significant strides in protecting those rights, such as requiring a judicial finding or emergency situation before the phone database can be queried.

This is easily the most important proposed change, as it is unconstitutional to conduct a warrant-less search, and that should go for our phone records as well.

Other changes proposed by Obama include declassifying some opinions of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and providing an independent voice at the court proceedings. More openness in this process will help the public determine if it is acting within reason, and at least partially pull back its veil of secrecy that is causing so much consternation.

He has also proposed that a third party host the electronic communications metadata, rather than the government, but the devil is in the details: This approach would only increase the possibility of data breaches and privacy violations as well as add expense. If the government is going to have access to this data, they may as well have it on hand, under government security with professionally trained personnel.

Also among his proposals is an annual review of intelligence actions and an amendment to the national security letter process, which acts as a warrant to spy on a person suspected of terrorist activity. The changes would limit the spying to a definite period of time and require phone companies to later report publicly all requests for such access.

These proposals are set to be reviewed by the U.S. attorney general and director of national intelligence within 60 days, with suggestions for implementation to result. We hope they thoroughly examine all of the implications of their proposals and move forward with the best interests of the American people in mind.

What is needed, in the long run, is an overhaul of the Patriot Act, however, and that’s for Congress to address. The U.S. is climbing a very slippery slope; Big Brother isn’t fiction anymore, and technology is making it easier every day for him to know every aspect of our lives, criminal or not. Yes, the country needs to have an intelligence agency to monitor possible threats and stop attacks or subversive efforts against the country before they start. Certain provisions exist to keep that process reasonable. The government review of the NSA did not uncover any abuses so far, but that does not mean additional safeguards should not be put in place.

That said, even the most devout libertarian would agree that if government exists for any purpose, it is to defend the state against threats. And those threats are ever-present.

The president’s account of the failures of surveillance in the run-up to the 9/11 terrorist attacks is particularly sobering: One of the 9/11 plane hijackers had made a call to a known terrorist safe house in Yemen, he recounted, but the NSA couldn’t tell that the call was coming from inside the U.S. Changes to surveillance law made in the wake of the attacks have changed that, but our fear and anger at the time may have pushed us too far.

With that in mind, we’re glad the nation is having this discussion about our personal privacy rights and national security, and it’s notable that it would not have arisen at this time without the revelations last year by whistleblower Edward Snowden. It was his decision to leak classified government documents that showed the extent of the government’s data collection, shocking not only American citizens but also the international community.

Obama has taken a hard line on Snowden’s actions, and we agree that our security rests, in part, in the trust we place in government employees and contractors to protect our interests. Intent is what that matters most here, however; Snowden did not release all those documents because he is an enemy of the state who was seeking to harm U.S. interests. To the contrary, he knew that releasing such information to the public would enrage the citizenry enough to fight back against violations to our constitutional rights.

The White House has rejected a plea deal and asylum offers so far for Snowden, and allusions have been made to his revelations hurting the national interest. He faces espionage charges upon his return to the states.

The government cannot, of course, condone such a breach of security, but Snowden appears to be more of a patriot than a traitor, and that should be considered when he comes home to answer for his crime.

His actions have awoken an otherwise complacent nation and sent the message to the highest levels of our government that the American public will not tolerate constitutional abuses.

Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ

Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.