What I don't understand is how this squares with the Speech or Debate clause. Aren't members of Congress protected by the same sort of legislative immunity as they have in the UK, Canada, and Australia (where they call it "parliamentary privilege")?
The security clearance process basically looks for reasonable, honest Americans free of foreign influence.
If government actors are abusing their power to such an extent that reasonable, honest Americans free of foreign influence feel morally obligated to blow the whistle, then there are going to be more leaks.
It's not a flaw in the system; It's a safeguard against corruption and abuse of the system.
Everyone here seems to be assuming that tech company leaders actually knew the whole picture, but that isn't necessarily the case.
Think about it: Let's say you're the CEO of any of these companies. If someone from the NSA or the FBI serves a top secret FISA order on some poor SRE in your datacenter, do you even qualify as one of "those persons to whom disclosure is necessary to comply with such Order", or an attorney?
Now, maybe your General Counsel knows what's going on, or maybe the knowledge is scattered throughout your legal team. Your lawyers, who are supposed to be representing your interests, are now bound to keep these secrets from you, and possibly even from each other. This is something that affects millions of people, and you can't do anything to fight it, because you aren't necessarily allowed to know what's going on in your own company. The only sign might be that a few previously-happy key employees suddenly seem stressed and quit for no apparent reason.
Freedom of speech is such a basic assumption in our society that we struggle to understand the full implications of what can happen when it's taken away.