Also consider that Snowden did British citizens a favor by revealing how the GCHQ was ultimately spying on them, too.
Seems like a logical, though not desirable, no. He didn't, and I would argue couldn't, have had the time. From the time he fled until his passport was revoked, was a pretty short amount of time. Additionally, had he been caught before releasing the data we would never know the name Snowden, or the abuses that occurred.
I would say that the time spent sifting through journalists to find someone who was trust worthy was better spent. That person would then have a shield around them which would protect them, even if Snowden was captured.
So basically, if had stopped to do that before releasing, then the likelihood that we would have ever seen any evidence, let alone the correct set of evidence, is very small.
Could you provide a reference to these? I've heard this referred to before, but still don't know what he did that could have done actual harm.
EDIT: Unless that harm is simply other nations thinking that the US isn't spying on them, and then learning that they really, really are?
[1]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uk-s...
[2]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gov...
I have to ask myself: could he have leaked the former without the latter? In all available information, I have not seen a compelling reason to think that the two bodies of data were inseparable. A heroic Snowden with the best of intentions absolutely needed to invest the time and care into either not collecting the body of non-US data in the first place or, failing that, purging it from the body that he released to the world.
For me, his failure to do either inexorably poisons any heroic fallout with the treasonous side effects. One step further: why did he neglect to do something as simple and important? I find the heroic Snowden to be a hard sell, since it seems like he was at best grossly irresponsible and, more likely, motivated by something other than patriotism.