> ...and that's the ultimate crux of this whole thing. When you go up against the US government, you have to ask yourself - is there any major world power out there that's better?

Even if this ruling gets overturned it is irrefutable evidence that, after considering the issues, a person who understood the legal issues might conclude that the people behind the mass surveillance program were engaged in a literal criminal conspiracy.

Snowden wasn't going up against the US government, he was going up against a rogue branch of the military. I hope there is some consensus here that illegal programs aren't legitimate.

Perhaps he didn't go against the government but went in support of the US citizens and believed what the government did was wrong.

I do think he asked himself that question.

edit: Saying Russia is the main benefactor of the leaks sounds like evidence of long lost cold war thinking to be honest.

Perhaps it would also be to the benefit of the targets of surveillance? Because if you wouldn't want to hand Russia a win, not subjecting the population to surveillance would have been quite the strategy in this case.

Would just like to point out, Putin was on record in an interview talking about Snowden, and was pretty open about how these programs make sense from an intelligence point of view, and pretty much said that Russia is doing the same thing. He wasn't pretending like they're not doing the exact same thing. I believe it's somewhat of a don't hate the player, hate the game from the perspective of the CIA/KGB/what have you.

Why can't we just be open about our smart TVs listening to us?

That's one difference about Russian and American citizens -- the Russians have pretty much accepted this, and reserve all anti government talk to private conversations or avoid it altogether, while Americans are generally in denial or just ignorant about it.

The "nothing to hide" argument mistakenly suggests that privacy is something only criminals desire. Fences and curtains are ways to ensure a measure of privacy, not indicators of criminal behavior. Privacy is a fundamental part of a dignified life.

That's not an accurate representation of reality.

Let's demand that, and in the mean time wouldn't hurt to be honest.

He has the image of a dictator (rightly so) and doesn't need to hide it. He connects the image western people have of him to their own domestic actors. If he just condemned it, he would be the hypocrite. So he opted to redirect animosity towards him to others.

Pointing out mass surveillance isn't an attack on the integrity of the US, it is an attack on the practice you would expect from Putin.

You know, Snowden has recently wrote and published something of an autobiography called "Permanent Record". You don't need to think or guess, he explained his motivations, thoughts and feelings fairly well there, and they don't quite align with your comment.

Out of the frying pan into the fire… but I think human nature suggests that he is making himself happy with it. He's dependent on being fine with everything about Russia, because it's that or be killed in one place or the other: last thing he could afford to do is antagonize Putin, he pretty much has to become 'All Russia, all the time' and that's a powerful motivator to persuade himself that now he is in the GOOD place, and it's the USA that was uniquely wicked and bad.

Snowden is critical of Russia, this comes up in every interview he gives

Then why didn't he just make himself happy with the NSA?