> I would tell him to steer away from anything that isn't a public service — like talking about the ability of the U.S. government to hack into other countries or other people is not a public service. So that's kind of compromising capabilities and sources and methods, basically. That's getting away from the public service that he did initially. And those would be the acts that people would charge him with as clearly treason.
The whole interview is a great read: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but they said some time ago that only 1% was published. So it would be impossible for Snowden himself to read everything and choose if it should be published.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uks-...
and the Guardian's "haha what":
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gove...
Note that this "leak", as well as NOT coming from Snowden, isn't really in the domestic public interest, is an activity that a far larger percentage of people would support, and presumably is already known by the target anyway. The clear intent is to make people read the article and go "huh, this Snowden ballyhoo is very overblown". I wonder why the so-called "Independent" played along.
It's also important the public realize the NSA is more than just the National Stalking Agency.
I bet there's a room stacked to the ceiling in printed US secret military documents in Beijing that they trade to Russia for cheap oil+gas imports. I realize Snowden never wanted that to happen but there's a reason why state's have strict methods to store and transport top secret data and they don't include using questionable XTS container software and staying in a HK hotel with the entire secret US archive stored on a commercial device.