[WS:] I think you are conflating several different issues here - information gathering, information use, and prosecution of whistlelowers.
There are altogether different issues in my mind.
First, information gathering is a non-issue to me. Everything in the world is information, everything we do is giving off information that is or can be captured by the human senses - whether we like it or not. It is just a basic fact of life and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Recording this information on some medium does that alter this basic fact in any way except the lapsed time - it can be captured by the human sense not only as it happens but also afterwards. That fact in itself does not change anything.
Second, what really matters is how the information is being used. If a cop sees me, say, exceeding the speed limit or doing some other prohibited activity while sitting in his cruiser or watching a recorded video does not matter that much as how this information is subsequently used. It makes all the difference in the world if that cop acts like the prosecutor, judge and executioner, pronounces me guilty and levies a fine or if all he can do is to report what he observed to court where I have a chance to tell my side of the story and an independent body - a jury or a judge - weighs the presented stories and makes a decision. In other words, it makes all the difference in the world if the use of any information collected about people is subjected to a due process that gives the involved people meaningful input how this information is being used.
AFAIK, most information collected by all government agencies in the US and other democracies is subjected to such due process. Most information collected by private agencies - credit card companies, credit bureaus, marketing firms, etc - is not. What is more, I have no problems whatsoever using surveillance to catch people who break the law. The law should be obeyed, and if someone takes the risk of breaking them, he is fair game and has no right to complain that he was caught. What is more better surveillance means less targeted law enforcement. That is, better surveillance means that the scofflaws that usually get away because of their superficial characteristics have a lesser chance of escaping law enforcement than those scofflaws who are "targeted" because of their superficial characteristics.
Third, whistle blowing is a very tricky business. People do it for different reasons, some of which are more noble than other. So each case of whistleblowing should be judged individually by weighing intentions, goods being sacrificed and goods being achieved or sought. The whistleblower knows or at least should have know the risk he or she is taking, and should be able to defend his actions in a due process. There should be some independent body - such as jury panel - that weighs all the evidence and makes a decision. While blanket persecution of whistleblowers amounts to totalitarianism, a blanket acquittal amounts to lawlessness. I do not think that the US falls into either of these extremes. Whistle blowers have a right to a due process, which typically means a jury trial (even in military courts), and nothing prevents the jury from "nullifying" the charges by refusing to pass a guilty verdict. I do not see better guarantees than that. We can of course criticize individual decisions made by juries, but that does not mean that the system is bad. People make mistakes or are swayed by bias - that is just a fact of life and no perfect system is possible. A collective decision by an independent body on two conflicting claims presented to them is the best we can do.
Unlike Jordan, who thinks it should be made easy for people to kill other people under some circumstances, but difficult for law enforcement to enforce laws, I take the opposite view. It should be made difficult for people to break the law and easy for law enforcement to enforce it - provided of course that due process and fairness are carefully guarded.
Laws are there for a reason and people should follow them, unless they have a very good reason not to, in which case they should be prepared to demonstrate that in a due process. The ability of lawbreakers to get away undermines the rule of law, and it is a very bad thing.
With that in mind, Snowden is a fugitive who broke the law while under US jurisdiction and thus should stand a trail in the US, no matter what his intentions were. Defending his fugitive status on the grounds that he broke the law to achieve some greater good is no different than, say, harboring anti-abortion terrorists on the grounds that they tried to "save unborn babies." If you want the latter to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as I do, you should also accept the former getting the same treatment. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. As to Asanage, it is a very different story since I do not think US courts have jurisdiction over him. There are also some valid objections to whether due process was followed in his extradition to Sweden. This demonstrates that while both engaged in whistleblowing, each represents a very different case that should be viewed separately.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."