Clearly a contract that violates law (in such a basic, fundamental way) is to be consider void. And you, as a citizen finding out about it, are actually in a moral obligation to to what the guy did.

All this assuming Prism is in fact illegal, and that Snowden had info to reasonably believe something illegal and very wrong was being done.

This, of course, in pure principle.


In reality - but we no nothing about it - everything and its contrary is possible; Snowden could be an secret services agent playing a role in a major deception plan to public opinion to do who knows what behind the scenes, and you can think of all conspitacy theories you want. Or not. Who knows?