I can understand where you're coming from. The definitions are outdated. With the government being able to request your confidential sources, and with the gove

I can understand where you're coming from. The definitions are outdated. With the government being able to request your confidential sources, and with the government being able to see all forms of electronic communication, my idea of a whistleblower is the following: "Anyone who peacefully and in good faith informs the public of government or corporate wrongdoing." You can definitely agree that Snowden did not violently do this, and we can debate whether or not he has done this in good faith, however, people should be innocent until proven guilty in a free society. So my opinion right now is that he is a whistleblower. If the government can prove that he is a spy or is subverting the government for nefarious purposes, then the actions they're committing would be justified, but as of now, they are not in the slightest.