I was married for a while to a woman from Red China. She had a sister who had been at Tiananmen Square. She had a brother who had spent five years in prison for running guns to the Tibetans. She was no stranger to tyranny.
After living in the States for several years - small town Wyoming, no less - she began to remark that her impression from the first was that she was more free in China than in the US. It was soft tyranny here, but it was pervasive.
In China, if you weren’t political, you could live your life in peace, at least since “the excesses of the Cultural Revolution.” Here, the government was in every aspect of your life, and she saw it immediately, and she hated it. I had spent time there as well, and had to admit she was right.
I question your statement about Snowden’s motives. I also wonder if the truth is more important than how the truth gets to us. Nothing Snowden says has been at all refuted to my satisfaction, and much that has come out since has confirmed it.
(2) Snowden's motives are obvious. He has done two things: (a) publicly stated that the US government has the capability of deep real-time surveillance of its citizens just like Red China (Red Chinese propaganda victory) and (b) the US hacks Red China (Red Chinese propaganda victory. Then he fled to . . . Red China.
(3) We still do not know the whole truth. We know only the part of the truth that Snowden's handlers want us to see. A great American once said "trust but verify." A snake like Snowden demands application of this principle.
Early this year someone who left the Ukraine in the 80s told me that it's starting to feel like the Soviet Union. I didn't prompt the comment.