Edward Snowden's removal of thousands of highly classified documents from the National Security Agency and his decision to turn them over to journalists for publication started a fierce debate about who and what he is. On one side are those who consider Snowden a whistleblower, someone who has done his country a great service. Others regard him as a criminal.  Snowden, meanwhile, says that his "task's already accomplished," that he has given Americans a "say in how they are governed" and that he has succeeded in exposing the workings of what he has called the uncontrolled "surveillance   state." But one must ask: Are Snowden's actions in consistent with his words? Snowden has taken sanctuary   in Russia, a country that, under the guidance of President Vladimir Putin, a former Soviet KGB officer, has been sliding ever deeper back into dictatorship  . The Federal Security Service (FSB) has invested in technology that allows it to monitor telephone and Internet communications and to collect and store not just metadata -- information about call destinations and lengths -- but also the content of communications. The Russian state uses that technology to engage in essentially unchecked surveillance of telephone calls, e-mail traffic, blogs, and Web sites. Over the past two years "the Kremlin has transformed Russia into a surveillance state -- at a level that would have made the KGB envious."   If Snowden's objective is to give people a voice in how they are governed, and to expose massive uncontrolled surveillance, he could speak out about practices of the Russian government that go far beyond anything ever undertaken by the U.S. government.  For better or for worse, Snowden has a large number of supporters around the world. His words are listened to by millions -- so he could make a difference where it counts. Yet he has been silent about the surveillance surrounding him. Why? Is he being polite to his hosts? Does he have concerns about what the FSB might do in response to what he might say?  Whatever the answer, Snowden's silence about the dictatorship where he has taken sanctuary is telling. It is yet more evidence, if evidence were needed, that he is not a whistleblower at all. It suggests that, instead of being a brave speaker of truths, he is a hypocrite  , with principles that he applies selectively against the justice he has betrayed . What is the author's attitude towards Russia?
Critical. Approving. Sympathetic. Grateful.