There's a difference between suspicion and actionable knowledge.
If I'm not mistaken, there were whistle-blowers before Snowden that were "responsible", following legal means to raise these issues, and completely ignored.
Since we know they were blowing the whistle on issues the public cared about, and we know they were ignored, is that not proof that the legal channels for this are ineffective? Perhaps if these channels actually had lead to actual changes, then the harm Snowden has brought to your country would not have been necessary.
If I'm not mistaken, there were whistle-blowers before Snowden that were "responsible", following legal means to raise these issues, and completely ignored.
http://www.npr.org/2014/07/22/333741495/before-snowden-the-w...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/16/snowd...
Since we know they were blowing the whistle on issues the public cared about, and we know they were ignored, is that not proof that the legal channels for this are ineffective? Perhaps if these channels actually had lead to actual changes, then the harm Snowden has brought to your country would not have been necessary.