Is your argument that because the wikipedia definition of whistleblower seems to exclude this type of disclosure, it doesn't qualify as whistleblowing? If someone amended the wikipedia definition to include "disclosures of information which is of a compelling nature and of significant interest to the voting public", would you change your opinion?
Shouldn't the question of the value of this disclosure be determined on its merits (does its value in furthering democracy outweigh any potential harm), not whether or not it qualifies under some dictionary definition?
I think it is quite clear that he is not saying his quarrel is with dictionary definitions. You should [re]read what he wrote, particularly the second paragraph of it.
If it was the only thing he ever released, I would agree with you. But in the context of what has been shown before, I think it fits for reasons I stated up-thread.
None of what he has released qualifies him as a whistleblower, because it is classified information (which has strictly regulated ways to handle impropriety) and the activities are not illegal (ignoring tenuous Constitution arguments).
I am sorry, but even if you absolutely ignore everything else, Clapper's lying to Congress was illegal. He has also exposed the fact that NSA has violated the constitution many times.
What is "classified" anyways? Some guy sitting somewhere decides that it is "classified". So why can't some other guy decide that it is in the public interest to not classify it?
Perhaps there is more to be understood here: Snowden didn't blow the whistle on the US Government, he blew the whistle on the US People, and what they have allowed their government to become.
I support Snowden, but this document is none of those things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower