No.

People in Snowden's position have a duty to serve their country, which includes keeping its secrets, particularly from foreign governments. That duty should only be broken in service of a higher duty, and then only when all other channels have failed.

Let's say we take at face value that what the NSA was doing is unconstitutional, which is actually probably not true. And we include the abuses of process by NSA employees which should definitely receive whistleblower protections if he tried to raise them through other channels first.

That still leaves the fact that a lot of claims are unsubstantiated, a lot of claims have nothing to do with the US government, and some claims are not only legal and constitutional, but appropriate. Spying on foreign heads of state, friendly and otherwise is what the NSA is for. That stuff doesn't get protection.

Then on top of that you have the horrible way the releases have been handled. Evidence, if it exists has not been shared, hyperbolic claims have been made which don't match what the little evidence we get to see says, the whole thing has been drawn out for God damned years and Snowden has continually made the story about him while Greenwald has been using it to boost his own career. All of which had ensured that not a fucking thing will change.

US citizens are no more protected in their rights, the NSAs activities are no more under scrutiny than they were. All that has happened is that the US and its allies have experienced damage, often unjustified to their international relationships and paranoid fuckwhits have taken the evidence way out of proportion and run with it. This is the fault of Smowden and Greenwald.

Snowden should have taken the evidence of what he believed was unconstitutional abd only that evidence. Fucked off somewhere safe. Released it, in its entirety either directly or through journalists who would actually do so, and then kept his fucking mouth shut so we could actually have a conversation about what actually happened rather than about him.