The real question: is Dotcom innocent of his alleged crimes? The real story is that if Dotcom was facilitating piracy. The technicality of if he was wire tapped illegally or not is important in theory, but it comes down to this: Dotcom would not be in trouble if he hadn't broken the law. If he was innocent, then this would be a big story. This is similar to someone caught in video robbing a store but beating the charge because of a technicality.
Criminals winning cases on technicalities while still having committed the crime is not justice. Justice is getting punished for crimes actually committed. Justice is when innocent people are acquitted of crimes they did not commit.
Turning Dotcom into somekind of folk hero is ridiculous. He became very wealthy by facilitating theft. It isn't like he was donating the proceeds to build schools for girls in Afghanistan. If he broke a potentially unfair law as a statement and did it for something other than getting rich, maybe then we could consider him something other than what he is -- a self-serving criminal.
Well, we won't know if Dotcom is not guilty or not until there's a trial. So you can't justify the means (illegal spying) with the ends. You are assuming guilt before any proof is offered, and any determination made. That's the big flaw in your argument.
This may be because of your cultural heritage. In the English Common Law tradition, which New Zealand, and in he past the USA, is part of, the state isn't entitled to collect evidence in any way possible. People representing the state have to follow the law themselves. They can't torture confessions out of "guilty" people, they can't manufacture evidence, they have to use legal methods to obtain the evidence.
If the NZ Spy Agency broke New Zealand laws to get evidence, then that evidence is inadmissible in court, at least traditionally, under Common Law.
The apparatus of state security being turned against its people is not a fact to just be brushed aside. So no, our feelings about the individual subject or subjects of illegal spying in some specific case or other is not 'the real question'. We have plenty of opportunity to air that discussion, separately.
---
Having just read the PM's statement[1], I can't see any signs of actual corruption in the procedure that was followed. It seems reasonably likely that this was just a mistake.
> The punishment for this crime is "[c]riminals winning cases on technicalities".
I disagree. The punishment is to find the person or persons responsible and, at a minimum, fire them. That should serve as a warning to others that you either do it right, or not at all.
The "[c]riminals winning cases on technicalities" is a side-effect of erroneous judgement.
I would argue that, in the US at least, criminals winning on technicalities is not a side effect. It is a direct punishment of the government not following proper procedure. Authorities cannot illegally search your home because if they do they forfeit the right to use that evidence. If that repercussion was not in place, there would be no incentive for the government to actually follow the law.
Do it right or you lose the case. That's the deal.
A punishment should be made high enough that the person doing the crime would not do it. Firing people is a proper action for not showing up on time or being bad at your job.
Spying on citizens without a proper court order should be mandatory jail for all involved.
Justice isn't innocent people being convicted of crimes because evidence rules weren't followed. Our legal justice system is run by humans who are just as perfect as the ones committing the crimes, and the ones sitting in juries.
We give police, lawyers, and others in the criminal justice system great power over us - they're legally permitted to punish and physically restrain humans. That cases can be won on technicalities - when police, lawyers, etc break the rules that protect us from them - helps to keep them honest and trusted. That's how we watch the watchers.
> This is similar to someone caught in video robbing a store but beating the charge because of a technicality
It is more like someone being _accused_ of robbing a video store and then it turned out the only evidence against them was acquired when the police broke into his home to steal his dairy.
And to add to that. Broke into his home to steal his diary without noticing that they were outside of their jurisdiction.
When they mentioned this oversight to the Acting Prime Minister, he forgot to pass it on to the Prime Minister (who may have been somewhat distracted fending off attacks on another minister who broke the law accepting campaign funds from the guy who broke into the video store).
Folk heroes can also be villains. Robin Hood was a notorious villain. (I'm not comparing Dotcom to Robin Hood)
The reason he is celebrated is because he is famous for bypassing a system many consider to be broken. He is famous for not being afraid to put his own system into place, a system he and many other liked better. He is famous because he did not try to hide. He is famous because he's fighting the system he and others wish to see replaced.
Is he a criminal? Yes. Does being a criminal mean you cannot also be a folk hero? If you say yes, I don't think you know what a folk hero really is. Quite often they are criminals. Look into Bonnie and Clyde, Robin Hood, Guy Fawkes, Che Guevara, Jesse James, Spartacus, etc.
Other western countries do what is asked of them when the US comes calling.