Alexander Speirs: Next time Dotcom – substance, not smarm.

It was the bomb that was supposed to flip the election on its head. The documents set to unveil a vast conspiracy by the Prime Minister against Kim Dotcom. John Key’s Moment of Truth.

What a flop.

There was no smoking gun. No game-changing piece of information. Instead, politically charged hearsay recounted as claims about New Zealand’s mass surveillance drew raucous applause on cue, from a crowd who wouldn’t know metadata from a metatarsal.

I felt like I’d been hoodwinked into attending a political rally for Internet-Mana.

Between the smarm and self-righteousness, Greenwald and Snowden raised some potentially interesting points. But there was nothing to back any of them up. For a man said to be sitting on a treasure trove of secrets, Snowden offered essentially nothing to prove the veracity of any of his claims.

The “trust me I’m Edward Snowden” rhetoric just isn’t enough. The Prime Minister released documents yesterday showing what he says is the extent of New Zealand’s flirtation with digital spying. The decision to discontinue the programme was outlined in the documents – decisions which were made long after Snowden had gathered his information.

If Dotcom or any of his comrades are going to make claims countering that, they must be held to the same standard of proof. This was the big chance, but it was a total fizzer. John Key staked his job on his version of events and nothing was offered to the contrary. He said, she said isn’t enough in the face of actual evidence.

A throwaway line on the bottom of a powerpoint slide  – the meaning of which took an age to explain, counts for little – particularly when 90 percent of the slide’s contents were blacked out.

What was the context of the slide? Why was the bulk of the information redacted? Did the rest of the information not fit the narrative being peddled?

It’s pretty rich for a group who play fast and loose with the release of secret information, to then themselves determine what is and what is not fit for public consumption.

For all the good he’s done in bringing to light what he did, Edward Snowden is really starting to get my back up. Last night Snowden was beginning to detail the different types of sensors which are used in the spying he alleges is occurring.

“Some of them are cable taps, some of them are, ah ah – well what’s been reported are cable taps so far so let’s leave it there” he said, barely managing to complete his sentence between sniggers.

The smugness was sickening. For a man who crusades for transparency and the freedom of information, economising the information he does have for his own benefit or to fit his own agenda flies flat in the face of the altruistic ideals he champions.

It seems Snowden has become more concerned with the celebrity status the world has thrust upon him than the greater good he supposedly set out to achieve when he fled to Hong Kong armed with a litany of stolen documents.

The hoopla that accompanies any new release of information and the drawn out process continues to make Snowden the star – not the revelations themselves. Injecting himself into the politics of other countries only further serves to drive that dichotomy.

Whether intentionally or not, Snowden is politicizing the release of information and that’s a slippery slope. The integrity of the information itself has never been in question – but Snowden is jeopardizing his own credibility and calling his motives into question – much in the same way Nick Hager’s information is read with a metaphorical asterisk attached.

Whistle-blowing should be apolitical. The special protections afforded to them and the prestige with which our society holds those who bring such misdeeds to light is done to facilitate the release of balanced, complete information.

While the defense for Snowden retaining information in his quest for sanctuary was completely justifiable – the statute of limitations on that claim has well since passed. Continuing to sit on the information and economizing it for his own use puts Snowden’s motives under the spotlight – is this about continuing his public path to martyrdom or is there a political element planned for Snowden’s path forward?

I’d suggest the latter is far more troubling.