You can't merely say that an illegal act is justified because it was conducted to expose another crime (or immoral action, or what-have-you). "Suspicions", even

You can't merely say that an illegal act is justified because it was conducted to expose another crime (or immoral action, or what-have-you). "Suspicions", even commonly held ones, do not suffice as burden of proof -- hence Constitutional amendments on unwarranted search and seizure, or outcry over racial profiling and illegal immigration. Can I break into my neighbors house because I think he's beating his wife? If not, then why is his computer system not sacrosanct as well? And if so, then aren't we advocating vigilantism? And if he is, in fact, guilty, then am I absolved of B&E? What if he's innocent; am I protected by the "purity" of my purpose? Conversely, the whistleblower regulation comparison is an interesting one, though my understanding is that it's designed to expose corruption where there is no external proof: you have to be an insider to have access to (or even aware of) the incriminating information. But in an age where information is public, and so too may be the indicators of crime. And in that case, might an outsiders' crime (e.g., hacking) parallel that of an insiders' (e.g., breach of confidential information), and, if conducted for the same purpose and with the same outcome, be afforded the same protection under the law? But this raises the question: if the information is public, then shouldn't we expect the authorities, if the suspicion is sufficient for a warrant, to conduct their own (legal) inquiry? Is this a simple failing of law enforcement? Or (tinfoil hat time) corruption at the "highest levels"? Or a fundamental shift in power (and, perhaps, responsibility) to the common man and the court of public opinion? Heavy questions. Could it be done in the public interest? Of course. Is it morally (or legally) justified? Perhaps. But maybe the real question: are the so-called hacker/advocacy groups somehow noble in their purpose? This, I doubt -- at least to date.