Great piece, but I think you missed some of the best bits of the promotional video. It gave examples of the stories to come, including:
"the truth about their steamy affair";
"my night with a rock star";
"destroyed by fame"; and
"ex-wives' revenge bodies".

I reckon they should share.
I'm annoyed I was beaten to refute.
Anyway, I've now voted. Once for each of my email addresses. That's allowed, yeah? :-)

Sorry for more politics, but it was an election year. To "hijack the election" was an often repeated phrase during the campaign, used against anyone raising an election issue the user didn't want to discuss.

"Refute" - meaning deny.

Jordan Williams was a lawyer. When did he hand in his practising certificate? Was it before or after he is alleged to have conspired to blackmail someone? The book suggests that Mr Williams did a number of other things that I would have thought ought to be of concern to the NZLS if he was still a lawyer when he did them - or if he ever wants to become a lawyer again.

And then there is this:
https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/for-the-community/search-register-of-lawyers/lawyer-details?pi=MTY0Mzc=

And re: Cactus Kate - https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/for-the-community/search-register-of-lawyers/lawyer-details?pi=MjQwMTE=

Something I have not yet seen discussed in relation to Dirty Politics' revelations, but which certainly needs some careful consideration in relation to the alleged actions of Judith Collins and those in the PM's office, is this:
Crimes Act 1961, s 105A - Corrupt use of official information
"Every official is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, whether within New Zealand or elsewhere, corruptly uses or discloses any information, acquired by him or her in his or her official capacity, to obtain, directly or indirectly, an advantage or a pecuniary gain for himself or herself or any other person."

Graeme, I don't think you are right about s 252(2). You have to go back to s 248(b). A computer system is defined to include any part of a computer system. That means you can commit the offence in s 252(1) in relation to part of a computer system. The question in s 252(2) becomes whether you were authorised to access that part.
I believe that this is the only interpretation that makes any sense. Under the interpretation you set out, for example, anyone with a Google account could hack into anyone else's Google account with impunity, as long as they were both on the same server.