This is something journalists do all the time. If a source comes to you, even with illegally obtained materials, it is normal for a journalist to ask for more, that's their job.

Was it 'asking for more' or 'helping' with said activities?

I think there is materially a difference.

That said, I don't know the specifics of the case, I'd be interested in hearing if there is material legitimacy to the case.

If they are jailing a reporter for essentially publishing data and merely 'communicating' with individuals ... this would be bad.

Also - there is the question of the legitimacy of publishing hacked data.

If someone hacked into your phone, and published it, it would be a crime. If they gave it to a journalist, not a crime?

If there is uncovering of actual, illegal activities, then it changes the dynamic, but what if it's not? What if the 'details' are just embarrassing, or problematic for those hacked? Do we want to legitimise theft for political objectives?

I just read the part of accusation that was used to indicted Gleen Greenwald. There is no proof of collusion with the hacker. Actually in his communication with the hackers, he was very cautious . Also, the Supreme court had decided GG couldn't be investigated when he start publishing the conversations.

> If someone hacked into your phone, and published it, it would be a crime. If they gave it to a journalist, not a crime?

The hacking is a crime, the publishing isn't. But once you start giving direction to the hacker, you became the hacker accomplice.

> If there is uncovering of actual, illegal activities, then it changes the dynamic, but what if it's not? What if the 'details' are just embarrassing, or problematic for those hacked? Do we want to legitimise theft for political objectives?

That's whats happened in Brazil. There published communication didn't show any _unquestionably_ illegal activity. Even if did, the brazillian law don't allow to use illegally obtained proofs (unless if absolves someone).

> If someone hacked into your phone, and published it, it would be a crime. If they gave it to a journalist, not a crime?

It all depends on the contents of your phone. If you committed certain actions that are of public interest, and lied about and/or hide these actions (as is the case of the Brazilian group of judges and prosecutors), then it is imperative that journalists publish that content. Journalists are protected in their activity exactly because of this reason.

There is technically nothing that defines what a journalist is (in most cases), and "committed certain actions that are of public interest, and lied about and/or hide these actions" is an impossible grey area, technically difficult to define. Very, very vague.

By that logic, almost anything could be hacked and published on some arbitrary blog because of the very vague term 'public interest'.

If this is the threshold we're going to use than almost the majority of political communication, huge swaths of business communication, and large portions of personal information of anyone with a public profile can be subject to hacking and publication.

While it might be good that 'a liar was exposed somewhere in Brasil' - this might not be the path we want to go down.

Bazilian dude here. The problem is the hacker was asking him "who should we get the telegram messages from next". If a journalist know before hand about crimes that WILL BE committed and instructs the guy to continue, this is way beyond simply keeping your sources secret. And he also was instructing the guys on how to respond in case police came asking WHEN he hacked his victims, since if he hacked them after or during the time he was already in contact with Greenwald it would be a little bit strange to explain. Glen is a lefty, he hates Bolsonaro, ok. But he absolutely did commit various crimes here, conspiration, electronic fraud etc.

But in this case it is alleged Greenwald encouraged his source to commit a further crime, "Mr. Greenwald encouraged the hackers to delete archives that had already been shared with The Intercept Brasil, in order to cover their tracks."

You're making a moral argument, not a legal one.

People doing something "all the time" in one jurisdiction doesn't magically make it legal in a different one.

What they're doing to him may be 'legal' but it's definitely antidemocratic.

Is is legal for a journalist to ask for a hacker to get some private information about chosen politician in America? (Serious question).

This is true, and it even says in the article that Brazil protects journalists even if their source materials are obtained illegally.

Well, that's something that we need to think about: should we allow journalists to be free of charged when they know they sources is actively hacking someone to get those content?

I truly don't have an answer, but I think this ethical question must be done.

> should we allow journalists to be free of charged when they know they sources is actively hacking someone to get those content?

Should journalists be free of charge when they know the source is breaking the Espionage Act? New York Times v United States (1971) says "yes"

I think the diference is that the source of this case is a person that choose to colaborate.

In the case in question, we're talking about hacking private phones (not those provided by the government as corporate phone).

I don't think the same principle can be applied here.

The Times, by publishing classified information, were themselves potentially violating the Espionage Act (according to the government's assertion) - so the principle applies in more ways than by proxy. Which is why it was vital that the courts ruling affirmed the importance of a free press, despite laws that might be used to gag it.

Classified information is public information (belongs to the government and have a deadline to be disclosed), so makes sense to apply the same principle of New York Times v United States (1971).

But hacking private phones sounds like a new question to me.

This is not about the journalist knowing the information was obtained illegally. This is about the journalist asking the hacker to get information from people of interest.

That supreme court case has no bearing on Brazil. You might as well be quoting from the Talmud.

We don't need to think about it, the west has largely accepted that a journalist's role is to report the truth of what is happening, and to speak that truth to power. Charging somebody with a crime for upholding that responsibility is corruptly antidemocratic. There are no ethical quandaries to consider unless you feel obligated to play devil's advocate for power holders.

Ethically, if the information is in the public interest, ie it exposes some corruption or something illegal that the government is doing that is a detriment to the people it's representing then I think the answer is obviously yes. From a legal standpoint, I don't know, but if the answer is a no then that's a problem with the legal system more than anything.

There are legal protections in the US for journalists that don't exist de facto or de jure in many other countries.

It is in Brazilian Constitution that explicitly states that journalists can protect their sources. It is political persecution.

Ironically, he Intercept published conversations from another news site with their source. They use the argument "the law protects the secret of the source", yet reveal others sources.

asking for more is not the same as telling the person what to target.

Like Julian Assange. That's how authoritarian governments go after journalists, by pretending some law was violated in the process of obtaining and publishing the incriminating material.