> 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.
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.