Surprised to see this comment downvoted.

Journalists (and basically anyone against those in power) are killed routinely in Brazil. It's not even a big deal in these countries. [1]

[1] - https://cpj.org/americas/brazil/

Doubt it's not a big deal - it's just not known the value of these people killed, and who is doing it, because people don't fucking read - ironically.

Same in US.

He has husband and 4 kids in Brazil. Not easy to move when you have roots in a place.

> Not easy to move when you have roots in a place.

As a Brazilian in voluntary exile due to the violence, I'd respectfully point out that it's also not easy to move when you're dead

"Many courageous Brazilians sacrificed their liberty and even life for Brazilian democracy and against repression, and I feel an obligation to continue their noble work." - Greenwald to The Daily Beast today

His husband is a Brazilian politician too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miranda_(politician)

David Miranda was elect as substitute to another congressman. I don't think he has the public support to be elect by himself.

He only became a congressman when the other politician abdicate the position due life threats.

"Life threats", you mean

According to a recent interview he did on a podcast, Useful Idiots with Matt Taibi and Katie Halper, he cannot even leave his house without armed security forces. It's a scary life that he lives.

You can publish a handful of stories from abroad but continuing and actually making a larger impact is hard to do from outside the country. If you are able to it's most likely because of other people who did stay are are risking their lives by feeding you information.

His husband is Brazilian, and his investigative journalism has probably been far more effective as a result of his physical presence in the country.

"l. You can do that shit in Canada"

Why would it be legal or even moral to steal property in order to 'embarrass' someone?

This is a very slippery slope. Stealing stuff and then hiding behind 'journalism' is problematic to the extent that there is no material, legal, whistleblowing.

We have to figure out the lines that can and should be crossed, otherwise it won't be good for anyone.

He exposed evidence of criminal behavior by a judge that was trying to conceal his activities which are subject to public scrutiny via using his personal phone.

What a judge does in the course of his work is not his own personal property.

Actually, he didn't expose any criminal evidence. After all is said and done, nothing found in the conversations he [ilegally] acquired that demonstrates wrongdoing by the judge.

>nothing found in the conversations he [ilegally] acquired that demonstrates wrongdoing by the judge.

"In the files, conversations between lead prosecutor Deltan Dallagnol and then-presiding Judge Sergio Moro reveal that Moro offered strategic advice to prosecutors and passed on tips for new avenues of investigation. With these actions, Moro grossly overstepped the ethical lines that define the role of a judge. In Brazil, as in the United States, judges are required to be impartial and neutral, and are barred from secretly collaborating with one side in a case."

(https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-lula-operation-ca...)

Are you claiming these conversations never happened?

These conversations happened in the clear. It was well known and disclosed at the time of the investigations that this judge (and a few others) were exchanging information about the case with prosecutors and defenders.

Also, "tips for new avenues of investigation" may be ethically questionable (although it's hard to make the case for that), it's not crime at all. It would be crime if the judge was taking sides in the ruling, which that specific judge is not accused of.

I made no reference to 'he'. I asked a rhetorical question about the limits of theft and information.

"He exposed evidence of criminal behavior " - if this is true, it seems the exposition is warranted - but still there are still questions about where the line is between theft and journalism.

Also - I'm not an expert but I'm actually quite doubtful that this was criminal activity that was exposed.

" a judge that was trying to conceal his activities which are subject to public scrutiny via using his personal phone" - this is not criminal in the vast majority of cases.

Richard Nixon had to resign from the presidency for breaking into opposition property to try to get information to 'embarrass them'. Would he have been sanction had he just turned the information over to the press?

There is a legit grey area here: you can't steal stuff just because you might think it's wrong. We make reasonable accommodation when there is actually criminal activity, but it's pretty fuzzy still.

Your comment reads like Glenn Greenwald did this to steal and publish nude pics of Bolsonaro, as opposed to evidence of his improper collaboration with the judge who paved his way to the presidency by putting Lula in prison.

I wasn't speaking of Greenwald specifically.

But the problem is in your comment 'improper collaboration'.

Who decides what is 'improper' or not? I'd imagine the Republicans think almost everything Democrats do is 'improper' by some measure - can they steal and then publish information?

This is very grey and needs to be cleared up or it will be a really ugly new kind of information war.

First of all, Greenwald did not steal anything, and he is being charged because he actively engaged in covering the hackers' tracks. That is criminal in Canada, Brazil or US... I am pretty sure that had Mr Greenwald been in Canada he'd be charged by now. It is precisely why he is in Brazil. Because Brazil is a Banana Republic where the powerful and well connected can get away with most of the things unless the evidence is very clear. Greenwald has a wide net of supporters in Brazil who are very powerful, starting with the Worker's Party, the Communist Party of Brazil and so one. Not to mention his husband who is a congressman himself.