I probably should have said arguable, not technical. That's what's in the article. I guess we never really know if the law was broken at all unless a jury gives

I probably should have said arguable, not technical. That's what's in the article. I guess we never really know if the law was broken at all unless a jury gives a verdict, so it's all a bit hypothetical. Suppose there's a law that says you can't film other people without their permission. You catch a thief breaking into someone's house, film them, and give it authorities enabling their identification, then delete the footage. I'd describe this as a technical breach of the law. It probably shouldn't be prosecuted. This is kind of analogous to the present situation, a bit of a rough analogy I admit. Whether or not a law was broken, the journalist did something that was a net positive to society, with no real victim except a red-faced politician.