The charge could have been limited to working on cracking the password. Instead it explicitly describes activity common to reporters and critical for democracy: publishing information the source obtained "illegally". In quotes because a government with something to hide will generally hide it under a national security secrets act.
Why make charges that could destroy journalism when you could charge with something that doesn't? It's hard to understand, unless of course the press is "the enemy of the people".
I don't think you could manage the same legal challenge with just the latter. Often charges describe all sorts of things that themselves aren't illegal.
Why make charges that could destroy journalism when you could charge with something that doesn't? It's hard to understand, unless of course the press is "the enemy of the people".