There is a fairly well established doctrine that says a media outlet may publish material that was illegally gained as long as they weren't involved directly --

There is a fairly well established doctrine that says a media outlet may publish material that was illegally gained as long as they weren't involved directly -- either by direct action or by commissioning another person/group. The legality of this varies depending on jurisdiction, but this is at least an argument that has been used in successful defences in court. So, on that basis you could argue that Techcrunch would be justified in publishing the documents they've obtained. However, what is needed is the application of a bit of common sense. I firmly believe that this argument can only be made if the material is of public interest -- for example concerning issues of corruption or corporate malfeasance. There is no indication that Twitter's private documentation qualifies, therefore it's disclosure is no benefit to the public beyond satisfying the curiosity of nosy people. The public hand-wringing on Techcrunch's part is predictable, cheap drama. Also the notion of transparency in governance -- public and private -- shouldn't be conflated with transparency about all things. Most individuals and businesses have a reasonable expectation for privacy. Arguing that this privacy should be violated for the sake of transparency doesn't wash with me. Just because you have access to something _does not_ mean you should make it available to every one. Exercise some judgement in other words.