What do Ani Yudhoyono's mobile phone, Nathan Rees' sex life and my pay packet have in common?
Yes, like many modern conundrums thrown up by the technological revolution, this one sounds like the beginning of a dirty joke; all three are items or concepts that have contributed in some way to the past week's multipartisan punch-up about privacy, leaks and and the public interest.
All three are items or concepts whose custodians were until recently lolloping happily along under the impression that their privacy would be maintained, and were entirely mistaken.
Mrs Yudhoyono has now discovered - courtesy of a chain consisting of Australian intelligence agencies, the US National Security Agency, a 30-year-old computer specialist and international fugitive now resident in Russia, The Guardian newspaper and my own employer, the ABC - that the Australian Defence Signals Directorate in 2009 targeted her Nokia E90-1 for purposes of espionage.
Former NSW premier Rees picked up The Daily Telegraph on Wednesday to discover that details of an affair he had conducted with a constituent had - thanks to a disclosure from that constituent to the Tele - found their way on to the front page, along with the headline: ''NATHAN SLEAZE''.
Slightly less racily, The Australian's front page on the same day published the salary details of many ABC employees, including me; their scoop came thanks to a freedom-of-information response from the ABC to a South Australian politician, in which the salary details were inadvertently embedded. The information found its way to a local reporter, who no doubt high-kicked all the way back to the office with delight, having secured by good fortune what her paper had long and fruitlessly formally sought.
(The emergence of this rather mundane tale of administrative error quickly extinguished the far more entertaining theories that had hitherto blossomed among conspiracy theorists; that the government had leaked the salary details to punish the ABC for Operation YudhoyOhNo! and so on.)
Of the three disclosures, the third was the least challenging, ethically. Of course The Australian was entitled to publish the ABC salary details, having obtained them.
I don't much enjoy my new ''ABC Fat Cat'' workplace tattoo, but have always thought journalists should not whinge too much about low-grade offences against their own privacy, lest such hurled pebbles turn out to have consequences for the crowded and delicate glasshouse in which we foetidly coexist.
(Plus, I was grateful for The Australian article's indisputable assistance on some nagging workplace etiquette issues, such as ''When sharing coffee with Quentin Dempster, who should pick up the bill?'')
No one, to my knowledge, has questioned The Australian's right to publish the salaries. Certainly not Mark Scott, who merely - like any chief executive without rocks in his head - moved to investigate how the confidential data leaked out of his organisation in the first place.
He was rewarded with an Australian editorial - so squealingly high-pitched in its outrage that loyal readers in the bat community are understood to have asked for their money back - accusing the ABC of caring more about salaries than national security.
But it's Mark Scott's job to make sure confidential information doesn't leak out of his organisation.
Just as it's the Australian intelligence services' job, one would have thought, to ensure that secret surveillance remains secret and not - ahem - converted into PowerPoint for ease of circulation.
And it's not The Australian's job to spare the blushes of the national broadcaster, just as it's not the ABC's job to protect the Australian government - whatever its stripe - or its security agencies from the disastrous peculiarities of its information management systems, which delivered a PowerPoint slide replete with detail about the DSD's phone-hacking activities into the hands of a junior computer programmer on the other side of the world.
When faced with a similar question in 2004 - ''Is it our job to protect the Australian government from the ignominy of the Australian Wheat Board scandal?'' - The Australian made a similar call.
And it's not The Daily Telegraph's job to save the Rees marriage, either, though for my money there's precious little public interest in snuffling through the rather mundane personal infidelities of a politician, especially when doing so reinforces the impression that people of common human frailty are not welcome in public life.
But that's the thing about these decisions; they're subjective. If I were editing the relevant organs, I would have published the salaries, and the spying stuff, but not the Rees affair.
The extent to which you agree or disagree with the decisions that were made will probably influence your choice of media as a consumer. And that's what a free press looks like.
Annabel Crabb writes for ABC Online's The Drum and is the host of Kitchen Cabinet. According to The Australian, she is paid $217,426. She tweets as @annabelcrabb.