My reading is that O'Hagan was brought in by the publishing company to try to take the book in the direction they wanted, not the direction Assnage wanted. Once this backfired, he explicitly compromised his strong desire to have no public connection to the text by becoming a mouthpiece against Assange in the world of news and current affairs programs. The length of time (years) since the incident has no bearing on the professional ethical implications of violating the privacy of a primary source, even if that source is committed to the idea of violating institutional opacity, and even if that privacy is assured only by convention, and not by a specific NDA.
